text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'All current models of our Universe based on General Relativity have in common that space is presently in a state of expansion. In this expository paper we address the question of whether, and to what extent, this expansion influences the dynamics on small scales (as compared to cosmological ones), particularly in our Solar System. Here our reference order of magnitude for any effect is given by the apparent anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts, which is of the order of $10^{-9}{\rm m/s^2}$. We distinguish between *dynamical* and *kinematical* effects and critically review the status of both as presented in the current literature. We argue that in the Solar System dynamical effects can be safely modeled by suitably improved Newtonian equations, showing that effects do exist but are smaller by many orders of magnitude compared to our Pioneer reference. On the other hand, the kinematical effects need a proper relativistic treatment and have been argued by others to give rise to an additional acceleration of the order $Hc$, where $H$ is the Hubble parameter and $c$ is the velocity of light. This simple and suggestive expression is intriguingly close to the anomalous Pioneer acceleration. We reanalyzed this argument and found a discrepancy by a factor of $(v/c)^3$, which strongly suppresses the alleged $Hc$–effect for the Pioneer spacecrafts by 13 orders of magnitude. We conclude with a general discussion which stresses the fundamental importance to understand precisely, i.e. within the full dynamical theory (General Relativity), the back-reaction effects of local inhomogeneities for our interpretation of cosmological data, a task which is not yet fully accomplished. Finally, a structured literature list of more than 80 references gives an overview over the relevant publications (known to us).'
author:
- |
Matteo Carrera and Domenico Giulini\
\
[Physikalisches Institut]{}\
[Albert-Ludwigs-Universität]{}\
[Hermann-Herder-Straße 3]{}\
[D-79104 Freiburg i. Br.]{}\
[Germany]{}\
\
[[email protected]]{}\
[[email protected]]{}
title: |
On the influence of the global cosmological expansion\
on the local dynamics in the Solar System
---
Introduction {#sec:Introduction}
============
The overall theme of this paper concerns the question of whether the global cosmological expansion has any influence on the local dynamics and kinematics within the Solar System. Despite many efforts in the past, this problem is still debated controversially in the current literature and hardly anything is written about it in standard textbooks. This is rather strange as the question seems to be of obvious interest. Hence there is room for speculations that such an influence might exist and be detectable with current experimental means. It has even be suggested that it be (partly) responsible for the apparently anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecrafts, the so-called ‘Pioneer-Anomaly’ [@Anderson.etal:1998; @Anderson.etal:2002a; @Markwardt:2002; @Nieto.Turyshev:2004; @Turyshev.etal:2005a; @Turyshev.etal:2005b], henceforth abbreviated by PA.
Existing investigations in this direction arrive at partially conflicting conclusions. To resolve this issues at a fundamental level one may think to start from an investigation of the *embedding-problem* for the Solar System. From the viewpoint of General Relativity this means to at least find a solution to Einstein’s field equations that match the gravitational field (i.e. the spacetime metric $g_{\mu\nu}$) of the Sun with that of the inner-galactic neighbourhood. In a first approximation the region exterior to some radius outside the Sun may be modelled by a spherically symmetric (around the Sun’s center) constant dust-like mass distribution (i.e. matching an exterior Schwarzschild solution to a Friedman-Robertson-Walker solution). Further refinements may then take into account the structured nature of the cosmological mass distribution as well as a matching of the gravitational field of the Galaxy to that of its cosmological environment.
Analytical solutions are known for some embedding problems under various special assumptions concerning symmetries and the matter content of the cosmological environment:
- Spherical symmetry, matching Schwarzschild to a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe with pressureless matter and zero cosmological constant $\Lambda$. [@Einstein.Straus:1945; @Schuecking:1954].
- Obvious generalizations of A to many, non-overlapping regions— so-called ‘swiss-cheese models’.
- Generalizations of A,B for $\Lambda\ne 0$ [@Balbinot.etal:1988].
- Generalizations of A to spherically symmetric but inhomogeneous Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi cosmological backgrounds [@Bonnor:2000b].
In all these approaches, which are based on the original idea of Einstein & Straus [@Einstein.Straus:1945], the matching is between a strict vacuum solution (Schwarzschild) and some cosmological model. Hence, within the matching radius, the solution is strictly of the Schwarzschild type, so that there will be absolutely no dynamical influence of cosmological expansion on local dynamical processes *by construction*. The only relevant quantity to be determined is the matching radius, $r_S$, (sometimes called the ‘Schücking radius’) as a function of the central mass and the time. This can be done quite straightforwardly and it turns out to be expressible in the following form: $$\label{eq:MatchingRadius}
\text{Vol}(r_S)\cdot\rho=M\,.$$ Here $\text{Vol}(r_S)$ is the 3-dimensional volume within a sphere of radius $r_S$ in the cosmological background geometry and $\rho$ is the (spatially constant but time dependent) cosmological mass-density. For example, for flat or nearly flat geometries we have $\text{Vol}(r_S)=4\pi r_S^3/3$. Thus the defining equation for the matching radius has the following simple interpretation: if you want to embed a point mass $M$ into a cosmological background of mass density $\rho$ you have to place it at the centre of an excised ball whose mass (represented by the left hand side of (\[eq:MatchingRadius\])) is just $M$. This is just the obvious dynamical condition that the gravitational pull the central mass $M$ exerts on the ambient cosmological masses is just the same as that of the original homogeneous mass distribution within the ball. The deeper reason for why this argument works is that the external gravitational field of a spherically symmetric mass distribution is independent of its radial distribution, i.e. just depending on the total mass. This well known fact from Newton’s theory remains true in General Relativity, as one readily sees by recalling the uniqueness of the exterior Schwarzschild solution. We may hence simply think of the cosmological mass inside a sphere of radius $r_S$ as being squashed to a point (or black hole) at its centre, without affecting the dynamics outside the radius $r_S$. Note that for expanding universes the radius $r_S$ expands with it, that is, it is co-moving with the cosmological matter.
At first sight this simple solution may appear as a convincing argument against any influence of cosmic expansion on the scale of our Solar System, as $r_S$ certainly extends far beyond it; too far in fact! If $M$ is the mass of the Sun then $r_S$ turns out to be about $175\,\mathrm{pc}$, which is more than a factor of 100 larger than the distance to our next star and more than factor of 50 larger than the average distance of stars in our Galaxy. But this means that the Einstein-Straus solution is totally inappropriate as a model for the Solar System’s neighbourhood. This changes as one goes to larger scales, beyond that of galaxy clusters; see Section \[sec:SchueckingAtScales\].
The Einstein-Straus solution may also be criticized on theoretical grounds, an obvious one being its dynamical instability. Slight perturbations of the matching radius to larger radii will let it increase without bound, slight perturbations to smaller radii will let it collapse. This can be proven formally (e.g. [@Krasinski:1998], Ch.3) but it is also rather obvious, since $r_S$ is defined by the equal and opposite gravitational pull of the central mass on one side and the cosmological mass on the other. Both pulls increase as one moves towards their side, so that the equilibrium position must correspond to a local maximum of the gravitational potential. Another criticism of the Einstein-Straus solution concerns the severe restrictions under which it may be generalized to non spherically-symmetric situations; see e.g. [@Senovilla.Vera:1997; @Mena.etal:2002; @Mena.etal:2003; @Mena.etal:2004].
We conclude from all this that we cannot expect much useful insight, as regards practically relevant dynamical effects within the Solar System, from further studies of models based on the Einstein-Straus matching idea.[^1] Rather, we shall proceed in the following steps:
- Discuss an improved Newtonian model including a cosmological expansion term. This we did and the results are given in Section \[sec:NewtonianApproach\] below. Our discussion complements [@Cooperstock.etal:1998] which just makes a perturbative analysis, thereby missing all orbits which are unstable under cosmological expansion (which do exist). In this respect it follows a very similar strategy as proposed in the recent paper by Price [@Price:2005] (the basic idea of which goes back at least to Pachner’s work [@Pachner:1963; @Pachner:1964]), though we think that there are also useful differences. We also supply quantitative estimates and clarify that the improved Newtonian equations of motion are written in terms of the right coordinates (non-rotating and metrically normalized). The purpose of this model is to develop a good physical intuition for the qualitative as well as quantitative features of any *dynamical* effects involved.
- Eventually the Newtonian model just mentioned has to be understood as a limiting case of a genuinely relativistic treatment. For the gravitational case this is done in Section\[sec:McVittie\], where we employ the McVittie metric to model a spherically symmetric mass embedded in a $k=0$ FRW universe. The geodesic equation is then, in a suitable limit, shown to lead to the improved Newtonian model discussed above. The same holds for the electromagnetic case, as we show in Section \[sec:DickePeebles\]. There we take a slight detour to also reconsider a classic argument by Dicke & Peebles [@Dicke.Peebles:1964], which allegedly shows the absence of any relevant dynamical effect of global expansion. Its original form only involved the dynamical action principle together with some simple scaling argument. Since this reference is one of the most frequently cited in this field, and since the simplicity of the argument (which hardly involves any real analysis) is definitely deceptive, we give an independent treatment that makes no use of any scaling behaviour of physical quantities other than spatial lengths and times. Our treatment also reveals that the original argument by Dicke & Peebles is insufficient to discuss leading order effects of cosmological expansion. It is therefore also ineffective in its attempt to contradict Pachner [@Pachner:1963; @Pachner:1964].
- Neither the improved Newtonian model nor other general *dynamical* arguments make any statement about possible *kinematical* effects, i.e. effects in connection with measurements of *spatial distances* and *time durations* in a cosmological environment whose geometry changes with time. This is an important issue since tracking a spacecraft means to map out its ‘trajectory’, which basically means to determine its simultaneous spatial distance to the observer at given observer times. But we know from General Relativity that the concepts of ‘simultaneity’ and ‘spatial distance’ are not uniquely defined. This fact needs to be taken due care of when analytical expressions for trajectories, e.g. solutions to the equations of motion in some arbitrarily chosen coordinate system, are compared with experimental findings. In those situations it is likely that different kinematical notions of simultaneity and distance are involved which need to be properly transformed into each other before being compared. For example, these transformations can result in additional acceleration terms which have been claimed in the literature to be directly relevant to the PA; see [@Palle:2005; @Nottale:2003; @Rosales:2002; @Rosales.Sanchez-Gomez:1998; @Ranada:2005; @Nieto.etal:2005]. We will confirm the existence of such effects in principle, but are in essential disagreement concerning their relevance in practice. We think that they have been overestimated by about 13 orders of magnitude. The details will be given in Section \[sec:Rosales\].
- Finally we made a systematic scan of the literature on the subject. The papers found to be relevant are listed in the bibliography at the end, which we subdivided into four sections: .
- Papers dealing with the proper matching problem in General Relativity.
- Papers dealing generally with the influence of the global cosmological expansion on local dynamics, irrespectively of whether they work within an improved Newtonian setting or in full General Relativity.
- Papers discussing tentative explanations of the PA by means of gravity, mostly by referring to kinematical effects of space-time measurements in time dependent background geometries.
- Measurements of the PA. These were just for our own instruction and are listed for completeness.
We believe one can give a fair estimation on the irrelevance of the *dynamical* effects in question. Given the weakness of the gravitational fields involved, estimations by Newtonian methods should give reliable figures of orders of magnitude for the motion of ordinary matter. *Kinematical* effects based on the equation for light propagation in an expanding background also turn out to be negligible, in contrast to some claims in the literature, which we think can be straightened out. We end by suggesting possible routes for further research.
The Newtonian approach {#sec:NewtonianApproach}
======================
In order to gain intuition we consider a simple bounded system, say an atom or a planetary system, immersed in an expanding cosmos. We ask for the effects of this expansion on our local system. Does our system expand with the cosmos? Does it expand only partially? Or does it not expand at all?
The two-body problem in an expanding universe
---------------------------------------------
Take a two-body problem with a $1/r^2$ attractive force between them. For simplicity we think of one mass as being much smaller than the other one (this is inessential). This can e.g. be a system consisting of two galaxies, a star and a planet (or spacecraft), or a (classical) atom given by an electron orbiting around a proton. We think this system as being immersed in an expanding universe and we model the effect of the cosmological expansion by adding to the attraction term an extra term coming from the Hubble law $\dot{r}=H r$. Here $H:=\dot{a}/a$ is the Hubble parameter, $a(t)$ the cosmological scale factor, and $r$ the distance – as measured in the surface of constant cosmological time $t$ – of two objects that follow the Hubble flow (cosmological expansion). The acceleration that results from the Hubble law is $$\label{eq:cosmological-acc}
\ddot{r}|_{\mathrm{cosm. acc.}} = \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}r \,.$$ Note that, in the sense of General Relativity, a body that is co-moving with the cosmological expansion is moving on an inertial trajectory, i.e. it moves force free. Forces in the Newtonian sense are now the cause for *deviations* form the co-moving acceleration described by (\[eq:cosmological-acc\]). This suggests that in Newton’s law, $m\ddot{\vec r}=\vec F$, we have to replace $\ddot{\vec r}$ by $\ddot{\vec r}-(\ddot a/a)\vec r$. This can be justified rigorously by using the equation of geodesic deviation in General Relativity. In order to do this one must make sure that the Newtonian equations of motion are written in appropriate coordinates. That is, they must refer to a (locally) non-rotating frame and directly give the spatial geodesic distance. This is achieved by using Fermi normal coordinates along the worldline of a geodesically moving observer—in our case e.g. the Sun or the proton—, as correctly emphasized in [@Cooperstock.etal:1998]. The equation of geodesic deviation in these coordinates now gives the variation of the spatial geodesic distance to a neighbouring geodesically moving object—in our case e.g. the planet (or spacecraft) or electron. It reads[^2] $$\label{eq:GeodDev}
\frac{d^2x^k}{d\tau^2}
+R^k_{\ 0l0 }x^l=0\,.$$ Here the $x^k$ are the spatial non-rotating normal coordinates whose values directly refer to the proper spatial distance. In these coordinates we further have [@Cooperstock.etal:1998] $$R^k_{\ 0l0 } = - \delta^k_l \, \ddot a/a$$ on the worldline of the first observer, where the overdot refers to differentiation with respect to the cosmological time, which reduces to the eigentime along the observer’s worldline.
Neglecting large velocity effects (i.e. terms quadratic or higher order in $v/c$) we can now write down the equation of motion for the familiar two-body problem. After specification of a scale function $a(t)$, we get two ODEs for the variables $(r,\varphi)$, which describe the position[^3] of the orbiting body with respect to the central one:
\[eq:impr-N-eqs\] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:r-eq}
&\ddot{r} = \frac{L^2}{r^3} - \frac{C}{r^2} + \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}r \\
\label{eq:phi-eq}
&r^2\dot{\varphi}=L \,.\end{aligned}$$
These are the $(\ddot a/a)$–improved Newtonian equations of motion for the two-body problem, where $L$ represents the (conserved) angular momentum of the planet (or electron) per unit mass and $C$ the strength of the attractive force. In the gravitational case $C=GM$, where $M$ is the mass of the central body, and in the electromagnetic case $C=|Qq|/4\pi\epsilon_0 m$ (SI-unit), where $Qq$ is the product of the two charges, $m$ is the electron mass, and $\epsilon_0$ the vacuum permittivity. In Sections \[sec:McVittie\] and \[sec:DickePeebles\] we will show how to obtain (\[eq:impr-N-eqs\]) in appropriate limits from the full general relativistic treatments.
We now wish to study the effect the $\ddot a$ term has on the unperturbed Kepler orbits. We first make the obvious remark that this term results from the *acceleration* and not just the expansion of the universe.
We first remark that, in the concrete physical cases of interest, the time dependence of this term is negligible to a very good approximation. Indeed, putting $f:=\ddot{a}/a$, the relative time variation of the coefficient of $r$ in (\[eq:cosmological-acc\]) is $\dot{f}/f$. For an exponential scale function $a(t)\propto\exp(\lambda t)$ ($\Lambda$-dominated universe) this vanishes, and for a power law $a(t)\propto t^\lambda$ (for example matter-, or radiation-dominated universes) this is $-2H/\lambda$, and hence of the order of the inverse age of the universe. If we consider a planet in the Solar System, the relevant time scale of the problem is the period of its orbit around the Sun. The relative error in the disturbance, when treating the factor $\ddot{a}/a$ as constant during an orbit, is hence smaller than $10^{-9}$ for the planets in the Solar System. For atoms it is much smaller, of course. Henceforth we shall neglect this time-dependence of (\[eq:cosmological-acc\]).
Keeping this in mind we set from now on $\ddot{a}/a=\mathrm{const}=:A$. Taking the actual value one can write $A=-q_0 H_0^2$, where the index zero means ‘today’ and $q$ stands for the cosmological deceleration parameter (defined by $q:=-\ddot a/(H^2a)$). Since the force is time independent, we can immediately integrate (\[eq:r-eq\]) and get $$\label{eq:r-eq-first-order}
\frac{1}{2}\dot{r}^2 + V(r) = E\,,$$ where the effective potential is $$\label{eq:potential}
V(r)=\frac{L^2}{2r^2}-\frac{C}{r}-\frac{A}{2}r^2 \,.$$
Specifying the initial-value problem {#sec:SpecifyingIVP}
------------------------------------
For (\[eq:r-eq-first-order\]) and (\[eq:phi-eq\]) we have to specify initial conditions $(r,\dot r,\varphi,\dot \varphi)(t_0)=(r_0,v_0,\varphi_0,\omega_0)$ at the initial time $t_0$. To study the solutions of the above equation for $r$ one has to look at the effective potential. For this purpose it is very convenient to introduce a length scale and a time scale that naturally arise in the problem. The length scale is defined as the radius at which the acceleration due to the cosmological expansion has the same magnitude as the gravitational (or electromagnetical) attraction. This happens precisely at the critical radius $$\label{eq:r-star}
{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}:= \left( \frac{C}{|A|} \right)^{1/3} \,.$$ For $r<{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}$ the gravitational (or electromagnetical) attraction dominates, whereas for $r>{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}$ the effect of the cosmological expansion is the dominant one.
### Intermezzo: Expressing the critical radius in terms of cosmological parameters {#sec:RelCosmPara .unnumbered}
We briefly wish to point out how to express the critical radius in terms of the cosmological parameters. For this we write: $$\label{eq:r-star-grav}
{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}= \left( \frac{GM}{|q_0|H_0^2} \right)^{1/3}
\approx \, \left( \frac{M}{M_\odot} \right)^{1/3} 120\,\mathrm{pc}\,,$$ where we have used the current values $q_0=-1/2$ and $h_0=0.7$. It is interesting to note that in the case of zero cosmological constant and pressureless matter we recover the Schücking gluing radius [@Schuecking:1954] (compare (\[eq:MatchingRadius\])): $$\label{eq:Schuecking-radius}
r_S=\left(\frac{M}{(4/3)\pi \rho_m} \right)^{1/3}\,.$$ To see this, just recall that for a pressureless matter we have $q_0=(1/2)\Omega_m-\Omega_\Lambda$. Then, for a vanishing cosmological constant, and using the definition $\Omega_m=\rho_m \cdot 8\pi G/(3H_0^2)$, one gets the above equations immediately.
In the electromagnetic case, for a proton-electron system, $$\label{eq:r-star-elm}
{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}= \left( \frac{|Qq|}{4\pi\epsilon_0 m |q_0|H_0^2} \right)^{1/3}
\approx \, 30 \, \mathrm{AU}\,,$$ which is about as big as the Neptune orbit!
### Back to the initial-value problem {#back-to-the-initial-value-problem .unnumbered}
The time scale we define is the period with respect to the unperturbed Kepler orbit (a solution to the above problem for $A=0$) of semi-major axis $r_0$. By Kepler’s third law it is given by $$\label{eq:T-Kepler}
T_K := 2\pi \left( \frac{r_0^3}{C} \right)^{1/2} \,.$$ It is convenient to introduce two dimensionless parameters which essentially encode the initial conditions $(r_0,\omega_0)$. $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\label{eq:def-lambda}
&\lambda &&\,:=\,\quad\left( \frac{\omega_0}{2\pi/T_K} \right)^2
&&\,=\,\frac{L^2}{C r_0}\,, \\
\label{eq:def-alpha}
&\alpha &&\,:=\,\mathrm{sign}(A)\left( \frac{r_0}{{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}} \right)^3
&&\,=\, A\frac{r_0^3}{C} \, .\end{aligned}$$ For close to Keplerian orbits $\lambda$ is close to one. For reasonably sized orbits $\alpha$ is close to zero. For example, in the Solar System, where $r_0 < 100$ AU, one has $|\alpha| < 10^{-16}$. For an atom whose radius is smaller than $10^4$ Bohr-radii we have $|\alpha|<10^{-57}$.
Defining $$\label{eq:def-x}
x(t):=r(t)/r_0\,,$$ equations (\[eq:r-eq-first-order\]) and (\[eq:phi-eq\]) can now be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:x-eq}
&\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}^2 + (2\pi/T_K)^2 \, v_{\lambda,\alpha}(x) = e \\
\label{eq:phi-x-eq}
&x^2\dot{\varphi} = \omega_0\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $e:=E/r_0^2$ now plays the rôle of the energy-constant and where the reduced 2-parameter effective potential $v_{\lambda,\alpha}$ is given by $$\label{eq:potential-x}
v_{\lambda,\alpha}(x) := \frac{\lambda}{2x^2}
-\frac{1}{x}
-\frac{\alpha}{2} x^2\,.$$ The initial conditions now read $$\label{eq:InitCond}
(x,\dot{x},\varphi,\dot{\varphi})(t_0)=(1,v_0/r_0,\varphi_0,\omega_0)\,.$$ The point of introducing the dimensionless variables is that the three initial parameters $(L,C,A)$ of the effective potential could be reduced to two: $\lambda$ and $\alpha)$. This will be convenient in the discussion of the potential.
Discussion of the reduced effective potential {#sec:DiscEffPot}
---------------------------------------------
![The figure shows the effective potential $v_{\lambda,\alpha}$, for circular orbits, where $\lambda=1-\alpha$, for some values of $\alpha$. The initial conditions are $x=1$ and $\dot x=0$ (see (\[eq:def-x\])). At $x=1$ the potential has an extremum, which for $\alpha<1/4$ is a local minimum corresponding to stable circular orbits. For $1/4 \leq \alpha<1$ these become unstable.[]{data-label="fig:potential"}](CirclePotential "fig:") (-160,270)[[$\alpha = -1 $ ]{}]{} ( -85,250)[[$\alpha = -0.3 $ ]{}]{} ( -40,130)[[$\alpha = 0 $ ]{}]{} ( -85, 45)[[$\alpha = 1/4 $ ]{}]{} (-145, 30)[[$\alpha = 0.6 $ ]{}]{} (-205, 20)[[$\alpha = 1 $ ]{}]{}
Circular orbits correspond to extrema of the effective potential (\[eq:potential\]). Expressed in terms of the dimensionless variables this is equivalent to $v'_{\lambda,\alpha}(1) = -\lambda + 1 - \alpha = 0$. By its very definition (\[eq:def-lambda\]), $\lambda$ is always nonnegative, implying $\alpha \leq 1$. For negative $\alpha$ (decelerating case) this is always satisfied. On the contrary, for positive $\alpha$ (accelerating case), this implies the existence of a critical radius $$\label{eq:r0-max-circle}
r_0 \leq {r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}$$ beyond which no circular orbit exists.
These orbits are stable if the considered extremum is a true minimum, i.e. if the second derivative of the potential evaluated at the critical value is positive. Now, $v''_{\lambda,\alpha}(1)=3\lambda-2-\alpha=1-4\alpha$, showing stability for $\alpha < 1/4$ and instability for $\alpha \geq 1/4$.
Expressing this in physical quantities we can summarize the situation as follows: in the decelerating case (i.e. for negative $\alpha$ or, equivalently, for negative $A$) stable circular orbits exist for every radius $r_0$; one just has to increase the angular velocity according to (\[eq:omega-circle\]). On the contrary, in the accelerating case (i.e. for positive $\alpha$, or, equivalently, for positive $A$), we have three regions:
- $r_0 < {r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm ub}}:= (1/4)^{1/3} {r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}\approx 0.63 \,{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}$, where circular orbits exist and are stable.[^4]
- ${r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm ub}}\leq r_0 \leq {r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}$, where circular orbits exist but are unstable.
- $r_0 > {r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}$, where no circular orbits exist.
Generally, there exist no bounded orbits that extend beyond the critical radius ${r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}$, the reason being simply that there is no $r>{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}$ where $V'(r)>0$. Bigger systems will just be slowly pulled apart by the cosmological acceleration and approximately move with the Hubble flow at later times.[^5]
Turning back to the case of circular orbits, we now express the condition for an extrema derived above, $\lambda=1-\alpha$, in terms of the physical quantities, which leads to $$\label{eq:omega-circle}
\omega_0=(2\pi/T_K)\sqrt{1-\mathrm{sign}(A)(r_0/{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}})^3} \,.$$ This equation says that, in order to get a circular orbit, our planet, or electron, must have a smaller or bigger angular velocity according to the universe expanding in an accelerating or decelerating fashion respectively. This is just what one would expect, since the effect of a cosmological ‘pulling apart’ or ‘pushing together’ must be compensated by a smaller or larger centrifugal forces respectively, as compared to the Keplerian case. Equation (\[eq:omega-circle\]) represents a modification of the third Kepler law due to the cosmological expansion. In principle this is measurable, but it is an effect of order $(r_0/{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}})^3$ and hence very small indeed; e.g. smaller than $10^{-17}$ for a planet in the Solar System.
Instead of adjusting the initial angular velocity as in (\[eq:omega-circle\]), we can ask how one has to modify $r_0$ in order to get a circular orbit with the angular velocity $\omega_0=2\pi/T_K$. This is equivalent to searching the minimum of the effective potential (\[eq:potential-x\]) for $\lambda=1$. This condition leads to the fourth order equation $\alpha x^4 - x + 1 = 0$ with respect to $x$. Its solutions can be exactly written down using Ferrari’s formula, though this is not illuminating. For our purposes it is more convenient to solve it approximatively, treating $\alpha$ as a small perturbation. Inserting the ansatz $x_{\mathrm{min}}=c_0+c_1\alpha+O(\alpha^2)$ we get $c_0=c_1=1$. This is really a minimum since $v''_{1,\alpha}(x_{\mathrm{min}})=1+O(\alpha)>0$. Hence we have $$\label{eq:r-min}
r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm min} = r_0
\left( 1 + \mathrm{sign}(A)\left( \frac{r_0}{{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}}} \right)^3
+ O\Big( (r_0/{r_{\!\scriptscriptstyle\rm crit}})^6 \Big)
\right)$$ This tells us that in the accelerating (decelerating) case the radii of the circular orbits with $\omega_0=2\pi/T_K$ becomes bigger (smaller), again according to expectation. As an example, the deviation in the radius for an hypothetical spacecraft orbiting around the Sun at 100 AU would be just of the order of 1 mm. Since it grows with the fourth power of the distance, the deviation at 1000 AU would be be of the order of 10 meters.
Fully relativistic treatment for gravitationally-bounded systems: The McVittie model {#sec:McVittie}
====================================================================================
In physics we are hardly ever in the position to mathematically rigorously model physically realistic scenarios. Usually we are at best either able to provide approximate solutions for realistic models or exact solutions for approximate models, and in most cases approximations are made on both sides. The art of physics then precisely consists in finding the right mixture in each given case. However, in this process our intuition usually strongly rests on the existence of at least some ‘nearby’ exact solutions. Accordingly, in this section we seek to find exact solutions in General Relativity that, with some degree of physical approximation, model a spherically symmetric body immersed in an expanding universe.
There are basically two ways to proceed, which could be described as the ‘gluing’- and the ‘melting’-way respectively. In the first and simpler approach one constructs a new solution to Einstein’s equations by suitably gluing together two known solutions, one corresponding to the star (i.e. Schwarzschild, if the star has negligible angular momentum), the other to a homogeneous universe (i.e. FRW). The resulting spacetime is then divided into two distinct regions, whose interiors are locally isometric to the original solutions. The Einstein-Straus-Schücking vacuole [@Einstein.Straus:1945; @Schuecking:1954] clearly belongs to this class, as well as its generalizations [@Balbinot.etal:1988; @Bonnor:2000b]. The advantage of this gluing-approach is its relative analytic simplicity, since the solutions to be matched are already known. Einstein’s equations merely reduce to the junction conditions along their common seam. Its disadvantage is that this gluing only works under those very special conditions which allow the glued solutions to locally persist *exactly*, and these conditions are likely to be physically unrealistic.
In the second approach one considers genuinely new solutions of Einstein’s equations which only approximately resemble the spacetimes of an isolated star or a homogeneous universe at small and large spatial distances respectively. This ‘melting-together’ is the more flexible approach which therefore allows to model physically more realistic situations. Needless to say that it also tends to be analytically more complicated and that a physical interpretation is often not at all obvious. The solutions of McVittie [@McVittie:1933] and also that of Gautreau [@Gautreau:1984b] fall under this class.
Our goal is to accurately model the Solar System in the currently expanding spatially-flat universe. We already argued in Section \[sec:Introduction\] that the Einstein-Straus-Schücking vacuole model unfortunately does not apply to the Solar System since the matching radius would be much too big (see also Appendix \[sec:SchueckingAtScales\]). The model of Gautreau [@Gautreau:1984b] is much harder to judge. Its physical and mathematical assumptions are rather implicit and not easy to interpret as regards their suitability for the problem at hand. For example, it assumes the cosmic matter to move geodesically outside the central body, but at the same time also assumes an equation of state in the form $p(\rho)$. For $p\not=0$ this seems contradictory in a genuinely non-homogeneous situation since pressure gradients will necessarily result in deviations from geodesic motions (see [@vdBergh.Wils:1984]). Assuming $p=0$ (which implies a motion of cosmic matter with non-vanishing shear) Gautreau finds in [@Gautreau:1984b] that orbits will spiral into the central mass simply because there is a net influx of cosmic matter and hence an attracting source of increasing strength. This is not really the kind of effect we are interested in here.
Among the models discussed in the literature the one that is best understood as regards its analytical structure as well as its physical assumptions is that of McVittie [@McVittie:1933] for $k=0$. It is therefore, in our opinion, the natural candidate to consider first when modeling systems like the Solar System in our expanding Universe. As emphasized above, this is not to say that this model is to be considered realistic in all its detailed aspects, but at least we do have some fairly good control over the assumptions it is based on thanks to the carefully analysis by Nolan [@Nolan:1998; @Nolan:1999a; @Nolan:1999b]. For example, there is a somewhat unrealistic behaviour of the McVittie spacetime and the matter in it near the singularity at $r=m/2$, as discussed below. But at larger radial distances the ‘flat’ (i.e. $k=0$) McVittie model may well give a useful description of the exterior region of a central object in an expanding spatially-flat universe, at least in the region where the radius is much larger (in geometric units) than the central mass (to be defined below). For planetary motion and spacecraft navigation in the Solar System this is certainly the case, since the ratio of the central mass to the orbital radius is of the order of $1.5\,{\rm km}/1{\rm AU}=10^{-8}$.
In this section we briefly review the McVittie spacetime and look at the geodesic equation in it, showing that it reduces to (\[eq:impr-N-eqs\]) in an appropriate weak-field and slow-motion limit. This provides another more solid justification for the Newtonian approach we carried out in Section \[sec:NewtonianApproach\].
The flat McVittie model (from now on to be simply referred to as *the* McVittie model) is characterized by two inputs: First, one makes the following ansatz for the metric which represents an obvious attempt to melt together the Schwarzschild metric (in spatially isotropic coordinates) with the spatially flat FRW metric (\[eq:FlatFRW1\]): $$\label{eq:McVittieAnsatz}
g = \left( \frac{1-m(t)/2r}{1+m(t)/2r} \right)^2 dt^2
-\left( 1+\frac{m(t)}{2r} \right)^4 a^2(t)\ (dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2) \,.$$ Here $d\Omega^2=d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,d\varphi^2$ and the two time-dependent functions $m$ and $a$ are to be determined. It is rotationally symmetric with the spheres of constant radius being the orbits of the rotation group. Second, it is assumed that the ideal fluid (with isotropic pressure) representing the cosmological matter moves along integral curves of the vector field $\partial/\partial t$. Note that this vector field is *not* geodesic (unlike in the Gautreau model). Moreover, this model contains the implicit assumption that the fluid motion is shearless (cf. Chapter16 of [@Kramer.etal:2003]).
Einstein’s equations together with the equation of state determine the four functions $m(t), a(t), \rho(t,r)$, and $p(t,r)$. The former are equivalent to
\[eq:McV-Einstein\] $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\label{eq:McV-Einstein-1}
&(a \, m)\!\dot{\phantom{I}}\! &&\,=\, 0 \,,\\
\label{eq:McV-Einstein-2}
&8\pi \rho &&\,=\, 3 \left( \frac{\dot a}{a} \right)^2 \,,\\
\label{eq:McV-Einstein-3}
&8\pi p &&\,=\, - 3 \left( \frac{\dot a}{a} \right)^2
- 2 \left( \frac{\dot{a}}{a} \right) \!\!\!\!\dot{\phantom{\frac{I}{I}}}
\left( \frac{1+m/2r}{1-m/2r} \right) \,.\end{aligned}$$
Here we already used the first one in order to express the derivatives of $m$ in terms of $a$ and its derivatives. The first equation can be immediately integrated: $$\label{eq:mIntegration}
m(t) = \frac{m_0}{a(t)} \,,$$ where $m_0$ is an integration constant. Below we will show that this integration constant is to be interpreted as the mass of the central particle. We will call the metric (\[eq:McVittieAnsatz\]) together with condition (\[eq:mIntegration\]) the *McVittie metric*.
We note that the equation of state must be necessarily space dependent. This follows directly from the equations (\[eq:McV-Einstein-2\]) and (\[eq:McV-Einstein-3\]), which imply that the density depends on the time coordinate only whereas the pressure depends on both time and space coordinates. Formally the system (\[eq:McV-Einstein\]) can be looked upon in two ways: either one prescribes an equation of state and deduces from (\[eq:McV-Einstein-2\]), (\[eq:McV-Einstein-3\]), and (\[eq:mIntegration\]) a second-order differential equation for the scale factor $a$, or one specifies $a(t)$ and deduces the matter density, the pressure, and hence the equation of state.
As special cases of (\[eq:McV-Einstein\]) we remark that if either $a$ or $m$ are time independent (\[eq:McV-Einstein-1\]) implies that both must be time independent. This, in turn, implies that density and pressure vanish everywhere, resulting in the Schwarzschild solution in spatially isotropic coordinates. If we choose the equation of state to be that of pressureless dust, i.e. $p=0$, we get either the Schwarzschild solution or the dust-filled FRW universe. This follows from (\[eq:McV-Einstein-3\]), where we must distinguish between two cases: $\dot{a}/a$ can only be constant if it is zero, hence resulting in the Schwarzschild solution. If $\dot{a}/a$ is not constant, equation (\[eq:McV-Einstein-3\]) (with (\[eq:mIntegration\])) implies, after a partial differentiation with respect to $r$, that $m_0=0$. This gives the homogeneous and isotropic dust-filled FRW universe. Another possible equation of state is that of a cosmological-constant. This choice implies constancy of $\dot{a}/a$ and hence that the second term on the left hand side of (\[eq:McV-Einstein-3\]) vanishes. In this way one recovers the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric in spatially isotropic coordinates.
Finally we also mention some critical aspects of the McVittie model. In fact, unless $\dot{a}/a$ is constant, it has a singularity at $r=m/2$ where the pressure as well as some curvature invariants diverge. The former can be immediately seen from (\[eq:McV-Einstein-3\]). This is clearly a result of the assumption that the fluid moves along the integral curves of $\partial/\partial t$, which become lightlike in the limit as $r$ tends to $m/2$. Their acceleration is given by the gradient of the pressure, which diverges in that limit. For a study of the singularity at $r=m/2$ see [@Nolan:1999a; @Nolan:1999b].
A related question concerns the global behaviour of the McVittie metric. Each hypersurface of constant time $t$ is a complete Riemannian manifold which besides the rotational symmetry admits a discrete isometry, given in $(r,\theta,\varphi)$ coordinates by $$\label{eq:McVittieIsometry}
\phi(r,\theta,\varphi)=
\bigl([m_0/2a(t)]^2\,r^{-1}\,,\,\theta\,,\,\varphi\bigr)\,.$$ It corresponds to a reflection at the 2-sphere $r=(m_0/2a(t))$ and shows that the hypersurfaces of constant $t$ can be thought of as two isometric asymptotically-flat pieces joined together at the totally geodesic (being a fixed-point set of an isometry) 2-sphere $r=m_0/2a(t)$, which is minimal. Except for the time-dependent factor $a(t)$, this is just like for the slices of constant $t$ in the Schwarzschild metric (the difference being that (\[eq:McVittieIsometry\]) does not extend to an isometry of the spacetime metric unless $\dot a=0$). This means that the McVittie metric cannot literally be interpreted as corresponding to a point particle sitting at $r=0$ ($r=0$ is in infinite metric distance) in a flat FRW universe, just like the Schwarzschild metric does not correspond to a point particle sitting at $r=0$ in Minkowski space. Unfortunately, McVittie seems to have interpreted his solution in this fashion [@McVittie:1933] which even until recently gave rise to some confusion in the literature (e.g. [@Gautreau:1984b; @Sussman:1988; @Ferraris.etal:1996]). A clarification was given by Nolan [@Nolan:1999a]. Another important issue is whether the cosmological matter satisfies some energy condition. For a discussion about this topic we refer to [@Nolan:1998; @Nolan:1999a].
Interpretation of the McVittie metric {#sec:McVittieInterpretation}
-------------------------------------
We shall now present some arguments which justify calling McVittie’s metric a model for a localized mass immersed in a flat FRW background. Here we basically follow [@Nolan:1998]. As is well known, it is generally not possible in General Relativity to assign a definite mass (or energy) to a local bounded region of space (quasi-local mass). Physically sensible definitions of such a concept of quasi-local mass exist only in favourable and special circumstances, one of them being spherical symmetry. In this case the so-called Misner-Sharp energy is often employed (e.g. [@Misner.Sharp:1964; @Cahill.McVittie:1970a; @Cahill.McVittie:1970b; @Burnett:1991; @Hayward:1996; @Hayward:1998]). It allows to assign an energy content to the interior region of any two-sphere of symmetry (i.e. an orbit of $SO(3)$). For the McVittie metric ((\[eq:McVittieAnsatz\]) with (\[eq:mIntegration\])) the Misner-Sharp energy takes the simple and intuitively appealing form: $$\label{eq:MSEnergyOfMcV}
E_{\rm{\scriptscriptstyle MS}}(g;R,t)=\frac{4}{3}\pi R^3 \rho(t) + m_0 \,$$ where henceforth we denote by $R$ the ‘areal radius’ defined by (\[eq:McVittieArealRadius\]). This shows that the total energy is given by the sum of the cosmological matter contribution and the central mass, where the mass of the central object is given by $m_0$.
Another useful definition of quasi-local mass is that of Hawking [@Hawking:1968]. According to this definition the energy contained in the region enclosed by a spatial two-sphere $S$ is given by a surface integral over $S$, whose integrand is essentially the sum of certain distinguished components of the Ricci and Weyl tensors, representing the contributions of matter and the gravitational field respectively. Applied to the McVittie metric the latter takes the value $m_0$ for any 2-sphere outside of and enclosing $R=2m_0$.
Motion of a test particle in the McVittie spacetime
---------------------------------------------------
We are interested in the motion of a test particle (idealizing a planet or a spacecraft) in McVittie’s spacetime. In [@McVittie:1933] McVittie concluded within a slow-motion and weak-field approximation that Keplerian orbits do not expand as measured with the ‘cosmological geodesic radius’ $r_*=a(t)r$. Later Pachner [@Pachner:1963] and Noerdlinger & Petrosian [@Noerdlinger.Petrosian:1971] argued for the presence of the acceleration term (\[eq:cosmological-acc\]) proportional to $\ddot{a}/a$ within this approximation scheme, hence arriving at (\[eq:r-eq\]). In the following we shall show how to arrive at (\[eq:r-eq\]) from the exact geodesic equation of the McVittie metric by making clear the approximations involved. In order to compare our calculation with similar ones in the recent literature (i.e. [@Bolen.etal:2001; @Baker:2002])[^6] we will work with the so-called ‘areal radius’. It corresponds to a function that can be geometrically characterized on any spherically symmetric spacetime by taking the square root of the area of the $SO(3)$-orbit through the considered point divided by $4\pi$. Hence it is the same as the square root of the modulus of the coefficient of the angular part of the metric. For the McVittie metric this reads $$\label{eq:McVittieArealRadius}
R(t,r)=\left( 1+\frac{m_0}{2a(t)r} \right)^2 a(t)\,r \,.$$ Note that for fixed $t$ the map $r\mapsto R(t,r)$ is 2-to-1 and that $R\geq 2m_0$, where $R=2m_0$ corresponds to $r=m_0/2a$. Hence we restrict the coordinate transformation (\[eq:McVittieArealRadius\]) to the region $r> m_0/2a$ where it becomes a diffeomorphism onto the region $R> 2m_0$.
Reintroducing factors of $c$, McVittie’s metric assumes the (non-diagonal) form in the region $R>2m_0$ (i.e. $r>m_0/2a(t)$) $$\label{eq:McVittieMetric2}
g = \left( f(R) - \left( \frac{H(t)R}{c} \right)^2 \right)c^2 dt^2
+\frac{2(H(t)R/c)}{\sqrt{f(R)}} c\,dt\,dR
-\frac{dR^2}{f(R)}
- R^2 d\Omega^2 \,,$$ where we put $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\label{eq:Def-f}
&f(R) &&:= 1-\frac{2m_0}{R} \,,\\
\label{eq:Def-H}
&H(t) &&:= \frac{\dot a}{a}(t) \,.\end{aligned}$$ The region $R<2m_0$ was investigated in [@Nolan:1999b].
The equations for a timelike geodesic (i.e. parameterized with respect to eigentime) $\tau \mapsto z^\mu(\tau)$ with $g(\dot z,\dot z)=c^2$ follows via variational principle from the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}(z,\dot z)=(1/2)g_{\mu\nu}(z){\dot z^\mu}{\dot z^\nu}$. Spherical symmetry implies conservation of angular momentum. Hence we may choose the particle orbit to lie in the equatorial plane $\theta=\pi/2$. The constant modulus of angular momentum is $$\label{eq:ConsAngMom}
R^2\dot{\varphi}=L \,.$$ The remaining two equations are then coupled second-order ODEs for $t(\tau)$ and $R(\tau)$. However, we may replace the first one by its first integral that results from $g(\dot z,\dot z)=c^2$: $$\label{eq:TimeEquation}
\left( f(R) - \left( \frac{H(t)R}{c} \right)^2 \right)c^2 \dot t^2
+\frac{2(H(t)R/c)}{\sqrt{f(R)}} c\,\dot t\,\dot R
-\frac{\dot R^2}{f(R)}
- (L/R)^2 =c^2\,.$$ The remaining radial equation is given by
\[eq:McV-R-sec\] $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\ddot{R} \;
&-\left( f(R)-\left(\frac{H(t)R}{c}\right)^2 \right)\frac{L^2}{R^3}
\label{eq:McV-R-sec-1}\\
&+\frac{m_0\,c^2}{R^2}f(R)\,\dot{t}^2
\label{eq:McV-R-sec-2}\\
&-R\Bigg(
\dot{H}(t)\,f(R)^\frac{1}{2}+
H(t)^2\bigg( 1-\frac{m_0}{R}-\left(\frac{H(t)R}{c}\right)^2 \bigg)
\Bigg)\,\dot{t}^2
\label{eq:McV-Rsec-3}\\
&-\left( \frac{m_0}{R}-\left(\frac{H(t)R}{c}\right)^2 \right)
f(R)^{-1}\,\frac{\dot R}{R}^2
\label{eq:McV-R-sec-4}\\
&+2\left( \frac{m_0}{R}-\left(\frac{H(t)R}{c}\right)^2 \right)
f(R)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\, c\,H(t)\,(\dot{R}/c)\,\dot{t} \;\; = \; 0 \,,
\label{eq:McV-R-sec-5}\end{aligned}$$
Recall that $m_0=GM/c^2$, where $M$ is the mass of the central star (the Sun in our case) in standard units (kg).
Equations (\[eq:TimeEquation\],\[eq:McV-R-sec\]) are exact. We are interested in orbits of slow-motion (compared with the speed of light) in the region where $$\label{eq:R-region}
2m_0 =: R_S \ll R \ll R_H := c/H \,.$$ The latter condition clearly covers all situations of practical applicability in the Solar System, since the Schwarzschild radius $R_S$ of the Sun is about 3 km $=2\cdot10^{-8}$AU and the ‘Hubble radius’ $R_H$ is about $13.7\cdot 10^{9}$ly = $8.7\cdot 10^{14}$AU.
The approximation now consists in considering small perturbations of Keplerian orbits. Let $T$ be a typical timescale of the problem, like the period for closed orbits or else $R/v$ with $v$ a typical velocity. The expansion is then with respect to the following two parameters:
\[eq:ExpParameters\] $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\label{eq:ExpParameters1}
&\varepsilon_{{\scriptscriptstyle}1} &&\,\approx\,\frac{v}{c}\,\approx\,
\left(\frac{m_0}{R}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\quad &&\text{(slow-motion and weak-field)}\,,\\
\label{eq:ExpParameters2}
&\varepsilon_{{\scriptscriptstyle}2} &&\,\approx\,HT\quad
&&\text{(small ratio of characteristic-time to world-age)}\,,\end{aligned}$$
In order to make the expression to be approximated dimensionless we multiply (\[eq:TimeEquation\]) by $1/c^2$ and (\[eq:McV-R-sec\]) by $T^2/R$. Then we expand the right hand sides in powers of the parameters (\[eq:ExpParameters\]), using the fact that $(HR/c)\approx\varepsilon_{{\scriptscriptstyle}1}\varepsilon_{{\scriptscriptstyle}2}$. From this and (\[eq:ConsAngMom\]) we obtain (\[eq:impr-N-eqs\]) if we keep only terms to zero-order in $\varepsilon_{{\scriptscriptstyle}1}$ and leading (i.e. quadratic) order in $\varepsilon_{{\scriptscriptstyle}2}$, where we also re-express $R$ as function of $t$. Note that in this approximation the areal radius $R$ is equal to the spatial geodesic distance on the $t=\text{const.}$ hypersurfaces.
Fully relativistic treatment for electromagnetically-bounded systems and the argument of Dicke and Peebles {#sec:DickePeebles}
==========================================================================================================
In this section we show how to arrive at (\[eq:impr-N-eqs\]) from a fully relativistic treatment of an electromagnetically bounded two-body problem in an expanding (spatially flat) universe. This implies solving Maxwell’s equations in the cosmological background (\[eq:FlatFRW1\]) for an electric point charge (the proton) and then integrate the Lorentz equations for the motion of a particle (electron) in a bound orbit (cf. [@Bonnor:1999]). Equation (\[eq:impr-N-eqs\]) then appears in an appropriate slow-motion limit. However, in oder to relate this straightforward method to a famous argument of Dicke & Peebles, we shall proceed by taking a slight detour which makes use of the conformal properties of Maxwell’s equations.
The argument of Dicke and Peebles
---------------------------------
In reference [@Dicke.Peebles:1964] Dicke & Peebles presented an apparently very general and elegant argument, that purports to show the insignificance of any dynamical effect of cosmological expansion on a local system that is either bound by electromagnetic or gravitational forces which should hold true *at any scale*. Their argument involves a rescaling of spacetime coordinates, $(t,\vec x)\mapsto (\lambda t,\lambda\vec x)$ and certain assumptions on how other physical quantities, most prominently mass, behave under such scaling transformations. For example, they assume mass to transform like $m\mapsto\lambda^{-1}m$. However, their argument is really independent of such assumptions, as we shall show below. We work from first principles to clearly display all assumptions made.
We consider the motion of a charged point particle in an electromagnetic field. The whole system, i.e. particle plus electromagnetic field, is placed into a cosmological FRW-spacetime with flat ($k=0$) spatial geometry. The spacetime metric reads $$\label{eq:FlatFRW1}
g = c^2\, dt^2-a^2(t)\bigl(
dr^2+r^2\,(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,d\varphi^2)
\bigr)\,.$$ We introduce conformal time, $t_c$, via $$\label{eq:ConfTime}
t_c=f(t):=\int^t_k\frac{dt'}{a(t')}\,,$$ by means of which we can write (\[eq:FlatFRW1\]) in a conformally flat form, where $\eta$ denotes the flat Minkowski metric: $$\label{eq:FlatFRW2}
g=a_c^2(t_c)\bigl\{\underbrace{
c^2\,dt_c^2-dr^2-r^2\,(d\theta^2+\sin^2\theta\,d\varphi^2)}_{\displaystyle{\eta}}
\bigr\}\,.$$ Here we wrote $a_c$ to indicate that we now expressed the expansion parameter $a$ as function of $t_c$ rather than $t$, i.e. $$\label{eq:A-c}
a_c:=a\circ f^{-1}\,.$$ For example, if $a(t)=\sigma t^n$ ($0<n<1$), then we can choose $k=0$ in (\[eq:ConfTime\]) and have $$\label{eq:TimeRelation1}
t_c=f(t)=\int_0^t\frac{dt'}{\sigma t'^n}=\frac{t^{1-n}}{\sigma(1-n)}\,,$$ so that $$\label{eq:TimeRelation2}
t=f^{-1}(t_c)=\bigl[(1-n)\sigma\,t_c\bigr]^{1/(1-n)}\,,$$ and therefore $$\label{eq:TimeRelation3}
a_c(t_c)=\alpha t_c^{n/(1-n)}\,,\quad\text{where}\quad
\alpha:=\bigl[(1-n)^n\sigma\bigr]^{1/(1-n)}\,.$$
The electromagnetic field is characterized by the tensor $F_{\mu\nu}$, comprising electric and magnetic fields: $$\label{eq:EM-Components}
F_{\mu\nu}=
\begin{pmatrix}
0&E_n/c\\
-E_m/c&-\varepsilon_{mnj}B_j
\end{pmatrix}\,.$$ In terms of the electromagnetic four-vector potential, $A_\mu=(\varphi/c,-\vec A)$, one has $$\label{eq:FourPotential}
F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu
=\nabla_\mu A_\nu-\nabla_\nu A_\mu\,,$$ so that, as usual, $\vec E=-\vec\nabla\phi-\dot{\vec A}$. The expression for the four-vector of the Lorentz-force of a particle of charge $e$ moving in the field $F_{\mu\nu}$ is $e\,F^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha}u^\alpha$, where $u$ is the particle’s four velocity.
The equations of motion for the system Particle + EM-Field follow from an action which is the sum of the action of the particle, the action for its interaction with the electromagnetic field, and the action for the free field, all placed in the background (\[eq:FlatFRW1\]). Hence we write: $$\label{eq:ActionSum}
S=S_P+S_I+S_F\,,$$ where
$$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\label{eq:P-Action}
&S_P &&\,=\,-mc^2\int_z d\tau
\,=\,-mc\int\sqrt{g(z',z')}\,d\lambda\,,\\
&S_I &&\,=\,-\,e\int_zA_\mu\,dx^\mu
\,=\,-\,e\int A_\mu(z(\lambda))z'^\mu\,d\lambda\nonumber\\
\label{eq:I-Action}
& &&\,=\,-\,\int d^4x\,A_\mu(x)\int\,d\lambda\ e\
\delta^{(4)}(x-z(\lambda))\ z'^\mu\,,\\
\label{eq:F-Action}
&S_F &&\,=\,\frac{-1}{4}\int d^4x\,\sqrt{-\det g}\;
g^{\mu\alpha}g^{\nu\beta}\,F_{\mu\nu}F_{\alpha\beta}
\,=\,\frac{-1}{4}\int d^4x\,\eta^{\mu\alpha}
\eta^{\nu\beta}\,F_{\mu\nu}F_{\alpha\beta}\,.\end{aligned}$$
Here $\lambda$ is an arbitrary parameter along the worldline $z:\lambda\mapsto z(\lambda)$ of the particle, and $z'$ the derivative $dz/d\lambda$. The differential of the eigentime along this worldline is $$\label{eq:DefEigentime}
d\tau=\sqrt{g(z',z')}\,d\lambda
=\sqrt{g_{\mu\nu}(z(\lambda))\tfrac{dz^\mu}{d\lambda}
\tfrac{dz^\nu}{d\lambda}}\,d\lambda\,.$$ It is now important to note that 1) the background metric $g$ does not enter (\[eq:I-Action\]) and that (\[eq:F-Action\]) is conformally invariant (in 4 spacetime dimensions only!). Hence the expansion factor, $a(t_c)$, does not enter these two expressions. For this reason we could write (\[eq:F-Action\]) in terms of the flat Minkowski metric, though it should be kept in mind that the time coordinate is now given by conformal time $t_c$. This is *not* the time read by standard clocks that move with the cosmological observers, which rather show the cosmological time $t$ (which is the proper time along the geodesic flow of the observer field $X=\partial/\partial t$).
The situation is rather different for the action (\[eq:P-Action\]) of the particle. Its variational derivative with respect to $z(\lambda)$ is $$\label{eq:VarDerS_p1}
\frac{\delta S_p}{\delta z^\mu(\lambda)}= -mc\,\left\{
\frac{\tfrac{1}{2}g_{\alpha\beta,\mu}\,z'^\alpha z'^\beta}{\sqrt{g(z',z')}}
-\frac{d}{d\lambda}\left[\frac{g_{\mu\alpha}z'^\alpha}{\sqrt{g(z',z')}}
\right]\right\} \, .$$ We now introduce the *conformal proper time*, $\tau_c$, via $$\label{eq:CobfPropTime}
d\tau_c=(1/c)\,\sqrt{\eta(z',z')}\,d\lambda
= (1/ca)\,\sqrt{g(z',z')}\,d\lambda\,.$$ We denote differentiation with respect to $\tau_c$ by an overdot, so that e.g. $z'/\sqrt{g(z',z')}=\dot z/ca$. Using this to replace $z'$ by $\dot z\sqrt{g(z',z')}/ca$ and also $g$ by $a^2\eta$ in (\[eq:VarDerS\_p1\]) gives $$\label{eq:VarDerS_p2}
\frac{\delta S_p}{\delta z^\mu(\lambda)}=
\frac{\sqrt{g(z',z')}}{ac}\,ma\,\left\{
\eta_{\mu\alpha}\ddot z^\alpha+P^\alpha_\mu\phi_{,\alpha}\right\}$$ where we set $$\label{eq:Abbrev}
a=:\exp(\phi/c^2)\quad\text{and}\quad
P^\alpha_\mu:=-\delta^\alpha_\mu+
\frac{\dot z^\alpha\dot z^\nu}{c^2}\eta_{\nu\mu}\,.$$ Recalling that $\delta S_P=\int\frac{\delta S_p}{\delta z^\mu(\lambda)}\delta z^\mu d\lambda=
\int\frac{\delta S_p}{\delta z^\mu(\tau_c)}\delta z^\mu d\tau_c$ and using (\[eq:CobfPropTime\]), (\[eq:VarDerS\_p2\]) is equivalent to $$\label{eq:VarDerS_p3}
\frac{\delta S_p}{\delta z^\mu(\tau_c)}=
ma\bigl(\ddot z^\alpha+P^\alpha_\mu\phi_{,\alpha}\bigr)\,,$$ where from now on we agree to raise and lower indices using the Minkowski metric, i.e. $\eta_{\mu\nu}=\text{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1)$ in Minkowski inertial coordinates.
Writing (\[eq:I-Action\]) in terms of the conformal proper time and taking the variational derivative with respect to $z(\tau_c)$ leads to $\delta S_I/\delta z^\mu(\tau_c)=-eF_{\mu\alpha}{\dot z}^\alpha$, so that $$\label{eq:VarDerSwrtZ}
\frac{\delta S}{\delta z^\mu(\tau_c)}
=ma\bigl(\ddot z_\mu+P^\alpha_\mu\phi_{,\alpha}\bigr)
-e\,F_{\mu\alpha}{\dot z}^\alpha\,.$$ The variational derivative of the action with respect to the vector potential $A$ is $$\label{eq:VarDerSwrtA}
\frac{\delta S}{\delta A_\mu(x)}
=\partial_{\alpha}F^{\mu\alpha}(x)
-e\,\int d\tau_c\,\delta(x-z(\tau_c))\,\dot z^\mu(\tau_c)\,.$$
Equations (\[eq:VarDerSwrtZ\]) and (\[eq:VarDerSwrtA\]) show that the fully dynamical problem can be treated as if it were situated in static flat space. The field equations that follow from (\[eq:VarDerSwrtA\]) are just the same as in Minkowski space. Hence we can calculate the Coulomb field as usual. On the other hand, the equations of motion receive two changes from the cosmological expansion term: the first is that the mass $m$ is now multiplied with the (time-dependent!) scale factor $a$, the second is an additional scalar force induced by $a$. Note that all spacetime dependent functions on the right hand side are to be evaluated at the particle’s location $z(\tau_c)$, whose fourth component corresponds to $ct_c$. Hence, writing out all arguments and taking into account that the time coordinate is $t_c$, we have for the equation of motion
\[eq:DP-Motion\] $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\label{eq:DP-Motion1}
\ddot z^\mu
&\,=\,\frac{e}{ma_c(z^0/c)}\ F^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha}(z)\dot z^\alpha
- \bigl(-c^2\eta^{\mu\alpha}+\dot z^\mu\dot z^\alpha\bigr)
\partial_\alpha\ln a_c(z^0/c)\\
\label{eq:DP-Motion2}
&\,=\,\frac{e}{ma_c(z^0/c)}\ F^\mu_{\phantom{\mu}\alpha}(z)\dot z^\alpha
- \bigl(-c\eta^{\mu 0}+\dot z^\mu\dot z^0/c\bigr)\,a'_c(z^0/c)/a_c(z^0/c)\,, \end{aligned}$$
where $a'_c$ is the derivative of $a_c$.
So far no approximations were made. Now we write $\dot z^\mu=\gamma(c,\vec v)$, where $\vec v$ is the derivative of $\vec z$ with respect to the conformal time $t_c$, henceforth denoted by a prime, and $\gamma=1/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$. Then we specialize to slow motions, i.e. neglect effects of quadratic or higher powers in $v/c$ (special relativistic effects). For the spatial part of (\[eq:DP-Motion2\]) we get $$\label{eq:DP-Motion3}
{{\vec z}\;\!''} + {{\vec z}\;\!'}\ (a'_c/a_c)
=\frac{e}{ma_c}\bigl( \vec E + {{\vec z}\;\!'} \times \vec B \bigr)\,,$$ where we once more recall that the spatial coordinates used here are the comoving (i.e. conformal) ones and the electric and magnetic fields are evaluated at the particle’s position $\vec z(t_c)$.
From the above equation we see that the effect of cosmological expansion in the conformal coordinates shows up in two ways: first in a time dependence of the mass which scales with $a_c$, and, second, in the presence a friction term. Let us, for the moment, neglect the friction term. In the adiabatic approximation, which is justified if typical time scales of the problem at hand are short compared to the world-age (corresponding to small $\varepsilon_{{\scriptscriptstyle}2}$ in (\[eq:ExpParameters2\])), the time-dependent mass term leads to a time varying radius in comoving (or conformal) coordinates of $r(t_c)\propto 1/a_c(t_c)$. Hence the physical radius (given by the cosmological geodesically spatial distance), $r_*=a_c r$, stays constant in this approximation. In this way Dicke & Peebles concluded in [@Dicke.Peebles:1964] that electromagnetically bound systems do not feel *any* effect of cosmological expansion.
Let us now look at the effect of the friction term which the analysis of Dicke & Peebles neglects. It corresponds to the decelerating force $-\vec v a'_c/a_c$ which e.g. for the simple power-law expansion (\[eq:TimeRelation3\]) becomes $$\label{eq:FritionTerm}
-\vec v \tfrac{n}{n-1}t^{-1}_c
=-\vec v\,n\sigma\, t^{n-1}\,.$$ Clearly it must cause any stationary orbit to decay. For example, as a standard first-order perturbation calculation shows, a circular orbit of radius $r$ and angular frequency (with respect to conformal time $t_c$) $\omega_c$ will suffer a relative decay per revolution of $$\label{eq:RadialDecay}
\frac{\Delta r}{r}\Big\vert_{\rm revol.}=-\,\frac{a'_c/a_c}{3\omega_c}\,.$$ Recall that this is an equation in the (fictitious) Minkowski space obtained after rescaling the physical metric. However, it equates two scale invariant quantities. Indeed, the relative length change $\Delta r/r$ is certainly scale invariant and so is the relative length change per revolution. On the right hand side we take the quotient of two quantities which scale like an inverse time. In physical spacetime, coordinatized by cosmological time $t$, the right hand side becomes $-\,H/3\omega$, where as usual $H=\dot a/a$ and $\omega$ is the angular frequency with respect to $t$. Hence the relative radial decay in physical space is of the order of the ratio between the orbital period and the inverse Hubble constant (‘world-age’), i.e. of order $\varepsilon_{{\scriptscriptstyle}2}$ (cf.(\[eq:ExpParameters2\])).
Since the friction term contributes to the leading-order effect of cosmological expansion, we conclude that the argument of Dicke & Peebles, which neglects this term, is not sufficient to estimate such effects.
Equations of motion in the physical coordinates
-----------------------------------------------
We now show that (\[eq:impr-N-eqs\]) is indeed arrived at if the friction term is consistently taken into account. To see this we merely need to rewrite equation (\[eq:DP-Motion3\]) in terms of the physical coordinates given by the cosmological time $t$ and the cosmological geodesic spatial distance $r_*:=a(t)r$. We have $dt_c/dt=1/a$ and the spatial geodesic coordinates are $\vec y:= a(t) \vec z$. Denoting by an overdot the time derivative with respect to $t$, the left hand side of (\[eq:DP-Motion3\]) becomes $$\label{eq:backTransformation}
{{\vec z}\;\!''} + {{\vec z}\;\!'}\ (a'_c/a_c) = a\ \ddot{{\vec y}} - \ddot a\ \vec y\,.$$ This shows that the friction term in the unphysical coordinates becomes, in the physical coordinates, the familiar acceleration term (\[eq:cosmological-acc\]) due to the Hubble-law. Dividing by $a$ equation (\[eq:DP-Motion3\]) and inserting $\vec E(\vec{z}) = Q\vec{z}/|\vec{z}\,|^3$ and $\vec B(\vec{z}) = 0$, we get $$\label{eq:DP-Motion4}
\ddot{{\vec y}} - \vec{y}\ (\ddot a/a) = \frac{eQ}{m |\vec{y}|^3}\vec{y} \,.$$ Finally, introducing polar coordinates in the orbital plane we exactly get (\[eq:impr-N-eqs\]).
Kinematical effects {#sec:Rosales}
===================
It has been suggested in [@Rosales.Sanchez-Gomez:1998] and again in [@Rosales:2002] that there may be significant *kinematical* effects that may cause apparent anomalous acceleration of spacecraft orbits in an expanding cosmological environment. More precisely it was stated that there is an additional acceleration of magnitude $Hc\approx 0.7\cdot 10^{-9}\textrm{m}/\textrm{s}^2$, which is comparable to the measured anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecrafts. The cause of such an effect lies in the way one actually measures spatial distances and determines the clock readings they are functions of (a trajectory is a ‘distance’ for each given ‘time’). The point is this: equations of motions give us, for example, simultaneous (with respect to cosmological time) spatial geodesic distances as functions of cosmological time. This is what we implicitly did in the Newtonian analysis. But, in fact, spacecraft ranging is done by exchanging electromagnetic signals. The notion of spatial distance as well as the notion of simultaneity introduced thereby is *not* the same. Hence the analytical expression of the ‘trajectory’ so measured will be different.
To us this seems an important point and the authors of [@Rosales.Sanchez-Gomez:1998] and [@Rosales:2002] were well justified to draw proper attention to it. However, we will now explain why we do not arrive at their conclusion. Again we take care to state all assumptions made.
Local Einstein-simultaneity in general spacetimes
-------------------------------------------------
We consider a general Lorentzian manifold $({\mathcal{M}},g)$ as spacetime. Our signature convention is $(+,-,-,-)$ and $ds$ is taken to have the unit of length. The differential of eigentime is $d\tau=ds/c$. In general coordinates $\{x^\mu\}$, the metric reads $$\label{eq:MetricGen}
ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu\,dx^\nu=g_{tt}dt^2+2g_{ta}dt\,dx^a+g_{ab}dx^a\,dx^b\,.$$ The observer at fixed spatial coordinates is given by the vector field (normalized to $g(X,X)=c^2$) $$\label{eq:observer}
X=\frac{c}{\sqrt{g_{tt}}}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\,.$$ Consider the light cone with vertex $p\in{\mathcal{M}}$; one has $ds^2=0$, which allows to solve for $dt$ in terms of the $dx^a$ (all functions $g_{ab}$ are evaluated at $p$, unless noted otherwise): $$\label{eq:LightConeDiff}
dt_{1{,}2}=-\,\frac{g_{ta}}{g_{tt}}\,dx^a\pm\sqrt{\left(
\frac{g_{ta}g_{tb}}{g^2_{tt}}-\frac{g_{ab}}{g_{tt}}
\right)dx^a\,dx^b}\,.$$ The plus sign corresponds to the future light-cone at $p$, the negative sign to the past light cone. An integral line of $X$ in a neighbourhood of $p$ cuts the light cone in two points, $q_+$ and $q_-$. If $t_p$ is the time assigned to $p$, then $t_{q_+}=t_p+dt_1$ and $t_{q_-}=t_p+dt_2$. The coordinate-time separation between these two cuts is $t_{q_+}-t_{q_-}=dt_1-dt_2$, corresponding to a proper time $\sqrt{g_{tt}}(dt_1-dt_2)/c$ for the observer $X$. This observer will associate a *radar-distance* $dl_*$ to the event $p$ of $c/2$ times that proper time interval, that is: $$\label{eq:RadarDist}
dl_*^2=h=
\left(\frac{g_{ta}g_{tb}}{g_{tt}}-g_{ab}\right)dx^a\,dx^b\,.$$ The event on the integral line of $X$ that the observer will call Einstein-synchronous with $p$ lies in the middle between $q_+$ and $q_-$. Its time coordinate is in first-order approximation given by $\tfrac{1}{2}(t_{q_+}+t_{q_-})=t_p+\tfrac{1}{2}(dt_1+dt_2)=t_p+dt$, where $$\label{eq:EinstSynShift}
dt:=\tfrac{1}{2}(dt_1+dt_2)=-\frac{g_{ta}}{g_{tt}}\,dx^a\,.$$ This means the following: the Integral lines of $X$ are parameterized by the spatial coordinates $\{x^a\}_{a=1,2,3}$. Given a point $p$, specified by the orbit-coordinates $x^a_p$ and the time-coordinate $t_p$, we consider a neighbouring orbit of $X$ with orbit-coordinates $x^a_p+dx^a$. The event on the latter which is Einstein synchronous with $p$ has a time coordinate $t_p+dt$, where $dt$ is given by (\[eq:EinstSynShift\]), or equivalently $$\label{eqSynchConnForm}
\theta:=dt+\frac{g_{ta}}{g_{tt}}\,dx^a=0\,.$$ Using a differential geometric language we may say that Einstein simultaneity defines a *distribution* $\theta=0$.
The metric (\[eq:MetricGen\]) can be written in terms of the radar-distance metric $h$ (\[eq:RadarDist\]) and the simultaneity 1-form $\theta$ as follows: $$\label{eq:MetricGenAlt}
ds^2=g_{\mu\nu}dx^\mu\,dx^\nu=g_{tt}\,\theta^2-h\,,$$ showing that the radar-distance is just the same as the Einstein-simultaneous distance. A curve $\gamma$ in ${\mathcal{M}}$ intersects the flow lines of $X$ perpendicularly iff $\theta(\dot\gamma)=0$, which is just the condition that neighbouring clocks along $\gamma$ are Einstein synchronized.
Application to isotropic cosmological metrics
---------------------------------------------
We consider isotropic cosmological metrics. In what follows we drop for simplicity the angular dimensions. Hence we consider metrics of the form $$\label{eq:CosMetric}
ds^2=c^2dt^2-a(t)^2dr^2\,.$$ The expanding observer field is $$\label{eq:GeodObs}
X=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\,.$$ The Lagrangian for radial geodesic motion is $L=\tfrac{1}{2}\bigl(c^2{\dot t}^2-a^2{\dot r}^2\bigr)$, leading to the only non-vanishing Christoffel symbols $$\label{eq:ChristSymb}
\Gamma_{rr}^t=\frac{a\dot a}{c^2}\,,\quad
\Gamma_{tr}^r=\frac{\dot a}{a}=:H\,.$$ Hence $X$ is geodesic, since $$\nabla_XX=\Gamma_{tt}^\mu\partial_\mu=0\,.$$
On a hypersurface of constant $t$ the radial geodesic distance is given by $ra(t)$. Making this distance into a spatial coordinate, $r_*$, we consider the coordinate transformation $$\label{eq:CoordTrans}
t\mapsto t_*:=t\,,\quad
r\mapsto r_*:=a(t)r\,.$$ The field $\partial/\partial t_*$ is given by $$\label{eq:TstarVF}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t_*}
=\frac{\partial}{\partial t}-Hr\,\frac{\partial}{\partial r}.$$ In contrast to (\[eq:GeodObs\]), whose flow connects co-moving points of constant coordinate $r$, the flow of (\[eq:TstarVF\]) connects points of constant geodesic distances, as measured in the surfaces of constant cosmological time. This could be called *cosmologically instantaneous geodesic distance*. It is now very important to realize that this notion of distance is not the same as the radar distance that one determines by exchanging light signals in the usual (Einsteinian) way. Let us explain this in detail:
From (\[eq:CoordTrans\]) we have $adr=dr_*-r_*Hdt$, where $H:=\dot a/a$ (Hubble parameter). Rewriting the metric (\[eq:CosMetric\]) in terms of $t_*$ and $r_*$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
& ds^2&&\,=\,
c^2(1-(Hr_*/c)^2)\,dt_*^2-dr_*^2+2Hr_*\,dt\,dr_*\nonumber\\
\label{eq:MetricNewCoord}
& &&\,=\,
\underbrace{c^2\Bigl\{1-(Hr_*/c)^2\Bigr\}}_{\textstyle g_{t_*t_*}}
\Bigl\{\underbrace{dt_*+\frac{Hr_*/c^2}{1-(Hr_*/c)^2}\,dr_*}_{\textstyle\theta}\Bigr\}^2
-\underbrace{\frac{dr_*^2}{1-(Hr_*/c)^2}}_{\textstyle h}\,,\end{aligned}$$ Hence the differentials of radar-distance and time-lapse for Einstein-simultaneity are given by
\[eq:DiffStarQuant\] $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\label{eq:DiffRadDist}
& dl_*&&\,=\,\frac{dr_*}{\sqrt{1-(Hr_*/c)^2}}\,,\\
\label{eq:DiffLapseEinstSim}
& dt_*&&\,=\,-\,\frac{Hr_*/c^2}{1-(Hr_*/c)^2}dr_*\,.\end{aligned}$$
Let the distinguished observer (us on earth) now move along the geodesic $r_*=0$. Integration of (\[eq:DiffStarQuant\]) from $r_*=0$ to some value $r_*$ then gives the radar distance $l_*$ as well as the time lapse $\Delta t_*$ as functions of the cosmologically simultaneous geodesic distance $r_*$:
\[eq:IntStarQuant\] $$\begin{aligned}
{3}
\label{eq:IntRadDist}
& l_*&&\,=\,(c/H)\
\sin^{-1}(H\,r_*/c)
&&\,\approx\,r_*\bigl\{1+\tfrac{1}{6}(Hr_*/c)^2 +O(3)\bigr\}\\
\label{eq:IntLapseEinstSim1}
& \Delta t_*&&\,=\,(1/2H)\,
\ln\bigl(1-(H\,r_*/c)^2\bigr)
&&\,\approx\,(r_*/c)\bigl\{-\tfrac{1}{2}(Hr_*/c)+O(2)\bigr\}\end{aligned}$$
Combining both equations in (\[eq:IntStarQuant\]) allows to express the time-lapse in terms of the radar-distance: $$\label{eq:IntLapseEinstSim2}
\Delta t_*=H^{-1}\,\ln\bigl(\cos(H\,l_*/c)\bigr)
\approx(l_*/c)\bigl\{-\tfrac{1}{2}(Hl_*/c)+O(2)\bigr\}\,.$$ Now, suppose a satellite $S$ moves on a worldline $r_*(t_*)$ in the neighbourhood of our worldline $r_*=0$. Assume that we measure the distance to the satellite by radar coordinates. Then instead of the value $r_*$ we would use $l_*$ and instead of the argument $t_*$ we would assign the time $t_*-\Delta t_*$ which corresponds to the value of cosmological time at that event on our worldline that is Einstein synchronous to the event $(t_*,r_*)$; see Figure\[fig:SatOrbit\].
(-113,103)[$A$]{} (-115,138)[$A'$]{} (-50,120)[$B$]{} (-120,210)[us ($r_*=0$)]{} (-0,200)[satellite ($r_*(t_*)$)]{} (-15,135)[$t_*=$ const.]{} (-145,116)[$\Delta t_*$]{}
Hence we have
\[eq:ObserverCurve\] $$\begin{aligned}
{1}
\label{eq:ObserverCurve1}
l_*(t_*)&\,=\,(c/H)\ \sin^{-1}\bigl\{r_*(t_*+\Delta t_*)H/c\bigr\}\\
\label{eq:ObserverCurve2}
&\,\approx\, r_*-\tfrac{1}{2}(v/c)(Hc)(r_*/c)^ 2\,,\end{aligned}$$
where (\[eq:ObserverCurve2\]) is (\[eq:ObserverCurve1\]) to leading order and all quantities are evaluated at $t_*$. We set $v=\dot r_*$.
To see what this entails we Taylor expand in $t_*$ around $t_*=0$ (just a convenient choice): $$\label{eq:TaylorExpOrbit1}
r_*(t_*)=r_0+v_0t_*+\tfrac{1}{2}a_0t_*^ 2 +\cdots$$ and insert in (\[eq:ObserverCurve2\]). This leads to $$\label{eq:TaylorExpOrbit2}
l_*(t_*)=\tilde r_0+\tilde v_0t_*+\tfrac{1}{2}\tilde a_0t_*^ 2 +\cdots\,,$$ where, $$\begin{aligned}
{2}
\label{eq:TaylorExpOrbit3a}
& \tilde r_0&&\,=\,
r_0-(Hc)\ \tfrac{1}{2}(v_0/c)(r_0/c)^2\\
\label{eq:TaylorExpOrbit3b}
& \tilde v_0&&\,=\,
v_0-(Hc)\ (v_0/c)^2(r_0/c)\\
\label{eq:TaylorExpOrbit3c}
& \tilde a_0&&\,=\,
a_0-(Hc)\ \bigl\{(v_0/c)^3+(r_0/c)(v_0/c)(a_0/c)\bigl\}\end{aligned}$$ These are, in quadratic approximation, the sought-after relations between the quantities measured via radar tracking (tilded) and the quantities which arise in the (improved) Newtonian equations of motion (not tilded).
The last equation (\[eq:TaylorExpOrbit3c\]) shows that there is an apparent inward pointing acceleration, given by $Hc$ times the $(v/c)^3+\cdots$ term in curly brackets. The value of $Hc$ is indeed of the same order of magnitude as the anomalous Pioneer acceleration, as emphasized in [@Rosales.Sanchez-Gomez:1998; @Rosales:2002]. However, in contrast to these authors, we do get the additional term in curly brackets, which in case of the Pioneer spacecraft suppresses the $Hc$ term by 13 orders of magnitude! Hence, according to our analysis, and in contrast to what is stated in [@Rosales.Sanchez-Gomez:1998; @Rosales:2002], there is no significant kinematical effect resulting from the distinct simultaneity structures inherent in radar and cosmological coordinates. We should stress, however, that this verdict is strictly limited to our interpretation of what the kinematical effect actually consists in, which is most concisely expressed in (\[eq:ObserverCurve\]).[^7]
Summary and outlook {#sec:Summary}
===================
We think it is fair to say that there are no theoretical hints that point towards a *dynamical* influence of cosmological expansion comparable in size to that of the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecrafts. There seems to be no controversy over this point, though for completeness it should be mentioned that according to a recent suggestion [@Palle:2005] it might become relevant for future missions like LATOR. This suggestion is based on the model of Gautreau [@Gautreau:1984b] which, as already mentioned in Section \[sec:McVittie\], we find hard to relate to the problem discussed here. Rather, as the $(\ddot a/a)$–improved Newtonian analysis in Section \[sec:NewtonianApproach\] together with its justification given in Sections \[sec:McVittie\] and \[sec:DickePeebles\] strongly suggests, there is no genuine relativistic effect coming from cosmological expansion at the levels of precision envisaged here.
On the other hand, as regards *kinematical* effects, the situation is less unanimous. It is very important to unambiguously understand what is meant by ‘mapping out a trajectory’, i.e. how to assign ‘times’ and ‘distances’. Eventually we compare a functional relation between ‘distance’ and ‘time’ with observed data. That relation is obtained by solving some equations of motion and it has to be carefully checked whether the methods by which the tracking data are obtained match the interpretation of the coordinates in which the analytical problem is solved. In our way of speaking dynamical effects really influence the worldline of the object in question, whereas kinematical effects change the way in which one and the same worldline is mapped out from another worldline representing the observer.
The latter problem especially presents itself in a time dependent geometry of spacetime. Mapping out a trajectory then becomes dependent on ones definition of ‘simultaneity’ and ‘simultaneous spatial distance’ which cease to be unique. An intriguing suggestion has been made [@Rosales.Sanchez-Gomez:1998; @Rosales:2002] that the PA is merely a result of such an ambiguity. However, our analysis suggests that no significant relativistic effects result within the Solar System, over and above those already taken into account, as e.g. the Shapiro time delay.
What has been said so far supports the view that there is no interesting impact of cosmological expansion on the specific problem of *satellite navigation* in the Solar System. However, turning now to a more general perspective, the problem of how local inhomogeneities on a larger scale affect, and are affected by, cosmological expansion is of utmost importance. Many scientific predictions concerning cosmological data rely on computations within the framework of the standard homogeneous and isotropic models, without properly estimating the possible effects of local inhomogeneities. Such an estimation would ideally be based on an exact inhomogeneous solution to Einstein’s equations, or at least a fully controlled approximation to such a solution. The dynamical and kinematical impact of local inhomogeneities might essentially influence our interpretation of cosmological observations. As an example we mention recent serious efforts to interpret the same data that are usually taken to prove the existence of a positive cosmological constant $\Lambda$ in a context with realistic inhomogeneities where $\Lambda=0$; see [@Celerier:2000] and [@Mansouri:2005].
To indicate possible directions of research, we stress again that there are several approaches to the problem of how to rigorously combine an idealized local inhomogeneity—a single star in the most simple case—with an homogeneous and isotropic cosmological background. We mentioned that of Einstein & Straus [@Einstein.Straus:1945] and its refinement by Schücking [@Schuecking:1954], that of Gautreau [@Gautreau:1984b], that by Bonnor [@Bonnor:1996; @Bonnor:1999; @Bonnor:2000a; @Bonnor:2000b], and especially the classic work by McVittie [@McVittie:1933] that was later elaborated on by Hogan [@Hogan:1990] and properly interpreted by the penetrating analysis of Nolan [@Nolan:1998; @Nolan:1999a; @Nolan:1999b]. Nolan also showed that only in the case $k=0$ does McVittie’s solution represent a central mass embedded into a cosmological background. The problem is that, due to the non-linearity of Einstein’s equations, the spherical inhomogeneity does not show just as an addition to the background. Hence a notion of quasi-local mass has to be employed in order to theoretically detect local mass abundance. However, as is well known, it is a notoriously difficult problem in General Relativity to define a physically appropriate notion of quasi-local mass. Workable definitions only exist in special circumstances, as for example in case of spherical symmetry, where the concept of Misner-Sharp mass can be employed, as explained in Section \[sec:McVittieInterpretation\].
As a project for future research we therefore suggest to further probe and develop applications of the spatially flat ($k=0$) McVittie solution, taking due account of recent progress in our theoretical understanding of it. As a parallel development, the implications of Gautreau’s model should be developed to an extent that allows their comparison with those of McVittie’s model.
### Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
This work was supported by the European Space Agency (ESA) under the Ariadna scheme of the Advanced Concepts Team, contract 18913/05/NL/MV. We are grateful to the ESA, Andreas Rathke, and Nicholas Lan for support, discussions, and patience. We also thank Claus Lämmerzahl, Hartmann Römer, and Sebastian Schlicht for helpful discussions and pointing out relevant references.
Additional material {#sec:AdditionalMaterial}
===================
In this section we collect some background information which was implicitly used throughout the text.
A simple estimate of the dynamical effect of cosmological expansion
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The radial acceleration due to the Newtonian Sun attraction is given by: $$\ddot{r}\,|_{\rm{\scriptscriptstyle}Sun} = - \frac{G M_\odot}{r^2} \,
\approx \,-\frac{60}{(r/10\,{\rm AU})^2} \,10^{-6}\,{\rm m/s^2}\,.$$ The geodesic distance, $r_*$, between two freely falling bodies in an expanding FRW universe (\[eq:FlatFRW1\]), measured on a hypersurface of constant cosmological time, varies in time according to the Hubble-law $\dot{r}_*=H r_*$. The related ‘acceleration’ is then $\ddot{r}_*=\dot{r}_*H+r_*\dot{H}=r_*(H^2+\dot{H})=r_*\,\ddot{a}/a=-qH^2r_*$. At the present time (see Section \[sec:astro-data\]) we have (suppressing the asterisk): $$\label{eq:expansion-dynamical}
\ddot{r}\,|_{\rm{\scriptscriptstyle}cosm. acc.} = \,\frac{\ddot a}{a}\,r \,\approx\,
4\,(r/10\,{\rm AU})\,10^{-24}\,{\rm m/s^2}\,.$$ This naive derivation of the *dynamical* effect of the cosmological expansion may be confirmed by the fully general relativistic treatment, as showed in Section \[sec:McVittie\]. Notice that, according to our measurements, the universe is presently in a phase of accelerated expansion, hence (\[eq:expansion-dynamical\]) results in an acceleration pointing away from the Sun. This is in the *opposite* direction of the Pioneer–effect (\[eq:anomalous-acceleration\]) and also smaller by 14 orders of magnitude.
The Schücking radius for different astronomical scales {#sec:SchueckingAtScales}
------------------------------------------------------
In the following we evaluate the radius of the Schücking vacuole (\[eq:Schuecking-radius\]) for various characteristic central masses. Using as cosmological matter density $\rho_{\rm m}=\Omega_{\rm m}\rho_{\rm c}$ (see Appendix \[sec:astro-data\]), we get:
- [**Solar System scale:**]{} $r_S(M_\odot) = 570$ ly, which is much larger than the average distance between stars in the Milky Way, being about 10 ly.
- [**Galaxy scale:**]{} $r_S(M_{\rm MW}) = 3\!-\!4$ Mly, which is again too big since this would also include other galaxies such as the Large and the Small Magellanic Cloud, as well as several dwarf galaxies.
- [**Cluster scale:**]{} $r_S(M_{\rm LG}) = 5\!-\!7$ Mly, which is just about the threshold since the nearest object not belonging to this cluster is NGC 55 (a galaxy belonging to the Sculptor Group) about 5 Mly away.
- [**Supercluster scale:**]{} $r_S(M_{\rm VSC}) = 57$ Mly, which is inside the Virgo Supercluster whose radius is about 100 Mly.
This shows that the Einstein-Straus matching works at best from and above cluster scale.
Some astronomical and cosmological data {#sec:astro-data}
---------------------------------------
For the convenience of the readers, we collect some relevant numerical information.
[**Length units**]{}\
1 AU = $149.6 \cdot 10^6$ km = $1.5 \cdot 10^{11}$ m = 492 ls = 8.2 lmin = $1.58 \cdot 10^{-5}$ ly\
1 pc = 3.26 ly
[**Time units**]{}\
1 yr = $3.1 \cdot 10^7$ s\
Age of the Universe $\approx 13.7 \cdot 10^9$ yr = $4.32 \cdot 10^{17}$ s
[**Velocity units**]{}\
1 AU/yr = 4.74 km/s
[**Mass units**]{}\
1 $M_{\odot} = 2 \cdot 10^{30}$ kg (= sometimes referred to as twice the mass of the average star in the Milky Way)
The Universe {#the-universe .unnumbered}
------------
[**Our galaxy: Milky Way (MW)**]{}\
Number of stars in the MW: $2\!-\!4\cdot 10^{11}$\
$M_{\mathrm{MW}}$ = $2\!-\!4\cdot 10^{11} M_{\odot}$\
Diameter: 100 kly\
Average distance between stars in the MW: 10 ly\
Nearest galaxy: Large Magellanic Cloud. Mass: $10^{10} M_{\odot}$, distance: 170 kly, diameter: 30 kly\
[**Our cluster: Local Group (LG)**]{}\
Number of stars in the LG: $7 \cdot 10^{11}$\
$M_{\mathrm{LG}} = 7\!-\!20 \cdot 10^{11} M_{\odot}$\
Diameter: 10 Mly\
Nearest clusters: Sculptor Group (distance: 10 Mly) and Maffei 1 Groups (distance: 10 Mly).\
Nearest galaxy: NGC55 (Sculptor Group), distance: 5 Mly.\
[**Our supercluster: Virgo Supercluster (VSC)**]{}\
Number of stars in the VSC: $2 \cdot 10^{14}$\
$M_{\mathrm{VSC}} = 1 \cdot 10^{15} M_{\odot}$\
Diameter: 200 Mly\
Nearest supercluster: Centaurus (distance: 200 Mly)\
Nearest cluster: A3526 (Centaurus Supercluster), distance: 142 Mly\
Cosmology data {#cosmology-data .unnumbered}
--------------
Hubble parameter (today): $H_0=h_0 \cdot 100$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ = $h_0 /(3.08 \cdot 10^{17}$s),\
where $h_0 = 0.7$
Critical density (today): $\rho_c=3H_0^2/8 \pi G= h_0^2 \cdot 1.89 \cdot 10^{-29}$ g/cm$^3$
Definition of the cosmological parameters: $$\begin{aligned}
&\Omega_m:=\rho_m/\rho_c\,, \\
&\Omega_\Lambda:=\rho_\Lambda/\rho_c=\Lambda/3 H_0^2\,, \\
&\Omega_k:=-kc^2/(H_0 a_0)^2\,.\end{aligned}$$ One has $\Omega_m + \Omega_\Lambda + \Omega_k = 1$ (cosmological triangle), where todays values are given by: $$(\Omega_m, \Omega_\Lambda, \Omega_k) \approx (1/3, 2/3, 0)\,.$$ Thus from $q_0 = (1/2)\Omega_m - \Omega_\Lambda$ it follows that $q_0 \approx -1/2$.\
Pioneer 10 and 11 data {#pioneer-10-and-11-data .unnumbered}
----------------------
The following data are taken from [@Anderson.etal:2002a].
P10 P11
----------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------
Launch 2 Mar 1972 5 Apr 1973
Planetary Jupiter: 4 Dec 1973 Jupiter: 2 Dec 1974
encounters Saturn: 1 Sep 1979
Tracking data 3 Jan 1987 – 22 Jul 1998 5 Jan 1987 – 1 Oct 1990
Distance from the Sun 40 AU – 70 AU 22.4 AU – 31.7 AU
Light round-trip time 11 h – 19 h 6 h – 9 h
Radial velocity 13.1 Km/s – 12.6 Km/s N.A.
: Some orbital data of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecrafts.[]{data-label="pioneer-data"}
[**Tracking system**]{}\
Uplink frequency as received from Pioneer (approx.): $\nu_{u,2}=2.11$ GHz.\
Downlink frequency emitted from Pioneer: $\nu_{d,2}=T\nu_{u,2}=2.292$ GHz.\
Spacecraft transponder turnaround ratio: $T=240/221$.\
[**Measured effect**]{}\
Measured is an almost constant residual (meaning after subtraction of all the known effects) frequency drift of the received tracking signal. The drift is a blue-shift at the constant rate $$\label{eq:anomalous-blue-shift}
\dot{\nu} = (5.99 \pm 0.01)\,10^{-9}\,{\rm Hz/s}$$ which, if interpreted as a special-relativistic Doppler shift, can be rewritten as an acceleration pointing towards the Earth (or Sun) of modulus $$\label{eq:anomalous-acceleration}
a_P = (8.74 \pm 1.33)\,10^{-10}\,{\rm m/s^2} \,.$$
List of references {#list-of-references .unnumbered}
==================
[^1]: However, as stressed in Section\[sec:Summary\], the matching problem certainly is important on larger scales.
[^2]: By construction of the coordinates, the Christoffel symbols $\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}$ vanish along the worldline of the first observer. Since this worldline is geodesic, Fermi-Walker transportation just reduces to parallel transportation. This gives a non-rotating reference frame that can be physically realized by gyros taken along the worldline.
[^3]: Recall that ‘position’ refers to Fermi normal coordinates, i.e. $r$ is the radial geodesic distance to the observer at $r=0$.
[^4]: ‘ub’ stands for ‘upper bound for stable circular orbits’
[^5]: This genuine non-perturbative behaviour was not seen in the perturbation analysis performed in [@Cooperstock.etal:1998].
[^6]: The paper [@Bolen.etal:2001] contains a derivation of the effect of cosmological expansion on the periastron precession and eccentricity change in the case where the Hubble parameter $H:=\dot{a}/a$ is constant.
[^7]: Our equation (\[eq:IntLapseEinstSim2\]) corresponds to equation (10) of [@Rosales.Sanchez-Gomez:1998]. From it the authors of [@Rosales.Sanchez-Gomez:1998] and [@Rosales:2002] immediately jump to the conclusion that there is “an effective residual acceleration directed toward the centre of coordinates; its constant value is $Hc$”. We were unable to understand how this conclusion is reached. Our interpretation of the meaning of (\[eq:ObserverCurve\]) does not support this conclusion.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In computer communications, discrete data are first channel coded and then modulated into continuous signals for transmission and reception. In a hard detection setting, only demodulated data are provided to the decoder. If soft information on received signal quality is provided, its use can improve decoding accuracy. Incorporating it, however, typically comes at the expense of increased algorithmic complexity. Here we introduce a mechanism to use [[binarized]{}]{} soft information in the Guessing Random Additive Noise Decoding framework such that decoding accuracy is increased, but computational complexity is decreased. The principle envisages a code-book-independent quantization of soft information where demodulated symbols are additionally indicated to be reliable or unreliable. We introduce two algorithms that incorporate this information, one of which identifies a Maximum Likelihood (ML) decoding and the other either reports an ML decoding or an error. Both are suitable for use with any block-code, and are capacity-achieving. We determine error exponents and asymptotic complexity. They achieve higher rates with lower error probabilities and less algorithmic complexity than their hard detection counterparts. [[As practical illustrations, we compare performance with majority logic decoding of a Reed-Muller code, with Berlekamp-Massey decoding of a BCH code, and establish performance of Random Linear Codes.]{}]{}'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'SRGRAND.bib'
title: 'Guessing random additive noise decoding with symbol reliability information ([[SRGRAND]{}]{})'
---
Channel coding; Soft detection; Symbol reliability; Maximum likelihood decoding; Capacity; Error exponents; Algorithmic complexity; Reed-Muller codes; BCH codes; Random linear codes.
Introduction
============
Essentially all computer communications involve taking discrete data, channel coding them to add robustness to noise, and then modulating those digital data into continuous signals suitable for transmission and reception. For example, Phase Shift Keying (PSK) is a form of modulation that is used in almost all wireless communications systems. PSK encodes groups of binary data into one of a finite set of phases of a continuous carrier signal for transmission, reception and ultimately demodulation back into discrete data. In Binary PSK each modulated symbol encodes a bit, while in Quadrature PSK (QPSK) each symbol encodes two bits, and in 8PSK each symbol encodes three bits. To avail of better channel conditions in practice, not only is the code-book rate increased, but a modulation with a larger number of bits per modulated symbol is also employed.
Illustrations of QPSK and 8PSK are provided in Fig. \[fig:0\]. In QPSK, each pair of bits to be transmitted is modulated into two phases of a continuous wave, marked by their real and imaginary components, while in 8PSK each triple of bits is mapped to three phases. Between transmission and reception, noise can result in a perturbation such that the receiver observes a distorted version of the input. With transmitted symbols indicated by the red dots, assuming all symbols are equally likely to be transmitted and they are disturbed by independent additive Gaussian channel noise, the probability density of a received signal being observed is indicated by the heat maps in Fig. \[fig:0\] (a). Hard detection demodulation maps each received signal to the nearest potentially-transmitted symbol. For QPSK and 8PSK, hard decoding corresponds to dividing the received space into quadrants and octants, respectively, and mapping any received signal that falls in that region to the symbol contained within it. One metric of confidence that a hard decoded symbol corresponds to the transmitted one is the minimum Likelihood Ratio (LR) that a received signal was observed given the hard detection symbol was transmitted as compared with each other possibly transmitted symbol. The resulting LR surface is depicted in Fig. \[fig:0\] (b), where, by this measure, one is confident in a hard decoded symbol if the received signal is distant from the boundary between hard-decoding regions.
Hard detection decoders infer transmitted code-words based solely on that demodulated output, while soft detection decoders attempt to make further use of the received signal to better inform their decoding. Incorporating soft detection information results in improved accuracy, but typically at the cost of increased computational complexity in the decoding process, as discussed further in Sec. \[sec:related\], Related Work. In the present paper, we identify a means of availing of soft detection information within the recently introduced hard-detection Guessing Random Additive Noise Decoding (GRAND) framework [@Duffy18; @Duffy19] that results in increased accuracy of decoding with, crucially, reduced computational complexity.
Instead of solely reporting the hard detection output, we envisage a further code-book independent quantization of the received signal into a symbol reliability indicator that separates reliably received symbols from unreliable ones. The principle behind the approach is illustrated in Fig. \[fig:0\] (c) where a thresholding of the LR results in a masked region such that if a signal is received within that region, the hard detection demodulated symbol is flagged as being unreliable. The probability density of receiving a signal conditional on being in the masked region is shown in Fig. \[fig:0\] (d). Thus the uncertainty region serves as a mask that labels received symbols whose values are questionable, enabling the decoder to focus on them. This quantized soft detection symbol reliability information is similar in spirit to how soft information is generated for use within Chase decoding [@Cha72; @MH17]. The key distinction, however, is that Chase decoding is code-book centric and uses the resulting symbol reliability information to, in effect, consider alternate code-books, resulting in significant additional algorithmic complexity. As the GRAND approach is is code-book independent and noise-centric, we establish that we can incorporate the symbol reliability information in a way that results in reduced complexity.
{width="49.00000%"} {width="49.00000%"}
Our mathematical abstraction of this symbol reliability model assumes that symbols received from the channel have been accurately indicated to be error free or to have possibly been subjected to independent additive random noise. In practice, this corresponds to a situation where soft information such as instantaneous Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratios (SINR) has been thresholded, as described above, so as to provide false negatives with a sufficient small likelihood that poor masking does not dominate the block error probability. In effect, this symbol reliability information is a codebook-independent quantization of soft information [@WS05]. Here we determine the gain in capacity, reduction in block error rate, and decrease in complexity that can be obtained by leveraging this symbol reliability information within the GRAND approach. The desirable features of GRAND stem from its focus on the noise rather than on the code-book as transmissions that are subject to light noise are quickly decoded, irrespective of the code-book construction or its rate, and these properties are preserved as we incorporate the symbol reliability information. [[We illustrate the gains to be obtained by considering a worked mathematical model, and simulated performance evaluation with Reed-Muller (RM), Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem (BCH) and Random Linear Codes (RLCs)]{}]{}.
Guessing Random Additive Noise Decoding {#sec:GRAND}
=======================================
Consider a hard-detection channel with inputs, $X^n$, and outputs, $Y^n$, consisting of blocks of $n$ symbols from a finite alphabet $\A=\{0,\ldots,|\A|-1\}$. Assume that channel input is altered by random noise, $\Noise^n$, that is independent of the channel input and also takes values in $\A^n$. Assume that the function, $\oplus$, describing the channel’s action, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:channel}
Y^n = X^n \oplus \Noise^n,\end{aligned}$$ is invertible so that knowing the output and input the noise can be recovered: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:channel_invert}
\Noise^n=Y^n \ominus X^n.\end{aligned}$$ In this hard detection setting, for each transmission the receiver is solely provided with the discrete channel output $Y^n$,
[[Regardless of how the code-book is constructed]{}]{}, assuming code-words are selected uniformly at random, to implement Maximum-Likelihood (ML) decoding, the sender and receiver first share a code-book $\cC_n=\{c^{n,1},\ldots,c^{n,M_n}\}$ consisting of $M_n$ elements of $\A^n$. For a given channel output $y^n$, denote the conditional probability of the received sequence given the transmitted code-word was $c^{n,i}$ by $p_{Y^n|C^n}(y^n|c^{n,i})
= P(\Noise^n=y^n\ominus c^{n,i})$ for $i\in\{1,\ldots,M_n\}$. The ML decoding is then an element of the code-book that has the highest conditional likelihood of transmission given what was received: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:straight_MLE}
c^{n,*}\in\arg\max \left\{ p_{Y^n|C^n}(y^n|c^{n,i}): c^{n,i}\in\cC_n\right\}.\end{aligned}$$
For hard detection, the principle underlying the algorithms in [@Duffy18; @Duffy19] is to focus on identifying the noise that was experienced in the channel rather than directly trying to identify the transmitted code-word. The receiver achieves this by first rank-ordering noise sequences from most likely to least likely, breaking ties arbitrarily. In that order, the decoder sequentially queries whether the sequence that remains when the putative noise is removed from the received signal is an element of the code-book. The first instance where the answer is in the affirmative is the decoded element. To see that this algorithm, GRAND, corresponds to ML decoding for channels described in equations and irrespective of how the code-book is constructed, note that owing to the definition of $c^{n,*}$ in equation , $$\begin{aligned}
p_{Y^n|C^n}(y^n|c^{n,*})=
P(\Noise^n=y^n\ominus c^{n,*})\geq P(\Noise^n=y^n\ominus
c^{n,i}) \text{ for all } c^{n,i}\in\cC_n\end{aligned}$$ and so by sequentially subtracting noise sequences from the received sequence in order from the most likely to least likely and querying if it is in the code-book, the first identified element is a ML decoding. GRAND can be thought of as a guessing race where the querying process is halted either with success on identifying the true noise, and hence the transmitted code-word, or with an error on identifying a non-transmitted element of the code-book [@Duffy19]. The second algorithm considered in [@Duffy19], GRANDAB (GRAND with ABandonment), follows the same procedure as GRAND, but abandons noise guessing and declares an error if more than $|\A|^{n(H+\delta)}$ queries have been made, where $H$ is the Shannon entropy rate of the noise and $\delta>0$ is arbitrary. If more than $|\A|^{n(H+\delta)}$ queries are needed to identify a ML decoding, then the noise has been sufficiently unusual that, in query number terms, it is beyond the Shannon typical set. As a result, the block-error rate cost of abandoning is asymptotically negligible and, moreover, the conditional likelihood that a ML decoding is in error increases as the number of queries made before identification of a code-book element increases so that one is abandoning the identification of what would be less certain decodings anyway.
In the hard detection setting, in [@Duffy19] it is proven that GRAND and GRANDAB are capacity-achieving when used with random code-books. Owing to the abandonment, however, GRANDAB has an *a priori* upper-bound on its complexity in terms of the number of queries made before it completes by returning a proposed decoding or declaring an error.
Symbol Reliability Guessing Random Additive Noise Decoding {#sec:SRGRAND}
==========================================================
The contribution of the current article is to identify how to incorporate symbol reliability information into the GRAND approach, and the determination of the gains in performance that come from it. We assume that, as well as being in receipt of a channel output, $Y^n$, the receiver is provided with a vector of symbol reliability information, $S^n$ taking values in $\{0,1\}^n$ where a $0$ truthfully indicates a symbol has not been subject to noise while a $1$ indicates it may have been. This model is similar in spirit to the well-known Gilbert-Elliott model [@Gilbert1960; @Elliott1963], although our results will hold for channel state process $\{S^n\}$ that have more involved correlation structures than Markovian. The core idea is that the vector $S^n$ be used as a mask that separates symbols that require guessing from those that do not. Using symbol reliability information in this way results in increased capacity, reduced block error probability, and decreased complexity.
The adaptation of this noise guessing principle to the [[symbol reliability]{}]{} setting results in a ML decoder, [[SRGRAND]{}]{} that proceeds as follows:
- Given channel output $y^n$ and [[symbol reliability]{}]{} information $s^n$, initialize $i=1$, set the non-noise-impacted symbol locations of guessed noise sequence $z^n$ to $0$ and set the masked potentially noise-impacted locations $z^n$ to be the most likely noise sequence of length $l^n=\sum_i s^n_i$.
- While $x^n=y^n\ominus z^n\notin\cC_n$, increase $i$ by $1$ and change the masked potentially noise-impacted symbols $z^n$ to be the next most likely noise sequence of length $l^n$.
- The $x^n$ that results from this while loop is the decoded element.
Based on the same logic as given for the hard decoding algorithm, this procedure identifies a ML decoding in this setting, but, depending on $s^n$, it will have performed fewer queries and the output element is more likely to be the transmitted one, owing to the targeted nature of the querying. While [[SRGRAND]{}]{} always returns an element of the code-book that is a ML decoding, the version with abandonment, [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{}, either provides a ML decoding or returns an error. Several distinct abandonment thresholds, which can be used in combination, that result in reduced complexity without impacting capacity are possible. We comment on two other possibilities in Section \[sec:discussion\], and prove results for one representative rule:
- With $L^n =\sum S^n$ being the random number of potentially noise-impacted symbols, assuming it exists, let $\lim_n E(L^n/n) = \muL>0$ be the long run average proportion of potentially noise-impacted symbols. [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{} proceeds as [[SRGRAND]{}]{}, but abandons and declares an error without providing an element of the code-book if more than $|\A|^{n(\muL\HN+\delta)}$ queries are made, where $\HN$ is the Shannon entropy of the noise for a potentially noise-impacted symbol, and $\delta>0$ is arbitrary.
This is similar to the GRANDAB abandonment rule, but where enough queries are made to cover the typical set of the average number of potentially noise-impacted symbols.
In the remainder of the paper we establish that [[SRGRAND]{}]{} and [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{} are capacity achieving when used with random code-books and uniform sources. In addition, we provide error exponents for random code-books as a function of code-book rate and determine algorithmic complexity in terms of the number of noise-guessing queries made until an element of the code-book is found. [[In Section \[sec:SR-BSC\]]{}]{} we present a worked example of the schemes for a [[Symbol Reliability]{}]{} Binary Symmetric Channel, which is the simplest circumstance where soft and hard detection channels can be directly compared. [[ In Section \[sec:perf\] we provide an empirical comparison for RM codes with majority logic decoding and BCH codes with Berlekamp-Massey (BM) decoding. We also illustrate a new possibly afforded by having a universal decoder by establishing that RLCs provide comparable block error performance to those structured codes. ]{}]{}
Related work {#sec:related}
============
While quantification of symbol reliability is separate from the decoding process, it serves as an input to it. Availing of symbol reliability information to inform more accurate decoding has been considered since early on in the history of decoding of block codes with, for example, Wagner codes and their multiple-error extensions by Silverman and Balser [@SB53; @BS55], which were later expanded and generalized to different types of soft information [@Cah69; @Wel71], and notably in soft information Chase decoding [@Cha72], which we shall revisit later.
The more general use of soft input decoding, where the soft information is real valued, was studied for block and lattice codes in [@CS86]. An extensive overview of the history and subsequent developments in decoding of block codes with soft information until the end of the 1980s can be found in [@Coo88]. The field has remained an active one, with many developments for block codes [@SB89; @HHC93; @VB94; @Ber96; @LBB98; @GKKG02; @HLY02], including some providing maximum-likelihood decoding [@KNH97]. Incorporation of soft information in decoding convolutional codes has seen a development that broadly parallels those found for algebraic block codes [@YKH84; @HOP96; @GTB98; @HCW02; @ZSTS13].
Further developments to incorporating soft information in decoding stemmed from the work of Guruswami and Sudan [@GS99] on efficient algebraic means of performing list decoding on Reed-Solomon codes. In particular, in the early 2000s, the Kötter-Vardy approach to soft decoding of algebraic codes [@KV03], which relied on the concept of list decoding, provided a new approach and resulted in considerable follow-on work [@VF04; @EM06; @LK08; @XCB17].
The aspects of earlier work that make explicit use of the structure of the code are not relevant to the code-book-independent, noise-centric approach considered here. In [[SRGRAND]{}]{}, each candidate decoded word is merely queried as to whether it is in the codebook. While that verification step may entail algebraic computation, say by checking parity check bits, the code-book remains unchanged and is essentially external to the process of guessing code-book membership.
The germane aspects of the inclusion of soft information in prior work instead relates to its conversion to symbol reliability information. Chase decoding, for instance, first applies a thresholding to categorize bits as reliable or unreliable. Its decoding then entails exhaustively flipping the least reliable bits, or symbols in the case of non-binary codes, leading to test patterns. Each of these test patterns is then applied to the code, and for each of these patterns a hard decision decoder, say an algebraic, distance-based, decoder is applied. In effect each test vector leads to a different realization of the code-book, with a different syndrome or error locator polynomial, from which decoding derives [@ZM17]. In its original form, Chase decoding incurs the complexity of performing hard decoding multiplied by a factor that is exponential in the number of unreliable bits. Improvements to this approach make use of the stochastic nature of errors to enhance performance [@BK06; @LHMG10; @HLHAG12; @CCCC14; @ZCMJ16; @MH17], but with improvement of the order of halving, on average, the number of operations. A thorough overview of Chase decoding for BCH and Reed-Solomon codes, and of the recent developments in incorporating soft information in decoding, is provided in [@MH17].
As is used in Chase decoding, we threshold to segregate bits or symbols into reliable and unreliable, but for each test pattern of unreliable symbols we do not seek to perform decoding, only to verify codebook pertainance after subtraction of the test pattern from the received signal. Moreover, since [[SRGRAND]{}]{} explores the unreliable symbol sequences in order of decreasing likelihood, it stops at the first occasion where a valid codeword is found, giving the ML decoding for the unreliability masking thresholding that was used. We remark that as, [[SRGRAND]{}]{} uses the thresholded soft information in a different manner than in Chase decoding, in general the threshold design will itself differ.
For the mathematical analysis of [[SRGRAND]{}]{} and [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{}, we leverage results for Massey’s guesswork [@Massey94]. For an ever increasing generality of sources from i.i.d. to Markovian and beyond, it has been established that moments of guesswork scale in terms of their Rényi entropy rates [@Arikan96; @Malone04; @Pfister04]. In [@Ari2000] Arikan leveraged those results to determine large deviation bounds for conditional probability rank, with the full Large Deviation Principle (LDP) for guesswork proven in [@Christiansen13]. Here we leverage the LDP for subordinated guesswork [@Christiansen13b], which was established for an entirely different purpose, to analyse a wiretap model. Developing results from that starting point allows us to identify error exponents and determine asymptotic algorithmic complexity of the decoders.
We comment that the Related Work discussion in [@Duffy19] is also relevant to the present article. In particular, the background regarding guesswork [@AM98; @Hanawal11b] and its relation [@Arikan96] to sequential decoding [@Wozencraft57; @WR61; @Elias54], and the complexity of achieving the cut-off rate [@Wozencraft57; @Fano1963; @Jacobs1967; @Falconer69; @Jelinek69; @Hashimoto79; @Arikan88; @Arikan96; @NS94; @Massey81; @Arikan16], as well as the explanation of the distinction between the abandonment criterion of GRANDAB and [[reduced]{}]{} state sequence estimation (RSSE) and cognate approaches that limit the search space [@And89; @Fos77; @AM84; @Sim90; @SS90; @MRDP94; @EQ89; @SS92]. The algorithms in the present article, and their analysis, go further than those in [@Duffy19] by their inclusion of symbol reliability information to yield significant complexity and rate improvements.
Analysis
========
As in [@Duffy19], for the analysis of [[SRGRAND]{}]{} and [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{} we exploit the fact that the algorithm is a race between sequential queries either identifying the noise in the channel, which results in a correct decoding, or accidentally encountering a non-transmitted element of the code-book, which results in an error. The difference here is that the decoder is faster and more precise because it only asks questions of the sub-string that has been potentially impacted by noise. While the mathematical analysis is more involved, the results obtained are, possibly surprisingly, as clean as in the hard detection setting.
To analyze the algorithm, we recall notions of guesswork [@Massey94; @Arikan96]. Given the receiver is told that $n$ symbols have been potentially impacted by noise, it creates a list of noise sequences, $\GN:\A^n\mapsto\{1,\ldots,|\A|^n\}$, ordered from most likely to least likely, with ties broken arbitrarily: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:noise_order}
\GN(z^{n,i})\leq \GN(z^{n,j}) \text{ iff } P(\Noise^n=z^{n,i})\geq P(\Noise^n=z^{n,j}).\end{aligned}$$ For example, if the channel were binary, $\A=\{0,1\}$, and noise was Bernoulli for some $p<0.5$, then the guesswork order is the the string of all zeros, followed by each of the strings with a single one in any order, followed by each of the strings with two ones in any order, and so forth. For independent and identically distributed noise on more general alphabets, it has recently been established that the family of measures that share the same guesswork order are described by a simple exponential family [@Beirami19].
\[ass:N\] When noise occurs, it is independent and identically distributed as $\UNoise$ where $P(\UNoise=i)=p_{N|S}(i|1)=P(N=i|S=1)$ for $i\in\A$.
Under assumption \[ass:N\], if one must guess the entire noise string of length $n$, Arikan [@Arikan96] first established how the non-negative moments of guesswork, $E(G(N^n)^\alpha)$ for $\alpha>0$, scale in $n$ in terms of Rényi entropies. Building on those and subsequent results that treated negative moments, [@Pfister04] for $\alpha>-1$ and [@Christiansen13] for $\alpha\leq-1$, and more general noise sources, it was established that the logarithm of guesswork satisfies a LDP [@Christiansen13]. The LDP provides estimates on the distribution of the number of queries required to correctly identify a noise-string and was used as the basis to analyze one half of the decoding race in the hard detection setting [@Duffy18; @Duffy19].
Under assumption \[ass:N\], if $S^n=1^n$ so that all received symbols are potentially impacted by noise and are distributed as $\UNoise$, the scaled Cumulant Generating Function (sCGF) of $\{n^{-1}\log
G(N^n)\}$ exists: $$\begin{aligned}
\LambdaN(\alpha)
=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log E(G(N^n)^\alpha | S^n=1^n)
=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log E(G(\UNoise^n)^\alpha)
&=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle
\alpha H_{1/(1+\alpha)} & \text{ if } \alpha>-1\\
-\Hmin & \text{ if } \alpha\leq-1,\\
\end{cases}
\label{eq:sCGF}\end{aligned}$$ where $H_\alpha$ is the Rényi entropy of a single noise element, $\UNoise$, with parameter $\alpha$ $$\begin{aligned}
H_\alpha &= \frac{1}{1-\alpha}\log\left(\sum_{i\in\A} p_{N|S}(i|1)^\alpha\right),
\qquad
H_1 = \HN = -\sum_{i\in\A} p_{N|S}(i|1) \log p_{N|S}(i|1),
\qquad \text{and }
\Hmin = -\max_{i\in\A}\log p_{N|S}(i|1)\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, given $S^n=1^n$, the process $\{n^{-1}\log G(N^n)\}$ satisfies a LDP (e.g. [@Dembo98]) with convex rate-function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:rf}
\IN(x) = \sup_{\alpha\in\R}(x\alpha-\LambdaN(\alpha)),\end{aligned}$$ where $\IN(0)=\Hmin$ and $\IN(\HN)=0$.
Setting $\alpha=1$ in equation , as Arikan originally did in his investigation of sequential decoding, establishes that the expected guesswork grows exponentially in $n$ with growth rate $\Hhalf$, the Rényi entropy of the noise with parameter $1/2$, which is greater than the Shannon entropy, $\HN$. That the zero of the rate-function in equation occurs at the Shannon entropy of the noise ensures, however, that the majority of the probability is accumulated by making queries up to and including the Shannon typical set. The apparent discrepancy in these two facts occurs because the guesswork distribution has a long tail that dominates its average. As that tail has little probability, however, it does not impact the [[code-book]{}]{} rates that are achievable with GRAND, and its negative impact on complexity can be ameliorated by abandoning guessing after a set number of queries, as is exploited in the design of GRANDAB.
In the symbol reliability setting, for a transmitted block of length $n$, it is not necessary to guess a noise-string of length $n$. Instead, one must guess a random number of symbols corresponding to those that are potentially noise-impacted. To that end, we have the following assumption on the number of potentially noise-impacted symbols per transmission.
\[ass:L\] With $L^n=\sum_{i=1}^nS^n_i$ being the number of potentially noise-impacted symbols in a block of length $n$, the proportion of them, $\{L^n/n\}$, satisfies a LDP with a strictly convex rate-function $\IL:\R\mapsto[0,\infty]$ such that $\IL(l)=\infty$ if $l\notin[0,1]$ and $\IL(\muL)=0$, where $\lim_n E(L^n/n) =
\muL>0$. Define the sCGF for $\alpha\in\R$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
\LambdaL(\alpha) =
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log E\left(|\A|^{\alpha L^n}\right) =
\sup_{l\in[0,1]}\left(\alpha x - \IL(l)\right),\end{aligned}$$ which exists in the extended reals due to Varadhan’s Lemma (e.g. [@Dembo98]\[Theorem 4.3.1\]).
Roughly speaking, Assumption \[ass:L\], which is true for a broad class of process $\{S^n\}$ including i.i.d., Markov and general mixing, e.g. [@Dembo98], says that the probability that the number of symbols that are potentially noise impacted is $nl$ decays exponentially in $n$ with a rate, $\IL(l)$, that is positive unless $l$ is the mean $\muL$, i.e. $P(L^n\approx nl) \approx |\A|^{-n\IL(l)}$.
With some abuse of notation for Shannon entropy, under Assumptions \[ass:N\] and \[ass:L\], the soft decoding channel’s capacity is upper bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\CSOFT &\leq \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \sup I(X^n;(Y^n,S^n))
\leq 1- \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac1n H\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)
= 1- \limsup_{n\to\infty} \frac{E(L^n)}{n} H(\UNoise)\nonumber\\
&= 1-\muL h(p_{N|S}(\cdot|1)), \label{eq:CSOFT}\end{aligned}$$ where $h\left(p_{N|S}(\cdot|1)\right)=-\sum_{i\in\A}p_{N|S}(i|1)\logA p_{N|S}(i|1)$ is the Shannon entropy of $p_{N|S}(\cdot|1)$, we have upper-bounded the entropy of the input by its maximum, $1$, and we have used the fact that the channel is invertible (i.e. equation ). Through the construction of [[SRGRAND]{}]{} and [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{}, we will show that $\CSOFT$ is attainable.
Under Assumptions \[ass:N\] and \[ass:L\], in a distinct context and for a distinct purpose, it was established in [@Christiansen13b] that with a random number of characters to be guessed one has the following LDP.
\[theorem:LDPN\] Under assumptions \[ass:N\] and \[ass:L\], the joint subordinated guesswork and length process $\{(1/n \log G(\UNoise^{L^n}), L^n/n)\}$ satisfies a LDP with the jointly convex rate-function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:INLjoint}
\INLjoint(g,l) = l\IN\left(\frac{g}{l}\right)+\IL(l),\end{aligned}$$ where $\IN$ is the guesswork rate-function defined in equation and $\IL$ is the length rate-function defined in Assumption \[ass:L\]. Note that $\INLjoint(H,\muL)=0$, where $H$ is Shannon entropy of a noise-impacted symbol and $\muL$ is the average number of potentially noise-impacted symbols.
The subordinated guesswork process $\{1/n \log
G(\UNoise^{L^n})\}$ alone satisfies a LDP with the convex rate function $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:INL}
\INL(g) = \inf_{l\in[0,1]}
\left(l\IN\left(\frac{g}{l}\right)+\IL(l)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\INL(\muL\HN)=\INLjoint(H,\muL)=0$.
The sCGF for $\{1/n \log G(\UNoise^{L^n})\}$, the Legendre-Fenchel transform of $\INL$, is given by the composition of the sCGF for the length with the sCGF for the guesswork of non-subordinated noise $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:LambdaNL}
\LambdaNL(\alpha)
&
=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log E\left(G\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)^\alpha\right)
= \LambdaL(\LambdaN(\alpha))
= \sup_g\left(g\alpha-\INL(g)\right) \text{ for } \alpha\in\R.\end{aligned}$$ In particular, the average number of queries to required to identify subordinated noise is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lambdaNL1}
\LambdaNL(1) = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log E\left(G\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)\right)
= \LambdaL(\Hhalf),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Hhalf$ is the Rényi entropy of the noise with parameter $1/2$.
Roughly speaking, the joint LDP indicates that for large $n$ $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(\left(\frac1n \log G\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right), \frac{L^n}{n}\right)\approx(g,l)\right)
\approx |\A|^{-n \INLjoint(g,l)},\end{aligned}$$ and $\INLjoint(g,l)$ in equation can be interpreted as follows: if the number of potentially noise-impacted symbols is $L^n\approx nl$, which is exponentially unlikely with rate $\IL(l)$, then having the logarithm of the subordinated guesswork be $\log
G\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)\approx ng$ has essentially the same likelihood as $\log G\left(\UNoise^{ln}\right)\approx ng$, which has rate $l\IN(g/l)$ as a total deviation of $g$ must be accrued over a smaller proportion of potentially noise-impacted symbols. The unconditioned LDP follows from the large deviations mantra that rare events occur in the most likely way, so that the rate-function $\INL$ is determined from the proportion of potentially noise-impacted symbols that gives the smallest decay rate for the probability.
Results on the subordinated guesswork process $\{1/n \log
G(\UNoise^{L^n})\}$ governed by the rate-function in equation are sufficient to enable us to prove a Channel Coding Theorem for the symbol reliability channel. Finer-grained results on error exponents that depend on the proportion of symbols that were noise-impacted, however, follow from the LDP for the joint subordinated guesswork and length process $\{(1/n \log G(\UNoise^{L^n}), L^n/n)\}$ governed by the rate-function given in equation .
We note that $\LambdaL$ is a convex function whose derivative at the origin is $\muL$, the mean number of potentially noise-impacted symbols, so that $\LambdaL(\Hhalf)\geq \muL \Hhalf$. Hence, from equation , the average number of queries until the true channel-noise is identified grows exponentially in $n$ at a potentially larger rate than the guesswork required for the average proportion of potentially noise-impacted symbols. Despite that, the zero of the rate-function in equation occurs at $\muL
H$, so that the majority of the likelihood of identifying the true subordinated noise occurs by the Shannon entropy of the typical set of average number of potentially noise-impacted symbols. Thus, while stochastic fluctuations in the number of potentially noise-impacted symbols has relevance to complexity and error exponents, that variability has no impact on capacity. Akin to GRANDAB, without loss of capacity, the negative impact on complexity can be ameliorated by abandoning guessing after a suitable number of queries.
To [[mathematically]{}]{} characterize the number of queries made until a non-transmitted element of the code-book is identified, which is the second part of the guesswork decoding race, we assume that the code-book is [[created uniformly at random, while in Section \[sec:perf\] we provide empirical results for RM, BCH and RLCs]{}]{}. For uniformly distributed code-books, the location of each of these elements in the guessing order of a received transmission is itself uniform in $\{1,\ldots,|\A|^n\}$. As a result, the distribution of the number of guesses until any non-transmitted element of the code-book is hit upon is distributed as the minimum of $M_n$ such uniform random variables. We can, therefore, directly use the following result from [@Duffy18; @Duffy19].
\[theorem:LDPU\] Assume that $M_n=\lfloor |\A|^{nR}\rfloor$ for some $R>0$, and that $U^{n,1},\ldots,U^{n,M_n}$ are independent random variables, each uniformly distributed in $\{1,\ldots,|\A|^n\}$. Defining $U^n =\min_i U^{n,i}$, $\{1/n \log U^{n}\}$ satisfies a LDP with the lower semi-continuous rate-function $$\begin{aligned}
\IU(u) = \begin{cases}
1-R-u & \text{ if } u\in[0,1-R]\\
+\infty & \text{ otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:IU}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log \E(U^n) = 1-R.\end{aligned}$$
{width="60.00000%"}
A graphical representation of the rate-functions that determine the asymptotic likelihoods of outcomes of this guessing race can be found in Fig. \[fig:1\]. When all symbols are subject to noise, as in [@Duffy18; @Duffy19], the channel is within capacity so long as the zero of the rate-function for guessing noise, which occurs at the Shannon entropy rate of the noise $\HN$, is smaller than the zero of the rate-function for identifying a non-transmitted code-word, which occurs at $1-R$, where $R$ is the normalized code-book rate. As in all likelihood the correct decoding is identified after fewer queries than an incorrect element of the code-book would be identified, the algorithm experiences concentration onto correct decodings, which leads to the proof of the classical hard detection Channel Coding Theorem, $R<1-\HN$, in [@Duffy18; @Duffy19]. In the present paper, the zero of the rate function for the subordinated noise-guessing occurs at $\muL\HN$, the average number of potentially noise-impacted symbols times the Shannon entropy of the noise. So long as $\muL\HN$ is smaller than $1-R$, noise-guessing concentrates on identifying correct decodings before erroneous ones, leading to the Symbol Reliability Channel Coding Theorem, proved below, where any $R<1-\muL\HN$ is achievable.
While we determine overall error exponents, the additional information of the proportion of potentially noise-impacted symbols is available to the receiver and so it is reasonable to consider error exponents subject to its knowledge. In particular, define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorRL}
\errorL(R,l) = -\lim_{\delta\downarrow0}\lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac1n \log P\left( \frac{L^n}{n}\in(l-\delta,l+\delta),
U^n\leq\GN\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)\right)\end{aligned}$$ to be the probability exponent that the proportion of potentially noise-impacted symbols is $l$, and that there is an error, as the number of queries required to identify a non-transmitted code-word is smaller than the number of queries required to identify the true noise. We characterize these error exponents in terms of the code-book rate $R$ and the rate-function $\INLjoint$ given in equation .
\[prop:channel\_coding\_theorem\] Assuming the code-book rate is less than the capacity, $R<1-\muL\HN$, under Assumptions \[ass:N\] and \[ass:L\], and those of Proposition \[theorem:LDPU\], with $\IU$ defined in equation , $\INLjoint$ defined in equation , and $\INL$ in equation , we have the following results for [[SRGRAND]{}]{} and [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{}.
The probability that the [[SRGRAND]{}]{} identified ML decoding is not the transmitted code-word decays exponentially in the block length, $n$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:noerror}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log P\left(U^n\leq\GN\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)\right)=
-\inf_{u\in[\muL\HN,1-R]}\{\IU(u)+\INL(u)\}<0.\end{aligned}$$ If, in addition, $\gstar$ exists such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:gstar}
\frac{d}{dg}\IN(g)|_{g=\gstar}=1,\end{aligned}$$ which is analogous to one minus Gallager’s critical rate, then the joint error exponent, defined in equation , subject to a given proportion of potentially noise-impacted symbols satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorL}
\errorL(R,l) &
= \begin{cases}
\IL(l)+1-R-l\Hhalf & \text{ if } R\in(0,1-l\gstar]\\
\displaystyle \IL(l)+l\IN\left(\frac{1-R}{l}\right) & \text{ if } R\in[1-l\gstar,1-l\HN]\\
\IL(l) & \text{ if } R\in(1-l\HN,1].
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Recalling $\Hhalf$ is the R[é]{}nyi entropy of the noise with parameter $1/2$, the unconditioned [[SRGRAND]{}]{} error rate simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:error}
\error(R)=\inf_{l\in[0,1]}\errorL(R,l)
&= -\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log P\left(U^n\leq\GN\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)\right)
= \begin{cases}
1-R-\LambdaL(\Hhalf) & \text{ if } R\in(0,1-\muL\gstar)\\
\INL(1-R) & \text{ if } R\in[1-\muL\gstar,1-\muL\HN)\\
0 & \text{ if } R\in(1-\muL\HN,1].
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
With $\delta>0$, abandoning guessing if $|\A|^{n (\muL\HN +\delta)}$ queries have been made without identifying an element of the code-book, the [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{} error rate is also negative, $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \log P\left(\left\{U^n\leq\GN(\UNoise^{L^n})\right\}
\cup\left\{\GN(\UNoise^{L^n})\geq |\A|^{n(\muL\HN+\delta)}\right\}\right)\nonumber\\
&=-\min\left(\inf_{u\in[\muL\HN,1-R]}\{\IU(u)+\INL(u)\},\INL(\muL\HN+\delta)\right)<0.
\label{eq:errorAB}\end{aligned}$$ If, in addition, $\gstar$ defined in equation exists then the expression simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorAML}
\errorAML(R) = \min\left(\error(R), \INL(\HN+\delta)\right)<0\end{aligned}$$ where $\error(R)$ is the ML decoding error rate in equation .
As $\{U^n\}$ is independent of $\{(G(\UNoise^{L^n}),L^n)\}$, we have that $\left\{\left(n^{-1} \log U^n, n^{-1} \log G(\UNoise^{L^n}), L^n/n\right)\right\}$ satisfies an LDP with rate-function $\IU(u)+\INLjoint(g,l)$. Noting the equivalence of the following two events, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{U^n\leq\GN\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)\right\} =
\left\{\frac1n \log\left(U^n/\GN\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)\right)\leq0\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ by the contraction principle (e.g. [@Dembo98]\[Theorem 4.2.1\]) with the continuous function $f(u,g,l)=(u-g,l)$, the process $$\begin{aligned}
\left\{
\left(\frac1n
\log\left(U^n/\GN\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)\right),
\frac{L^n}{n}\right)\right\}\end{aligned}$$ satisfies a LDP with rate-function $\inf_{u\in[0,1-R]}\left\{\IU(u)+\INLjoint\left(u-x,l\right)\right\}$.
Consider $\errorL(R,l)$ defined in equation , where the limits exist as the rate-functions are convex and so continuous on the interior of where they are finite, $$\begin{aligned}
\errorL(R,l) &= -\lim_{\delta\downarrow0}\lim_{n\to\infty}
\frac1n \log P\left(\frac1n \log\left(U^n/\GN\left(\UNoise^{L^n}\right)\right)\leq0,
\frac{L^n}{n}\in(l-\delta,l+\delta)\right)\\
&= \inf_{x\leq0}\inf_{u\in[0,1-R]}\left\{\IU(u)+\INLjoint\left(u-x,l\right)\right\}
= \inf_{u\in[0,1-R]}\left\{\IU(u)+\inf_{g\geq u} l\IN\left(\frac{g}{l}\right)\right\}+\IL(l).\end{aligned}$$ This final expression essentially encapsulates that the error exponent is the exponent for the likelihood that the proportion of potentially noise-impacted symbols is $l$, plus the smallest exponent (corresponding to the most likely event) for the minimum of the scaled uniforms being at $u$, while the scaled sub-ordinated guesswork occurs at any value $g$ at least as large as $u$.
For $u\in[0,1-R]$, $\IU(u)=1-R-u$ is linearly decreasing, while $l\IN(g/l)$ is convex in $g$ with minimum, zero, at $g=l\HN$. Thus if $R\geq 1-l\HN$, setting $u=1-R$ and $g=l\HN$, $\errorL(R,l) =
\IL(l)$. If, alternatively, $R<1-l\HN$, then as both $\IU(u)$ and $l\IN(g/l)$, as a function of $g$, are strictly decreasing on $[0,l\HN]$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{u\in[0,1-R]}\left\{\IU(u)+\inf_{g\geq u} l\IN\left(\frac{g}{l}\right)\right\}
= \inf_{u\in[l\HN,1-R]}\left\{1-R-u+l\IN\left(\frac{u}{l}\right)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ which is strictly positive as $\IU$ is strictly decreasing to $0$ on $[l\HN,1-R]$ while $l\IN(u/l)$ is strictly increasing in $u$ on the same range. Assuming $\gstar$ defined in equation , exists, as $\IU$ is decreasing at rate $1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d}{dg}l\IN\left(\frac{g}{l}\right)|_{g=l\gstar}=1,\end{aligned}$$ then if $l\gstar\leq1-R$, i.e. if $R\leq 1-l\gstar$, $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{u\in[l\HN,1-R]}\left\{1-R-u+l\IN\left(\frac{u}{l}\right)\right\}
= 1-R-l\gstar+l\IN\left(\frac{l\gstar}{l}\right)
= 1-R-l\gstar+l\IN\left(\gstar\right)
= 1-R-l\Hhalf,\end{aligned}$$ as $\IN(\gstar)=\gstar-\Hhalf$. If, instead, $l\gstar\geq1-R$, then the infimum occurs at $u=1-R$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\inf_{u\in[l\HN,1-R]}\left\{1-R-u+l\IN\left(\frac{u}{l}\right)\right\}
=
l\IN\left(\frac{1-R}{l}\right) \text{ if } R\in[1-l\gstar,1-l\HN].\end{aligned}$$ Thus the expression in follows.
The unconditional error exponent, $\error(R)$ in equation , is obtained from that in by the contraction principle, projecting out $L^n/n$, giving $\error(R)=\inf_{l\in[0,1]}\errorL(R,l)$. If $R\geq 1-\muL\HN$, then $\error(R)=\errorL(R,\mu^L)=0$. If $R\in[1-l\gstar,1-l\HN]$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\error(R) = \inf_l\left\{\IL(l)+l\IN\left(\frac{1-R}{l}\right)\right\} = \INL(1-R).\end{aligned}$$ Finally, if $R\in(0,1-l]$, then $$\begin{aligned}
\error(R) = \inf_l \left\{\IL(l)+1-R-l\Hhalf\right\}
= (1-R)-\inf_l\left\{l\Hhalf-\IL(l)\right\} =
1-R-\LambdaL(\Hhalf),\end{aligned}$$ inverting the Legendre-Fenchel transform in the last step.
To determine the error exponent of [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{}, by the Principle of the Largest Term [@Dembo98 Lemma 1.2.15] it suffices to consider only the smallest of the two exponential rates in equation . The first term is the error rate for GRAND. second term is the exponent of the probability of error due to abandonment of guessing. For it, note that $$\begin{aligned}
P\left(\GN(\UNoise^{L^n})\geq |\A|^{n(\muL\HN+\delta)}\right)
=P\left(\frac1n\log \GN(\UNoise^{L^n})\geq \muL\HN+\delta\right)\end{aligned}$$ and the result follows from the LDP as $\INL(x)$ is convex and increasing for $x>\muL\HN$.
The error exponent for the ML decoding with symbol reliability information via [[SRGRAND]{}]{}, $\errorL(R,l)$ in , has the following interpretation: the exponent for the likelihood that the proportion of potentially noise-impacted symbols, $L^n/n$, is approximately $l$, is $\IL(l)$. With this occurring, the error-exponent is the same as in a channel where only a proportion $l$ of the transmitted symbols are subject to noise, e.g. [@Duffy19]. The unconditional equivalent, $\error(R)$ in equation identifies the most likely proportion of noise-impacted symbols that are likely to give rise to an error for a given code-book rate. For [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{}, an error occurs either if the identified ML decoding is in error or if abandonment occurs. Whichever of these two events is more likely, dominates in the limit.
Combining Propositions \[theorem:LDPN\] and \[theorem:LDPU\] in a distinct way enables us to determine the asymptotic complexity of the [[SRGRAND]{}]{} and [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{} in terms of the number of queries until an decoding, correct or incorrect, is identified: $$\begin{aligned}
\GML^n := \min\left(\GN\left(\Noise^{L^n}\right),U^n\right). \label{eq:GML}\end{aligned}$$ That is, the algorithm terminates at either identification of the noise that was in the channel or when a non-transmitted element of the code-book is unintentionally identified, whichever occurs first. On the scale of large deviations, if the code-book is within capacity, $R<1-\muL\HN$, then it will become apparent that the sole impact of the code-book is to curtail excessive guessing when unusual noise occurs. The number of guesses [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{} makes until terminating is $$\begin{aligned}
\GAML^n := \min\left(\GN\left(\Noise^{L^n}\right),U^n,|\A|^{n(\muL\HN+\delta)}\right), \label{eq:GAML}\end{aligned}$$ The final term corresponds to the abandonment threshold that curtails guessing shortly after querying the Shannon typical set for an average number of potentially noise impacted symbols.
\[prop:IMLE\] If $R<1-\muL\HN$, under Assumptions \[ass:N\] and \[ass:L\], and those of Proposition \[theorem:LDPU\], the rescaled complexity of [[SRGRAND]{}]{}, $\{1/n \log \GML^n\}$, satisfies the LDP with a convex convex rate-function $$\begin{aligned}
\IMLE(d) =
\begin{cases}
\INL(d) & \text{ if } d\in[0,1-R]\\
+\infty & \text{ if } d>1-R
\end{cases}
\label{eq:IMLE}\end{aligned}$$ and the expected number of guesses until a ML decoding is found by [[SRGRAND]{}]{} satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac 1n \logA E(\GML^n) = \min\left(\LambdaL(\Hhalf),1-R\right).\end{aligned}$$
With $\delta>0$, the complexity of [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{}, $\{1/n \log \GAML^n\}$, satisfies a LDP with a convex rate function $$\begin{aligned}
\IMLEAB(d) =
\begin{cases}
\INL(d) & \text{ if } d\in[0,\min(1-R, \muL\HN)]\\
+\infty & \text{ if } d>\min(1-R, \muL\HN)
\end{cases}
\label{eq:IMLEAB}\end{aligned}$$ and the expected number of guesses until [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{} terminates, $\{\GAML^n\}$, satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac1n \logA E(\GAML^n) = \min\left(\LambdaL(\Hhalf),1-R,\mu\HN+\delta\right).\end{aligned}$$
Consider the process $\{n^{-1}\log \GML^n\}$, following [@Duffy19]\[Proposition 2\], as $f(g,u)=\min(g,u)$ is a continuous function, by the contraction principle it satisfies a LDP with rate-function $\IMLE(d) = \inf\{\INL(g)+\IU(u):\min(g,u)=d\}$. If $d>1-R$, $\IMLE(d)=\infty$ as $\IU(d)=\infty$ for $d>1-R$. Alternatively, if $d\leq 1-R$, $$\begin{aligned}
\IMLE(d) = \min\left(\INL(d)+\inf_{x\geq d}\IU(x), \inf_{x\geq d}\INL(x)+\IU(d)\right)
= \min\left(\INL(d), \inf_{x\geq d}\INL(x)+\IU(d)\right)\end{aligned}$$ as $\IU(x)$ is decreasing for $x\in[0,1-R]$. If $R<1-\muL\HN$, then we make the following geometric considerations $$\begin{aligned}
\INL(0)
=\inf_{l}\left\{\IL(l)+l\IN(0)\right\}
= \inf_l\left\{\IL(l)+l\Hmin\right\}
\leq\muL \Hmin,\end{aligned}$$ where in the last inequality we have set $l=\muL$. As min-entropy is less than Shannon entropy $\muL\Hmin\leq \muL\HN<1-R$ and as $\INL$ is convex, $\INL(d)\leq \IU(d)$ for all $d\in[0,\HN]$ while $\INL(d)$ is increasing on $[\HN,1-R]$ and so $\IMLE(d)=\INL(d)$ for $d\in[0,1-R]$.
To obtain the scaling result for $E(\GML^n)$ we invert the transformation from the rate function $\IMLE$ to its Legendre-Fenchel transform, the sCGF of the process $\{n^{-1}\log \GML^n\}$ via Varadhan’s Theorem [@Dembo98]\[Theorem 4.3.1\]. In particular, note that, regardless of whether $\IMLE$ is convex or not, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac 1n \log E(\GML^n) &=
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac 1n \log E\left(|\A|^{\log\GML^n}\right)
= \sup_{d\in\R} \{d-\IMLE(d)\} = \min\left(\LambdaL(\Hhalf),1-R\right).\end{aligned}$$
For the complexity of [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{}, the final component of the minimum satisfies an LDP with a rate function $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{ if } d=\mu+\delta\\
+\infty & \text{ if } d\neq\mu+\delta\\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ and, again, as minimum is continuous by the contraction principle the LDP with a rate-function given in equation and the scaling of $E(\GAML^n)$ follows from similar considerations.
Theorem \[prop:IMLE\] effectively says that in [[SRGRAND]{}]{} the algorithm terminates with the likelihood of identifying the true noise in the channel, and so a correct decoding, so long as the number of queries made before identifying an element of the code-book is less than $|\A|^{n(1-R-\epsilon)}$ for some $\epsilon>0$. If more queries are made than that, the ML decoding will be erroneous. The average number of queries [[SRGRAND]{}]{} makes scales as the average number of queries to identify the true noise or the number of queries until an erroneous identification, whichever is smaller. In this realization of [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{}, querying is abandoned for noise sequences beyond the typical set of the average number of potentially noise impacted symbols, curtailing complexity, but at no capacity cost.
[[Theoretical Example: Symbol Reliability]{}]{} Binary Symmetric Channel {#sec:SR-BSC}
========================================================================
We consider a setting in which it is possible to directly compare channels with and without knowledge of the symbol reliability information vector $S^n$, the Symbol Reliability Binary Symmetric Channel (SR-BSC). We compare differences in capacity and complexity, which is a feature of the noise-guessing approach, as well as error exponents, which is a property of ML decoding no matter whether it is identified by the noise-guessing methodology or by brute force.
For the SR-BSC, we assume that each transmitted symbol is impacted independently by noise with probability $p_S(1)=q\in[0,1]$. Code-book and noise symbols take values in a binary alphabet $\A=\{0,1\}$, $\oplus$ is addition in $\F2$, and thus $0$ represents the no-noise character. Given a symbol has been potentially noise-impacted, we have that the conditional probability that the corresponding bit has been flipped is $p_{N|S}(1|1)=p\in[0,1]$, $p_{N|S}(0|1)=1-p$ and $p_{N|S}(0|0)=1$. From equation , the symbol reliability channel’s capacity is $$\begin{aligned}
\CSOFT(q,p) = 1-q \h2(p),\end{aligned}$$ where $\h2(p) = -(1-p)\logT(1-p)-p\logT(p)$ is the binary Shannon entropy, The corresponding hard detection channel where $S^n$ is not observed is a Binary Symmetric Channel with probability $P(N=1)=P(N=1|S=1)P(S=1)=pq$ and so the hard decoding channel capacity is $$\begin{aligned}
\CHARD(q,p) = 1- \h2(qp). \end{aligned}$$ As $\h2$ is concave, $\CSOFT(q,p)\geq \CHARD(q,p)$ for all $q$ and $p$, and so the capacity of the channel with [[symbol reliability]{}]{} information is necessarily higher. Depending on the parameterization, the [[symbol reliability channel’s]{}]{} capacity can be several orders of magnitude larger than the hard detection capacity.
As the symbol reliability information is constructed of i.i.d. elements, the rate function governing the LDP for the proportion of noise impacted symbols, $\{L^n/n\}$ in Assumption \[ass:L\], is the Kullback-Leibler divergence, $$\begin{aligned}
\IL(l) =
-(1-l) \logT\left(\frac{1-l}{1-q}\right)
-l \logT\left(\frac{l}{q}\right),\end{aligned}$$ which has the corresponding sCGF $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BernLambdaL}
\LambdaL(\alpha) = \logT\left(1-q+q 2^{\alpha}\right).\end{aligned}$$ The rate function for LDP of the rescaled guesswork $\{1/n\logT
G(N_1^n)\}$ in equation is the Legendre-Fenchel transform, $\IN(g) = \sup_\alpha\left(\alpha g - \LambdaN(\alpha)\right)$, of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:BernLambdaN}
\LambdaN(\alpha) =
\begin{cases}
-\logT\max(p,1-p) & \text{ if } \alpha\leq -1 \\
-p\logT(p)-(1-p)\logT(1-p) & \text{ if } \alpha=1\\
(1+\alpha)\logT\left(p^{1/(1+\alpha)}+(1-p)^{1/(1+\alpha)}\right) & \text{ if } \alpha \in(-1,1)\cup(1,\infty).\\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ From equation , the sCGF for the subordinated guesswork of true noise is $\LambdaNL(\alpha) = \LambdaL(\LambdaN(\alpha))$, where $\LambdaL$ and $\LambdaN$ are given by equations and respectively. The exponent of the average complexity required to identify the true noise in the [[symbol reliability]{}]{} channel is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \logT E\left(G\left(N_1^{L^n}\right)\right)
= \LambdaNL(1)
= \LambdaL(\LambdaN(1))
= \logT\left( 1-q + q 2^{2 \logT(p^{1/2} +(1-p)^{1/2})}\right),\end{aligned}$$ while for the hard detection channel it is $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac 1n \logT E(G(N^n)) = 2 \logT\left((qp)^{1/2} +(1-qp)^{1/2}\right).\end{aligned}$$
{width="95.00000%"}
Armed with the sCGFs for the proportion of potentially noise impacted bits and for the rescaled logarithm of the guesswork of potentially noise impacted bits, the asymptotic error exponent given in is readily computable numerically. Recall that, as a function of the code-book rate $R$, this is the exponent in the decay rate in the likelihood than an ML decoding is in error as the block length increases.
{width="95.00000%"}
While prefactors are not captured in that asymptotic analysis in Theorems \[prop:channel\_coding\_theorem\] and \[prop:IMLE\], they allow the following approximations. For error probabilities we employ $$\begin{aligned}
\text{ML prob. of error} & \approx 2^{-n\error(R)}
\text{ for } R <1-q\h2(p),\\\end{aligned}$$ which holds true regardless of whether it is identified by [[SRGRAND]{}]{} or brute force, where the expression for $\error(R)$ can be found in equation . For [[SRGRAND]{}]{} decoding, our measure of complexity is the average number of guesses per bit per decoding: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{ML ave. no. guesses / bit} &\approx \frac{2^{n\min(1-R,\LambdaL(\Hhalf))}}{n}\\\end{aligned}$$ For comparison, we define the complexity of the computation of the ML decoding in equation [[ by the method described in [@BCJR74] ]{}]{} to be the number of conditional probabilities that must be computed per bit before rank ordering and determining the most likely code-book element: $$\begin{aligned}
\text{No. conditional prob. computations / bit} &= \frac{2^{n\min(R,1-R)}}{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we are equating the work performed in one noise guess, which amounts to checking if a string is an element of the code-book, with the computation of one conditional probability.
For two values of block size, $n=100$ and $n=1000$, and $(q,p)$ pairs such that $pq$ is constant and so comparable with the hard detection channel, Fig. \[fig:5\] plots the approximate error probabilities and complexity as a function of code-book rate. The upper panels show the error probabilities with a target block error rate indicated by the dashed horizontal line. The provision of symbol reliability information greatly improves the block error probability, even though in this comparison the conditional probability of a bit flip given [[symbol reliability]{}]{} information increases as the [[symbol reliability]{}]{} probability decreases.
The lower two panels show the approximate complexity. The dashed line gives the approximate complexity for the approach described in [@BCJR74] of computing a conditional probability for every element of the code-book, which grows exponentially in the code-book rate. By contrast, the complexity of the [[SRGRAND]{}]{} approach is initially flat, corresponding to the average number of guesses until the true noise is identified. As the code-book rate increases, eventually the [[SRGRAND]{}]{} complexity drops as encountering an erroneous element of the code-book clips the long guessing tail of true noise. The diamonds indicate the rate above which the target block error rate would be violated. The provision of [[symbol reliability]{}]{} information can be seen to dramatically improve the algorithm’s complexity.
[[Empirical Performance Evaluation]{}]{} {#sec:perf}
========================================
{width="90.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
[[ A distinctive aspect of the GRAND approach is that it can be used with any block code construction. While the theoretical results provided in Section \[sec:SR-BSC\] are for uniform-at-random code-books, in practice nearly all code-books are constructed as linear in a finite field with $k$ input bits and $n$ coded bits. Associated with those codes is a check matrix $H^{n\times n-k}\in\{0,1\}^{n\times n-k}$ and to test if a string, $y^n$, is a member of the code-book a single matrix multiplication and comparison, $H^{n\times n-k}(y^n)^T\MYEQ(0^{n-k})^T$, suffice, in the appropriate field. Here we compare the decoding performance of GRANDAB, SRGRANDAB for three types of linear code in an SR-BSC channel.]{}]{}
[[When the unconditional bit flip probability is $\epsilon$, we set the probability that a bit is marked as unreliable to be $q=\sqrt{\epsilon}$ and the bit flip probability conditioned on unreliability to be $p=\sqrt{\epsilon}$. For hard detection GRANDAB, putative noise strings are queried in order of Hamming weight. Within each set of strings with the same Hamming weight, the ordering is arbitrary and we query patterns in the order illustrated in Fig. \[fig:6\], upper panel. For SRGRANDAB, we assume that the channel state is known and use the same search pattern, but confined to querying only bits for which the channel state was marked as unreliable for any given communication. For GRANDAB, we set the abandonment threshold to check for up to four bit flips. For SRGRANDAB, we allow the same number of code-book queries as GRANDAB before abandoning and reporting a decoding error.]{}]{}
[[ RM codes, which only exist for some $[n,k]$ pairs, are broadly used in wireless communications and have a well-established hard detection decoder, majority logic decoding [@shu2004]. Fig. \[fig:6\] reports Block Error Rates (BLER) as a function of the bit flip probability $\epsilon$ for a rate $0.77$, $[128,99]$, RM code. As majority logic decoding is tailored to a BSC and is known to be accurate in that setting, its performance is only slightly degraded from the ML BLER that GRANDAB provides. The provision of reliability information to SRGRANDAB gives it a distinctive advantage, resulting in significantly enhanced BLER. The right panel reports the average number of code-book queries per received bit that GRANDAB and SRGRANDAB make. As each query solely requires a matrix multiplication by a sparse vector, for typical operating regimes targeting a BLER of $10^{-2}$ or lower, the complexity requirements of GRANDAB and SRGRANDAB are modest. ]{}]{}
[[ Since the 1960s, RLCs have been known to be capacity-achieving if twinned with ML decoding [@Gal68] with the same error exponents as those for uniform-at-random code-books [@DZF16]. Those results hinge on a proof that at high rates the average random linear code construction is a good one. The lack of an efficient decoder that can accurately decode any linear, high-rate code-book has meant, however, that this avenue is little explored. Here we consider the application of GRANDAB and SRGRANDAB for decoding RLCs. ]{}]{}
[[ For any $[n,k]$ pair we can construct systematic binary RLCs by making a random generator matrix $\left[I^{k\times k} | \LC^{k\times
n-k}\right]$, where $I^{k\times k}$ is the identity matrix and the entries of the random check matrix $\LC^{k\times n-k}$ are independent Bernoulli 1/2 random variables. To check if $y^n$ is a member of the code-book, one can test if $y^k \LC^{k\times n-k}\MYEQ
(y_{k+1},\ldots,y_n)$, obviating the need for the receiver to determine the associated check matrix. Consistently with theoretical results, in the empirical evaluation codes are re-randomized after each use. In practice, that could be achieved by the sender and receiver sharing a seed for the random number generator from which the check matrix is derived. ]{}]{}
[[ Fig. \[fig:6\] also reports the BLER and complexity performance of GRANDAB and SRGRANDAB for \[128,99\] RLCs, so that the results are directly comparable to those for RM codes. With hard detection ML decoding by GRANDAB, it can be seen that RLCs slightly outperform RM codes, leading to better BLER and comparable decoding complexity. This result is potentially surprising as the re-randomisation in the RLC would lead one to suspect that some codes are poor performers, but is consistent with theory that says that randomly selected linear codes are typically good. The provision of symbol reliability information changes matters and SRGRANDAB gets equally good performance from both RM and RLCs. The use of RLCs, which necessitates the existence of a universal decoder, holds appeal as changing code-books may provide enhanced security, and these results suggest there is nothing to be lost in terms of error performance in using them.]{}]{}
{width="45.00000%"} {width="45.00000%"}
[[ While RM codes only exist for $n$ being a power of $2$, BCH codes only exist for $n$ being a power of $2$ less one. BCH codes, which were developed later than RM codes, are also broadly used and have their own well-established specific hard detection decoder, BM decoding [@shu2004]. For a rate $0.83$, BCH$[127,106]$ Fig. \[fig:7\] reports BLER as a function of $\epsilon$, as well as RLCs of the same rate. The results mirror those found for RM codes, where the dedicated hard detection decoder provides similar performance to the universal GRANDAB and the provision of symbol reliability information leads SRGRANDAB to significantly outperform both. As with RM codes, RLCs, which can only be efficiently decoded with the GRAND approach, lead to similar block error rates as the BCH code with essentially identical complexity for both. The latter is not surprising as the complexity of GRANDAB and SRGRANDAB is largely dominated by properties of the noise rather than those of the code-book. ]{}]{}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have introduced [[SRGRAND]{}]{} and [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{}, by identifying how to expand the remit of two noise-centric capacity achieving decoding algorithms, GRAND and GRANDAB, to a situation where symbol reliability information is available. By using the symbol reliability information to mask symbols that are reliable and guessing noise only on unreliable symbols, these algorithms can realize higher rates, with lower error probabilities, and less complexity.
All of the GRAND algorithms are suitable for use with any code-book so long as an efficient method exists to test a string’s of symbols membership of the code-book. For linear codes, testing code-book membership requires only a matrix multiplication over a finite field. For Polar Codes [@Arikan09], which are linear, even more efficient mechanisms are available. A random code-book, as employed in our formal proofs of capacity and complexity, can be stored in an $\A$-ary tree, so that testing code-book membership amounts to a tree search, which can be performed efficiently. Thus all these schemes are universally applicable in the sense that their execution only depends on the structure of the noise rather than how the code-book was constructed. Moreover, guesswork orders are known to be robust to mismatch [@Sundaresan07], and so decoding precision should not be sensitive to precision in the channel noise model.
[[ We empirically assessed the performance of these algorithms when compared with the well established majority logic decoding of RM codes and BM decoding of a BCH code. These code-book specific decoders provides similar block error performance to an ML GRANDAB decoder in a BSC, but the provision of symbol reliability information to SRGRANDAB results in substantially better performance. ]{}]{}
[[ As the algorithms are universal, they enable us to empirically consider decoding RLCs, which is little explored outside of theory. Re-randomizing at each communication resulted in BLER performance comparable with the highly structured RM and BCH codes of the same rate. This opens the possibility of using SRGRANDAB for the provision of security, based on a principle to have the sender and receiver to use a distinct linear block-code drawn using a cryptographically secure random number generator for each transmission. As the quality of individual code-books in any sequence will fluctuate, a natural concern in the use of RLCs would be that block error performance would be diminished, but our simulation results instead suggest that RLCs are typically good and overall performance is instead enhanced. ]{}]{}
While we presented results for one [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{} abandonment rule that reduces average algorithmic complexity without sacrificing channel capacity, others are possible and, indeed, can be used in combination. Here we mention two more. The first is a natural extension to the rule of abandoning guessing when coverage of the typical set for the average number of potentially noise impacted symbols. In the [[symbol reliability]{}]{} model, the specific number of potentially noise-impacted symbols, $L^n$, for each received transmission, $Y^n$, is known to the algorithm and querying is abandoned after $|\A|^{L^n(\HN+\delta)}$ guesses, which is enough to cover the typical set for that length. Analysis of the impact of this rule on error exponents and complexity follows the same line of argument as presented in the paper, though the resulting expressions are less elegant. A distinct alternative is to not guess at all if too many symbols are reported to be potentially noise impacted; i.e. if $L^n>n(\muL+\delta)$. It is straight forward to show this rule does not impact capacity, but an analysis of complexity, which would now be conditional on $L^n\leq
n(\muL+\delta)$, would not follow readily from the large deviation arguments presented here. The analysis in this paper for codes of fixed length could, however, be readily extended to decoding with [[symbol reliability]{}]{} information for variable length codes [@WV02; @Wei03] and rateless codes.
While we consider soft information at the level of symbol reliability, all of the GRAND algorithms can themselves provide, in addition to a decoding, soft information through the number of noise queries that were performed before a code-book element was identified. A lower number of guesses corresponds to a higher likelihood of correct decoding. Such soft information can be of use, for example, for component codes in a concatenated code or Turbo code [@HH89; @BAAF93; @FBLH98; @WH00]. Thus one may envisage using the information on decoding reliability of [[SRGRAND]{}]{} and [[SRGRANDAB]{}]{} in a manner akin to the reliability information provided by the Soft-Output Viterbi Algorithm [@HH89; @BAAF93; @PRV96; @FBLH98; @GS00], by the operation of Turbo decoding [@WH00; @CFR00; @HP94; @KImetal10; @WP99; @SSS04], by the syndrome information used in Ordered Statistics Decoding (OSD) [@FL95; @KI02; @MVFT03], or other soft-input, soft-output schemes [@MG11; @FKU16; @Wei03; @SB10]. In general, we can envisage in future work systems that meld equalization and decoding as in [@Ung74; @BLR93] or soft information originating from other decoding processes, [@For65; @BM97; @BDMP97; @SM01; @BKMP10].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper considers recommendation algorithm ensembles in a user-sensitive manner. Recently researchers have proposed various effective recommendation algorithms, which utilized different aspects of the data and different techniques. However, the “user skewed prediction” problem may exist for almost all recommendation algorithms – algorithms with best average predictive accuracy may cover up that the algorithms may perform poorly for some part of users, which will lead to biased services in real scenarios. In this paper, we propose a user-sensitive ensemble method named “UREC” to address this issue. We first cluster users based on the recommendation predictions, then we use multi-task learning to learn the user-sensitive ensemble function for the users. In addition, to alleviate the negative effects of new user problem to clustering users, we propose an approximate approach based on a spectral relaxation. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of our methods.'
author:
- |
Menghan Wang$^1$, Xiaolin Zheng$^1$, Kun Zhang$^2$,\
$^1$ Zhejiang University\
$^2$ Carnegie Mellon University\
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'ijcai18.bib'
title: 'User-Sensitive Recommendation Ensemble with Clustered Multi-Task Learning'
---
Introduction
============
In recent years recommender systems have become increasingly popular, and various effective recommendation algorithms have been proposed. Currently one trend of recommendation research is to incorporate collaborative filtering with side information (e.g, social information [@wang2017collaborative] and item reviews [@mcauley2013hidden]) and other promising techniques (e.g., deep learning [@karatzoglou2017deep] and transfer learning [@weiss2016survey]).
However, few studies have focused on the “skewed prediction” problem, where the model with the best average predictive accuracy will leave meaningful subsets of users/items modeled significantly worse than other subsets [@beutel2017beyond]. The “skewed prediction” problem may become a common drawback of the existing recommendation algorithms as they use average based metrics for evaluation. The globally optimal model is typically not the best model for all the users. We focus on the user skewness and show an illustrative experimental result on the public dataset *MovieLens-100K* in Figure 1. Traditionally we compare the average MSE of two algorithms, and from the left table we can easily tell the MF model is better. But if we analyze the MSE on user level, we can see that only 53.2% of users suit MF more than KNN. Directly deploying MF for real use will provide biased services to users. Besides the performance measurement, one important reason is user heterogeneity. Specifically, there are many types of users and an algorithm with predefined structure and techniques probably can not capture the preference of all types of users well, which accounts for the user skewed predictions. This problem may also exist among recent advanced recommendation algorithms. For example, social recommendation utilizes user’s social information to capture user preference, and it will underperform for the users who have few social friends. Tag-based recommendation also has similar problems as not all the users like to annotate tags.
![A comparison of mean square error (MSE) on two classical recommendation algorithms K-nearest neighbors (KNN) and Matrix Factorization (MF) on the *MovieLens-100K* dataset. []{data-label="example"}](example.pdf){width="8.0cm"}
This paper considers recommendation ensembles to address this problem. Different algorithms may suit different types of users and a natural way to improve the recommendation performance is to combine them properly. Traditional ensemble methods (e.g., bagging, boosting, and stacking) often learn a weight for each base algorithm and apply it to all users, which, however, do not consider the user heterogeneity phenomenon and thus are not the optimal choice in the recommendation field. We assume that homogeneous users should share similar ensemble strategies as algorithms are expected to perform stably on homogeneous users. Then a natural idea is to divide users into several homogeneous groups by analyzing base algorithms and learn ensemble weights within each group. The intuition is clear and sensible: if recommendation algorithms have similar performances on some users, these users are more likely to be homogeneous and they should share similar weights during ensemble. This idea is very close to clustered multi-task learning [@zhou2011clustered] if we treat ensemble for each user as a single task. Users follow a clustered structure and users in the same group share parameters during task learning. Compared to a more personalized approach that learns ensemble for users individually, our method tends to be more reliable and can alleviate the data sparsity problem. We call this ensemble strategy is user-sensitive.
In this paper we propose a user-sensitive recommendation ensemble approach, named “UREC", to address the “user skewed prediction” problem. The main contributions of our work are listed as follows: (1) We first cluster users into homogeneous groups, and then use multi-task learning to learn ensemble function strategies for the users. To our best knowledge, it is the first work to consider user heterogeneity in recommendation ensemble. (2) To alleviate the new user problem that will interfere with the user clustering, we propose an approximate approach based on a spectral relaxation of regularization. (3) We conduct extensive experiments on real-world datasets to verify the efficacy of our method. The experimental results demonstrate that UREC outperforms other baseline models.
Related Work
============
Multi-task Learning
-------------------
Multi-task learning (MTL) [@ando2005framework] is a machine learning method where multiple tasks are jointly learnt such that each of them benefits from each other. Several researchers have applied MTL to recommendation with different assumption on how to define a task and what to share among tasks. [@ning2010multi] proposed a multi-task model for recommendation with Support Vector Regression. But they focused on the task on the individual level and only used rating information. [@wang2013online] utilized MTL to online collaborative filtering where the weight vectors of multiple tasks are updated in an online manner. These works assumed that all the tasks are related. However, we assume a more sophisticated group structure among users where users only share relatedness within the same group.
Recommendation Ensemble
-----------------------
Ensemble-based algorithms have been well studied to improve the prediction performance [@polikar2006ensemble], and are widely adopted in recommendation competitions, such as the Netflix Prize contest [@sill2009feature; @koren2009bellkor] and KDD Cups [@DBLP:journals/jmlr/McKenzieFCLTWCLLYLWNSKTCCCCWWLLL12]. Typically, an ensemble method combines the results of different algorithms to obtain a final prediction. The most basic strategy is to acquire the final prediction based on the mean over all the prediction results or the majority votes. Some popular ensemble methods are linear regression, restricted boltzmann machines (RBM), and gradient boosted decision trees (GBDT) [@polikar2006ensemble]. However, they assume users are homogeneous and use the same ensemble strategy to all the users. It is then desirable to develop a user-sensitive ensemble method to capture and make use of user heterogeneity, as we shall do next.
Hybrid Recommendation Algorithms
--------------------------------
Another related field is hybrid recommendation. Different from recommendation ensembles that combines the results of different algorithms, hybrid recommendation aims to build a model with multiple recommendation techniques to achieve a higher performance. Hybrid recommendation models have shown competitive results. The most common hybrid recommendation is to combine collaborative filtering with other techniques like content based model [@basilico2004unifying], clustering [@hu2014clubcf], and Bayesian model [@beutel2014cobafi]. One potential drawback of hybrid recommendation is the model structure and inference rules will become sophisticated when more techniques come into consideration. However, our method combines multiple techniques in an ensemble approach that can avoid this problem.
User Sensitive Recommendation Ensemble
======================================
\[table\_symbol\]
Symbol Description
---------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -- --
$Y_{ij}$ the rating user $i$ gives to item $j$
$X^{k}$ the full predicted matrix by algorithm $k$
$W$ the ensemble weight matrix that is $[w_{1},..., w_{N}] $
$A^{k}$ the $k$th base algorithm, $k \in [1,2,...,K] $
$Z$ user type (homogeneous group)
$\bar{w}_{z}$ the average ensemble weights of group $z$
$m^{k}_{i}$ metric performance of algorithm $k$ on user $i$
$d^{k}_{iq}$ distance between users $i$ and $q$ based on algorithm $k$
$\alpha,\beta$ the regularization parameters
: Notation
Problem Description
-------------------
Suppose there are $N$ users and $M$ items, and $K$ recommendation algorithms. Let $Y \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times M}$ be the user-item rating matrix where $Y_{ij}$ represents the preference user $i$ towards item $j$. Note that in most cases the $Y$ is very sparse – most values in $Y$ are missing. For every recommendation algorithm $k$, there is a prediction matrix $X^{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times M}$ that stores all the predicted preferences of $N$ users towards $M$ items. Ensemble learning is to find a model that can better predict $Y$ based on $\{X^{k}\}$ without revising the inner design of the $K$ recommendation algorithms. Existing studies ignored the difference between users and treated them with same weights. In this paper, we use an adaptive ensemble model for all users, and our goal is to improve the overall prediction accuracy of the ensemble model by developing user-sensitive model parameters for users. We give the notation in Table 1.
Proposed Model
--------------
We introduce the formalization of UREC and discuss intuitions in detail with probabilistic graphical models in Figure 2. Figure 2(a) shows relationships among user hidden types $Z$, user features $F$, recommendation algorithms $A$, and user-item rating matrix $Y$. User features $F$ are determined by the hidden user type Z, and predictions $X^{k}$ are generated by algorithms $A^{k}$ and user features $F^{k}$. Note that in reality $F^{k}$ is often a very small subset of $F$. Most current algorithms only use users’ historical ratings as input. When (some or all of) the features are not observable, they are integrated out in the graphical representation given in (a); as a consequence, $X^k$ and $Y$ will be conditionally dependent (even given $Z$), as shown by the dashed line in Figure 2(b). Our purpose is to leverage all $X^k$’s for a better prediction of $Y$, as supported by the dependence between al $X^k$’s and $Y$. This simplified graphical representation indicates that $P(Y|X^{K}) = \sum_{z=1}^{Z} P(Y|X^{K},z) P(z)$, where $X^{K} = \{X^{k}\}$. Traditional ensemble methods assume users are homogeneous, that is $P(Y|X^{K}) = P(Y|X^{K},Z )$, and use $P(Y|X^{K})$ for all users. In the case of heterogeneous users, $P(Y|X^{K},z)$ may be different for different $z$. So our UREC involves two steps: the first step is to divide users into $Z$ homogeneous groups and the second step is to learn automated ensemble strategies within each group. Alternatively we can use soft clustering like Gaussian mixture models so that we can model user homogeneity more continuously. However, the high dimensions of $X^{K}$ and $Y$ will make the probabilistic clustering hard to deal with. So here we apply a k-medoids method based on the performance of base algorithms, which is hard clustering and detailed in the next subsection. In the second step we choose linear mixtures with automated determined coefficients as the ensemble model, which can be further extended to other models like trees and neural networks.
![Relations graphs of recommendation. []{data-label="model"}](2.pdf){width="8.0cm"}
Weighted User Grouping
----------------------
In this section we introduce the weighted user grouping method, where the key is to define the user similarity. A common way is to calculate the distance (e.g., Euclidean, Pearson correlation) between user feature vectors to measure the similarity. We utilize both the algorithm predictions and user evaluations to define a proper user similarity measure. For each user pair $(i,q)$, we can get $K$ different distances based on predictions of $K$ algorithms, denoted by $\{d^{k}_{iq}\}$. To combine these distances together, we give each distance a confidence derived from the user performance of the base recommendation algorithms. Let $m^{k}_{i}$ be the performance indicator of $k$-th algorithm on user $i$: the smaller difference between $X^{k}_{i}$ and $Y_{i}$, the larger $m^{k}_{i}$. Then the final distance between user $i$ and $q$ is defined as: $$d_{Final}(i,q)= \frac{\sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{m^{k}_{i}+m^{k}_{q}}{2}d^{k}_{iq}}{\sum_{k=1}^{K}\frac{m^{k}_{i}+m^{k}_{q}}{2}}.$$ The algorithms that achieve higher performances on the two users will contribute more to the final distance. Besides, the choice of performance measure $m^{k}_{i}$ is flexible: We could select NDCG or Recall for top-N recommendation, or select MAE or RMSE for rating prediction. Note that in some metrics like MAE small values indicate high performances, we use the inverse of these metrics for $m^{k}_{i}$. With distance function defined, we use k-medoids method to group users.
Ensemble Learning with Grouped Users
------------------------------------
For each user we learn a linear function $f_{i}(X^{K}_{i}) = w^{T}_{i}X^{K}_{i} $ to combine the results. By now we have divided users into $Z$ groups; users within each group share similar parameters. Then the global empirical risk function we want to minimize becomes: $$\begin{split}
&\ L(W)= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N} l( w^{T}_{i}X^{K}_{i*}, Y_{i*}) +\Omega(W), \\
&\ \Omega(W)= \alpha \sum\limits_{z=1}^{Z}\sum\limits_{v \in \mathbb{I}_{z}} \Vert w_{v}-\bar{w}_{z} \Vert^{2} + \beta \sum\limits_{z=1}^{Z} \Vert \bar{w}_{z} \Vert^{2}, \\
\end{split}$$ where $l(\cdot,\cdot)$ is the loss function, $Y_{i*}$ indicates the ratings of user $i$ in the training data, $\Omega(W)$ is the regularization form and $W = [w_{1},..., w_{N}] $ is the weight matrix to be estimated, $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are the regularization parameters, $v \in \mathbb{I}_{z}$ means user $v$ is in the group $z$, and $\bar{w}_{z}$ is the average weights of group $z$. The first term in $\Omega(W)$ tries to enforce the grouping property of $w_{v}$. And the second term tries to avoid big values. Note that for flexibility we do not force all the users in the same group to have the same weight. However, the grouping information provides hints as to the similarities between the weights, this is clearly different from classical mixture of linear models [@chaganty2013spectral], in which same groups use the same weights.
Although eq (2) is not convex, the minimization of each group is a convex problem. We can learn the ensemble weights separately when users are already grouped.
Incorporating New Users
-----------------------
In the weighted user grouping, we use prediction metrics for each user to derive $m^{k}_{i}$. However, new users who have few recorded ratings in $Y$ will interfere with the grouping phase as we can not accurately measure $m^{k}_{i}$. As a kind of cold start problem, the new user problem is a common challenge in recommendation area. To tackle this problem, we use an approximate approach based on a spectral relaxation form of eq (2). Specifically, the relaxation is based on regularization with spectral functions of matrices and transforms eq (2) to a convex problem. Instead of clustering users explicitly, this method implicitly clusters users by the constraints of the convex problem during learning the ensemble weights $W$. Thus it does not need $m^{k}_{i}$ for each user and can address the new user problem. Following the work of [@ding2004k], we first reformulate the regularization $\Omega(W)$ to: $$\Omega(W,F) = \alpha(\operatorname{Tr}(W^{T}W) - \operatorname{Tr}(F^{T}W^{T}WF)) - \beta \operatorname{Tr}(W^{T}W),$$ where the matrix $F \in \mathbb{R}^{N \times Z}$ is an orthogonal cluster indicator matrix with $F_{i,z}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N_{z}}}$ if $i \in \mathbb{I}_{z}$ and $F_{i,z}$ = 0 otherwise. Then, by ignoring the special structure of $F$ and keeping the orthogonality requirement only [@zhou2011clustered], we can transform eq(3) to:
$$\Omega(W,F) = \alpha \operatorname{Tr}(W((1+\eta) I - FF^{T})W^{T}),$$
where $\eta = \beta / \alpha$. Since $FF^{T} = I$, we rewirte the regularization as: $$\Omega(W,F) = \alpha \eta (1+\eta) \operatorname{Tr}(W(\eta I + FF^{T})^{-1}W^{T}).$$ After that we can get the following convex relaxation by following [@chen2009convex]: $$\begin{split}
&\ \min_{W,M} L(W) + \Omega_{appr}(W,M),\\
&\ ~~~~s.t. \operatorname{Tr}(M)=k, M \preceq I, M \in \mathbb{S}^{m}_{+,}\\
\end{split}$$ where $\Omega_{appr}$ is defined as: $$\Omega_{appr}(W,M) = \alpha \eta (1+\eta) \operatorname{Tr}(W(\eta I + M)^{-1}W^{T}),$$ $\mathbb{S}^{m}_{+}$ is the subset of positive semidefinite matrices of size $m$ by $m$, and $M \preceq I$ means $M-I$ is positive semidefinite.
We choose an Alternating Optimization Algorithm [@argyriou2008convex] to solve this convex relaxation. It works by alternatively optimizing a variable with the other variables fixed. Each loop of the optimization involves the following two steps:
**Optimization of W** For a fixed M, the optimal W can be obtained via solving: $$\min_{W} L(W) + c \operatorname{Tr}(W(\eta I + M)^{-1}W^{T}).$$ We use gradient descent method to solve this convex problem.
**Optimization of M** For a fixed W, the optimal M can be obtained via solving: $$\begin{split}
&\ \min_{M} \operatorname{Tr}(W(\eta I + M)^{-1}W^{T}), \\
&\ ~~~~s.t. \operatorname{Tr}(M)=k, M \preceq I, M \in \mathbb{S}^{m}_{+.}\\
\end{split}$$ From [@zhou2011clustered], the minimization problem equals to an eigenvalue optimization problem, the details and proofs can be found in [@chen2009convex]. For clarity, we call this method UREC$_{appr}$ in the latter experiments.
Discussion
----------
Our ensemble problem can be regarded as a special version of semi-supervised learning: The regular users have $X^{K}$ and $Y$ available while new users only have predicted $X^{K}$. Following the idea of semi-supervised learning, the estimated mapping of regular users from $X^{K}$ and $Y$, which involves the ensemble weights $W$, can be further improved by making use of new users’ predictions. However, our model is very different from tradition methods in semi-supervised learning as we focus on learning user-sensitive $W$. Currently there is no existing algorithm in semi-supervised learning to deal with our situation. As a line of future work, we will try to tailor semi-supervised learning approachs to solve our problem.
UREC can be seen as leveraging the strengths of base algorithms and discarding their weaknesses. To address the user heterogeneity problem, we prefer to combine algorithms with different structures and techniques as they are more likely to suit different types of users. This is different from traditional ensemble methods, which often focus on combining numerous but weak (sometimes homogeneous) algorithms.
Experiments
===========
Datasets and Settings
---------------------
We consider three public datasets for experiments: *MovieLens-100K*, *MovieLens-1M*, and *Epinions*. They are widely experimented in the recommendation area. The details of each dataset are listed in Table 2. Besides, *Epinions* has 487,145 social relations among users. To avoid data biases, we randomly select $80\%$ of each dataset for training, $10\%$ of each dataset for validation, and the remaining data for testing. For UREC, we equally split the validation set into two subsets. One subset is used for computing the metric $m^{k}_{i}$, the other is used for tuning the parameters.
\[table\_s\]
Dataset MovieLens-100K MovieLens-1M Epinions
------------- ---------------- -------------- ---------- -- --
Users (U) 943 6,040 32,424
Items (V) 1,682 3,900 61,274
Ratings (R) 100,000 1,000,209 664,824
R-Density 6.30% 4.25% 0.03%
: Data statistics. $U,V$, and $R$ show the counts of each feature; R-Density indicates ratings links density.
We then choose various prevalent methods for comparison, including: (1) KNN [@DBLP:conf/sigir/HerlockerKBR99], the most common collaborative filtering algorithm that predicts users’ preference based on their k-nearest neighbors. (2) LFM [@bell2007modeling], the ‘standard’ recommendation model that utilizes matrix factorization; (3) SVD++ [@koren2008factorization], a hybrid recommendation that utilizes user implicit feedback information and ratings. It is widely applied as a benchmark; (4) TrustMF [@yang2016social], as one of the state-of-the-art social recommendation models, it utilizes social information as a regularization for recommendation. We run this model on the dataset *Epinions*; (5) Stacking, a traditional ensemble method that is first introduced by [@wolpert1992stacked]. It uses the predictions of base algorithms as input and then uses an ensemble model to predict the output. We use linear regression as the ensemble model and choose two strategies in the experiments: the first is to learn one linear regression model for all the users, denoted by Stacking$_{one}$, the second is to learn a separate linear regression model for each user, denoted by Stacking$_{user}$.
To evaluate the prediction performance, we adopt two commonly used metrics – mean average error (MAE) and root mean squared error (RMSE), which are defined in eq (10). The $R_{i,j}$ denotes observed rating in testing data, $\hat{R}_{i,j}$ is the predicted rating, and $T$ denotes the set of tested ratings. The smaller the MAE and RMSE are, the better the rating prediction performance is. $$\begin{split}
&\ MAE = \frac{\sum_{(i,j)\in T} |\hat{R}_{i,j} - R_{i,j}|}{T}, \\
&\ RMSE = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{(i,j)\in T} (\hat{R}_{i,j} - R_{i,j})^{2}}{T}}. \\
\end{split}$$
Performance of Recommendation Ensemble
--------------------------------------
[ |l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l| ]{}\
Dataset & Metrics & KNN & LFM & SVD++ & Stacking$_{one}$ & Stacking$_{user}$ & UREC$_{appr}$ & UREC\
& MAE& 0.7594 & 0.7329 & 0.7272 & 0.7274 & 0.7340 & 0.7257& **0.7228**\
& RMSE & 0.9649 & 0.9289 & 0.9212 & 0.9214 & 0.9322 & 0.9226 & **0.9190**\
& MAE& 0.7325 & 0.6869 & 0.7006 &0.6038 & 0.6027 &0.5975 & **0.5837**\
& RMSE & 0.9221 & 0.8735 & 0.8854 & 0.7779 & 0.7706 & 0.7657 & **0.7514**\
& MAE& 0.8570 & 0.8399& 0.8219 & 0.8124 &0.8157 & 0.8116 & **0.8064**\
& RMSE & 1.1466 & 1.1192 & 1.0832 & 1.0723 & 1.0705 & 1.0677& **1.0514**\
We use grid search to tune the parameters to achieve the best performance. The detailed strategies are as follows: (1) For KNN, we set $k=70$. (2) For LFM and SVD++, the learning rate is set as 0.001 and the factor dimension is set as 10. (3) For Stacking$_{one}$ and Stacking$_{user}$, we use them to combine KNN, LFM, and SVD++ for prediction. (4) For TrustMF, we set the factor dimension is set as 10 and social regularization coefficient as 0.4. (5) For UREC, we choose the inverse of RMSE to measure the $m^{k}_{i}$. The optimal group number varies from different datasets and the details are further discussed in next subsection. For the new users, we use the average metric performance as confidence in the user grouping phase. (6) For UREC$_{appr}$, we set the $\alpha=1$ and $\beta=1$. The optimal group number is set the same as UREC. *Epinions* has a large number of items and leads to a high time cost, and we randomly choose 5000 items to alleviate this problem.
We show the performances of our models with all the baseline models in Table 3. We can see that UREC and UREC$_{appr}$ outperform other methods on all the three datasets, according to the MAE and RMSE. KNN has the worst performances because it only utilizes user-user similarities to find neighbors and predict with a weighted average of the neighbors’ ratings. LFM outperforms KNN since it integrates item-item similarities and user-user similarities by matrix factorization. By considering both user and item sides, LFM can provide more personalized predictions. SVD++ adds implicit feedback information other than ratings and can better capture the user latent factors. So it provides more accurate predictions than KNN and LFM. Stacking$_{one}$ and Stacking$_{user}$ perform better than three base models in general as they combined all these baseline models. But the difference between Stacking$_{one}$ and Stacking$_{user}$ is small. Stacking$_{one}$ is slightly better than Stacking$_{user}$, especially in *Epinions*. This is very likely because the sparsity problem is severe in *Epinions*. UREC$_{appr}$ is very close to UREC and also beats other models. Note that the ensemble methods (Stacking and our methods) in *MovieLens-100K* did not perform much better than base algorithms compared to those in other datasets. There are two reasons: the sizes of users and items are small in *MovieLens-100K*, and the rating density is high at 6.30%. The base algorithms can learn sufficient good models with enough data, and leave less space for ensemble methods to improve. The other two datasets have a larger size and small density, so the ensemble methods gain much improvement compared to base algorithms. This verifies the necessity of recommendation ensembles and superiority of our proposed methods.
Besides, We run TrustMF on *Epinions* and use UREC to learn ensemble with TrustMF and other base models. The experimental results are shown in Table 4. TrustMF performs better than SVD++ as it utilizes the social information between users. We can see that UREC outperforms other models, indicating that TrustMF also has the ‘skewed prediction’ problem and UREC can gain improvement on state-of-the-art algorithms.
[ |l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l| ]{}\
Methods & SVD++ &TrustMF& Stacking$_{user}$\
MAE & 0.8219 & 0.7847 & 0.7903\
RMSE & 1.0832 & 0.8838& 0.8909\
Methods & UREC & UREC$_{appr}$ & Stacking$_{one}$\
MAE &**0.7723** & 0.7789 &0.7803\
RMSE & **0.8744** & 0.8790& 0.8804\
Analysis of User Groups and Skewness
------------------------------------
In this section we further discuss two issues of the user groups and skewness: (1) How does the group number $Z$ influence the performance of UREC? (2) Does UREC have user skewness problem? If so, how well does UREC address this problem compared to other models?
**Analysis of User Groups**. UREC learns ensemble weights within the groups and the users in the same group are assumed to be homogeneous. So the group number $Z$ is vital to the performance of ensemble. We experiment with different group numbers and show the corresponding results in Table 5. The performance of UREC first increases when $Z$ gets larger. After reaching its peak at appropriate values of $Z$, the performance decreases. The optimal $Z$ indicates the underlying group numbers of the dataset. In *MovieLens-100K*, the best $Z$ is 3, in *MovieLens-1M* the best $Z$ is 7, and in *Epinions*, the best $Z$ is 10. Note that if all the users are homogeneous, there will be one group and our method equals to Stacking$_{one}$. In fact if we assign each user to a unique group, our method then equals to Stacking$_{user}$. From Table 5 we can see that with a proper group number our method will outperform Stacking$_{one}$ and Stacking$_{user}$. This conforms to our expectation that Stacking$_{one}$ does not consider the user heterogeneity phenomenon and it provides biased recommendation. And Stacking$_{user}$ is heavily influenced by the data sparsity problem. It will perform poorly for those users with few or no recorded interactions. Our methods utilized predictions of base algorithms to capture user heterogeneity. Other side information like user reviews also contains useful information to user heterogeneity, which is worth further exploring.
[ |l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l| ]{}\
Metric & Z = 2 & Z = 3 & Z = 5 & Z = 10& Z = 20\
MAE & 0.7295 & **0.7228** & 07293 & 0.7301 &0.7311\
RMSE & 0.9250 & **0.9197** & 0.9280 &0.9290&0.9311\
\
Metric & Z = 3 & Z = 5 & Z = 7 & Z = 10& Z = 20\
MAE & 0.6016 & 0.5924 & **0.5837** & 0.5850 & 0.6025\
RMSE & 0.7746 & 0.7683 & **0.7514** &0.7553 & 0.7764\
\
Metric & Z = 3 & Z = 5 & Z = 7 & Z = 10& Z = 20\
MAE & 0.8112& 0.8104 & 0.8094 & **0.8064** &0.8232\
RMSE & 1.0655 & 1.0623 & 1.0573 &**1.0514** &1.0819\
**Analysis of User Skewness**. We have shown that UREC outperforms other models on the average based metrics. But it does not reflect the user skewness of UREC and the skewness difference compared to other models. To further explore the user skewness problem, we calculate RMSE for each user and display the statistical results in Table 6. Due to space limitations, we only show two datasets and certain some models with poor performance. We can see that in *MovieLens-100K* the ensemble models have a small variance around $0.0263$, while the variance of SVD++ is 0.0539. Stacking$_{one}$ and Stacking$_{user}$ combine several models so they are more stable than single base algorithms. When it comes to the winning rate, the UREC has a high rate around 80%, meaning that UREC is superior to other models on most users. For traditional ensemble methods Stacking$_{one}$ and Stacking$_{user}$, they perform much worse: the wining rate of Stacking$_{one}$ is around 55% and that of Stacking$_{user}$ is around 60%. This finding reveals that UREC suffers little from the skewness problem compared to traditional ensemble methods. For UREC$_{appr}$, it outperforms other base models and Stacking. But the winning rate is low: it is around 55% against Stacking$_{one}$ and Stacking$_{user}$. In *MovieLens-1M*, we can observe the similar phenomenon that our methods achieve a high winning rate over other base models. From the above analysis, we conclude that our methods can alleviate the user skewness problem and improve the recommendation performance.
[ |l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l| ]{}\
Metric & UREC & UREC$_{appr}$ & SVD++ & Stacking$_{one}$& Stacking$_{user}$\
Avg. & 0.9143 & 0.9197 & 0.9166 & 0.9142 &0.9170\
Var. & 0.0263 & 0.0263 & 0.0539 &0.0264&0.0272\
Win. & - & 78.47% & 78.15% & 67.32% & 79.11%\
\
Metric & KNN & LFM & SVD++ & Stacking$_{one}$& Stacking$_{user}$\
Win. & 86.42% & 79.21% & 75.15% & 55.33% &53.15%\
&\
Metric & SVD++ & LFM &Metric & SVD++ & LFM\
Win. & 55.99% &62.30% & Win. &57.51%& 61.22%\
\
Metric & UREC & UREC$_{appr}$ & SVD++ & Stacking$_{one}$& Stacking$_{user}$\
Avg. & 0.6706 & 0.6889 & 0.8288 & 0.6973 &0.6977\
Var. & 0.0482 & 0.0501 & 0.2684 &0.0503 &0.0528\
Win. & - & 67.29% & 58.81%&69.22% & 68.97%\
\
Metric & KNN & LFM & SVD++ & Stacking$_{one}$& Stacking$_{user}$\
Win. & 65.47% & 55.45% & 56.84% & 51.78% &51.35%\
&\
Metric & SVD++ & LFM &Metric & SVD++ & LFM\
Win. & 54.22% &50.81% & Win. &55.94%& 54.93%\
Comparison of UREC and UREC$_{appr}$
------------------------------------
We next compare our proposed UREC and UREC$_{appr}$ in two aspects: accuracy and scalability. (1) **Accuracy**. From the experimental analysis in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, UREC achieves better accuracy than UREC$_{appr}$ in general. For the user skewness problem, UREC also gets a higher winning rate. Note that UREC$_{appr}$ also outperforms other base models, and its difference from UREC is minor. UREC$_{appr}$ can be an alternative method. (2) **Scalability**. When datasets become larger, the high complexity of the clustering procedure will be a bottleneck of our ensemble methods. UREC is slow in efficiency as k-medoids method has a high complexity. UREC$_{appr}$ transforms the problem to a convex relaxed problem. Table 7 shows the elapsed time for training UREC and UREC$_{appr}$ , and UREC$_{appr}$ is indeed faster. Note that the runtime for both methods increases dramatically when the datasets become larger. Recent studies have proposed several efficient optimization methods to address this problem [@zhou2011clustered]. Moreover, UREC$_{appr}$ can handle the new user problem that is a prevailing issue in online websites. As a consequence, one can say that the UREC$_{appr}$ is more scalable.
[ |c|c|c|c|c|]{}\
Method & MovieLens-100K& MovieLens-1M & Epinions\
UREC & 452 $\pm$ 4.0 & 6152 $\pm$ 8.5 & 41023$\pm$ 36.0\
UREC$_{appr}$ & 265 $\pm$ 2.5& 4323 $\pm$ 6.0 & 25404$\pm$ 23.0\
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we proposed a novel method for user-sensitive recommendation ensemble called UREC to address the user skewed prediction problem. The proposed method has a clear intuition. UREC first clusters users based on the predictions of base recommendation algorithms, and then it uses multi-task learning to learn the ensemble weights. To alleviate the new user problem that usually interferes with user grouping, we propose an approximate approach named UREC$_{appr}$ based on a spectral relaxation of regularization. Empirical results on three benchmark real-world datasets show that our methods clearly outperform alternatives. Further experimental results demonstrate UREC can better alleviate the user skewness problem than traditional ensemble methods and improve the recommendation performance. In addition, UREC$_{appr}$ also achieves a competitive and promising performance. Those empirical results verifies the necessity of developing use-sensitive ensembles and the efficacy of the proposed ensemble scheme. We believe that the proposed method and the observations in experimental results will inspire more approaches to recommendation ensembles. In the future, we will investigate how to leverage side information (e.g., social relations and user annotated tags) to better capture user heterogeneity.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We investigate molecular evolution in a star-forming core that is initially a hydrostatic starless core and collapses to form a low-mass protostar. The results of a one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamics calculation are adopted as a physical model of the core. We first derive radii at which CO and large organic species sublimate. CO sublimation in the central region starts shortly before the formation of the first hydrostatic core. When the protostar is born, the CO sublimation radius extends to 100 AU, and the region inside $\lesssim 10$ AU is hotter than 100 K, at which some large organic species evaporate. We calculate the temporal variation of physical parameters in infalling shells, in which the molecular evolution is solved using an updated gas-grain chemical model to derive the spatial distribution of molecules in a protostellar core. The shells pass through the warm region of $10 -100$ K in several $\times$ $10^4$ yr, and fall into the central star $\sim 100$ yr after they enter the region where $T \gtrsim 100$ K. We find that large organic species are formed mainly via grain-surface reactions at temperatures of $20
-40$ K and then desorbed into the gas-phase at their sublimation temperatures. Carbon-chain species can be formed by a combination of gas-phase reactions and grain-surface reactions following the sublimation of CH$_4$. Our model also predicts that CO$_2$ is more abundant in isolated cores, while gas-phase large organic species are more abundant in cores embedded in ambient clouds.
author:
- Yuri Aikawa
- Valentine Wakelam
- 'Robin T. Garrod'
- Eric Herbst
title: |
Molecular Evolution and Star Formation:\
From Prestellar Cores to Protostellar Cores
---
Introduction
============
In a last decade, great progress has been made in our understanding of the chemical evolution of low-mass star-forming cores [@fra07; @bt06 and references therein]. Among the observational advances are the detection of chemical fractionation in several prestellar cores; emission lines of the rare isotopes of CO are weaker at the core center than at outer radii, while emission lines of nitrogen-bearing species (e.g., N$_2$H$^+$) show relatively good correlation with the centrally-peaked dust continuum [e.g. @cas99; @taf02].
Theoretical models show that the CO depletion is caused by adsorption onto grains [@bl97; @aik01], and that the CO depletion helps to temporarily maintain the N$_2$H$^+$ abundance at the core center. Theoretical models also predict that a fraction of the adsorbed CO will be hydrogenated to form H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH on grain surfaces [@ar77; @hhl92], which is confirmed by laboratory experiments [@wkl02; @fuchs07]. The existence of solid methanol in low-mass star formation regions has been confirmed observationally; @ppp03 detected a high abundance of CH$_3$OH ice (15-25 % relative to water ice) towards three low-mass protostars among $\sim 40$ observed protostars. Radio observations find gaseous CH$_3$OH to be abundant in the central regions of protostars [@sjv02]. Since the formation of CH$_3$OH is inefficient in the gas phase [@gpc06; @gwh06], it must be formed by the hydrogenation of CO on grain surfaces in the prestellar core stage, and then sublimated to the gas-phase as the core is heated by the protostar. Although CH$_3$OH ice is not detected towards the majority of low-mass protostars [@ppp03] and the background star Elias 16 [@chi96], the upper limit for the CH$_3$OH ice abundance is a few $\%$ relative to water ice, which is not low enough to contradict the idea that gaseous CH$_3$OH around protostars is originally formed by grain-surface reactions and then sublimated.
Two major questions, however, remain to be answered, the first being at what stage CO returns to the gas phase. The core remains nearly isothermal as long as cooling by radiation is more efficient than heating by contraction (compression). Eventually, though, the heating overwhelms the cooling, so that the core center becomes warmer. A newly-born protostar further heats the surrounding core. Laboratory experiments show although some fraction of CO can be entrapped in water ice [@cdf03], a significant amount of CO sublimates at around 20 K [@sa88]. In order to predict if an observable amount of CO returns to the gas-phase during the prestellar core stage or after the birth of a protostar, the temperature distribution in a core should be calculated by detailed energy transfer. Such a prediction is important in order to observe very young protostars. Once it is sublimated, CO again becomes a useful observational probe. In addition, CO sublimation significantly affects the gas-phase chemistry; for example, it destroys N$_2$H$^+$. The second question concerns how large organic molecules are formed in protostellar cores. In recent years, diverse organic molecules, including methanol (CH$_3$OH), dimethyl ether (CH$_3$OCH$_3$), acetonitrile (CH$_3$CN), and formic acid (HCOOH), have been detected towards low-mass protostars [@cec07 and references therein]. They are still referred to as “hot-core species”, because it was once thought that they are only characteristic of hot ($T\sim 200$ K) cores in high-mass star forming regions. A large number of modeling studies on hot-core chemistry show that sublimed formaldehyde (H$_2$CO) and CH$_3$OH are transformed to other organic species by gas-phase reactions within a typical timescale of $10^4-10^5$ yr [e.g. @mh98]. In low-mass cores, however, the time scale for the cloud material to cross the hot ($T\sim 100$ K) region should be smaller than $10^4$ yr, considering the infall velocity and temperature distribution in the core [@bot04a]. Furthermore, theoretical calculations and laboratory experiments recently showed that gas-phase reactions are much less efficient in producing some hot-core species, such as methyl formate (HCOOCH$_{3}$) and dimethyl ether, than assumed in previous models [@hor04; @gep06; @gh06].
Several model calculations have been performed on the chemistry that occurs in low-mass protostellar cores. @dot04 solved a detailed gas-phase reaction network assuming a core model for IRAS 16293-2422, and succeeded in reproducing many of the observed lines within 50 %. The physical structure of the core; i.e., its density and temperature distribution, was fixed with time. They assumed gas-phase initial molecular abundances that pertain to the high-mass hot-core AFGL 2591. @lbe04, on the other hand, constructed a core model that evolves from a cold hydrostatic sphere to a protostellar core by combining a sequence of Bonnor-Ebert spheres with the inside-out collapse model by @shu77. They solved a chemical reaction network that includes gas-phase reactions along with adsorption and desorption of gas-phase/ice-mantle species. The resulting molecular distributions and line profiles are significantly different from those of the static core models [@leb05]. The chemical network of @lbe04, however, does not include large organic species.
In the present paper, we re-investigate molecular evolution in star-forming cores with the partial goal of answering the two questions posed above. We adopt a core model by @mi00; it accurately calculates the radial distribution of temperature, which determines when and where the ice components are sublimated. The model also enables us to follow molecular evolution smoothly from a prestellar core to a protostellar core. The chemistry includes both gas-phase and grain-surface reactions according to @gh06; the surface reactions in particular are important for producing organic molecules in a warming environment. Here, we report a solution of the reaction network following the temporal variation of density and temperature in infalling shells to derive a spatial distribution of molecules, including complex organic ones, in a protostellar core.
Model
=====
Physical evolution of a star-forming core
-----------------------------------------
Figure \[schematic\] schematically shows the evolution of a star-forming core. As a model for this process, we adopted and partially reran the model calculated by @mi00. These authors solved the non-gray radiation hydrodynamics to follow the core evolution from a dense starless (prestellar) core to a protostellar core assuming spherical symmetry. Conservation equations of mass, momentum, and energy were coupled with the frequency-dependent radiation transfer, which was solved by the variable Eddington factor method. @mi00 calculated two models with different initial conditions: a homogeneous core (one of uniform density) and a hydrostatic core (a Bonnor-Ebert sphere). We chose the latter one in the present work.
Initially, the central density of the hydrostatic prestellar core is $1.415 \times 10^{-19}$ g cm$^{-3}$, which corresponds to a number density of hydrogen nuclei $n_{\rm H} \sim 6 \times 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$. The outer boundary is fixed at $r=4\times 10^4$ AU, so that the total mass is $3.852 M_{\odot}$, which exceeds the critical mass for gravitational instability. The temperature in the core is initially $\sim 7$ K at the center and $\sim 8$ K at the outer edge; the cooling by dust thermal emission is balanced with the heating by cosmic rays, cosmic background radiation, and ambient stellar radiation.
In the original model by @mi00, the core starts contraction immediately. In the present work, however, we assume that the core keeps its hydrostatic structure for $1\times 10^6$ yr, implicitly assuming that turbulence supports it. This period sets the initial molecular abundances for the collapse stage. After $1\times 10^6$ yr, the core starts to contract. The contraction is almost isothermal as long as the cooling rate overwhelms the compressional heating, but eventually the latter dominates and raises the temperature in the central region. Increasing gas pressure decelerates the contraction and eventually makes the first hydrostatic core, known as “the first core”, at the center. When the core center becomes as dense as $10^{-7}$ g cm$^{-3}$ and as hot as $2000$ K, the hydrostatic core becomes unstable due to H$_2$ dissociation and starts to collapse again (the second collapse). The central density increases rapidly, and within a short period of time the dissociation degree approaches unity at the center. Then the second collapse ceases and the second hydrostatic core; i.e. the protostar, is formed. The protostar is surrounded by the infalling envelope, which we call the protostellar core. After the onset of contraction, the initial prestellar core evolves to the protostellar core in $2.5\times 10^5$ yr. After the birth of the protostar, the model further follows the evolution for $9.3 \times 10^4$ yr, during which the protostar grows by mass accretion from the envelope. At each evolutionary stage, the model gives the total luminosity of the core and the radial distribution of density, temperature, and infall velocity at $r\gtrsim 10^{-4}$ AU. More detailed explanations of core evolution can be found in @mi98 and @mi00.
In the present paper, we report a re-analysis of their results in order to find the sublimation radii of CO and large organic species at each evolutionary stage. We obtained electronic data and the code of @mi00 from the author (H. Masunaga), and re-ran the calculation of the prestellar core phase to increase the number of time steps at which the core structure is recorded. As for the protostellar phase, we used the existing data. We are interested in the region outside 1 AU, which is of importance for radio observations but is not discussed in detail by @mi00. Based on this physical core model, we followed the temporal variation of density, temperature, and visual extinction in infalling shells, in which the chemical reaction network was solved [@aik01; @aik05].
Chemical reaction network
-------------------------
The chemical evolution was computed with the gas-grain model developed in the OSU astrochemical group [@gh06]. The current version of the model calculates the abundance of 655 species (458 gas-phase and 197 grain-surface atoms and molecules) through a total of 6309 reactions. The model follows the gas-phase as well as the grain-surface chemistry using the rate equation method [e.g. @hhl92; @rh00]. The gas-phase network is based on the osu.2005 database available online (http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/$\sim$eric/research.html) but without the element fluorine, which has been recently added to osu.2005. The model includes chemical reactions that can be important at $T\lesssim 300$ K. At the final stage of our core model, the temperature is somewhat higher than this limit at $r\lesssim$ 10 AU. In the following, we mainly discuss the molecular evolution that occurs at $T\lesssim 300$ K.
The assumed elemental abundances, known as “low-metal” values because of their strong depletions for elements heavier than oxygen, are listed in Table \[abelem\]. Initially the species are assumed to be in the form of atoms or atomic ions except for hydrogen, which is entirely in its molecular form. The cosmic-ray ionization rate $\zeta$ is set to $1.3 \times 10^{-17}$ s$^{-1}$.
The neutral species in the gas-phase stick to the grains upon collision with a probability of 0.5. At high temperatures, this probability is much too high. However, since evaporation is so rapid at such high temperatures, it is unimportant what assumption is made. The grain-surface species can evaporate through thermal evaporation and two non-thermal desorption processes. The binding energy of each molecular species on the grain surface is taken from [@gh06]. The first non-thermal mechanism is the action of a cosmic ray encountering a grain, which rapidly increases the grain temperature and allows the evaporation of the species [@hh93]. The second process, as recently developed quantitatively by @gpc06 [@gwh06], is based on the assumption that the energy released by exothermic association reactions on grain surfaces can allow the partial evaporation of the products [@wil68]. In this process, the fraction of product evaporation is given by $$f = \frac{a(1-E_D/E_{reac})^{s-1}}{1+a(1-E_D/E_{reac})^{s-1}},$$ where $E_{\rm D}$ is the binding energy of the product, $E_{\rm reac}$ is the energy of formation in the reaction, and $s$ is the number of vibrational modes in the molecule/surface-bond system. The parameter [*a*]{} is the ratio between the surface-molecule bond frequency and the frequency at which the energy is lost to the surface. We assumed an $a$ value of 0.01 for all species based on @gwh06. With this value of $a$, less than 1% of water is evaporated during its formation on grains. Using molecular dynamics calculations, @ka06 showed that it is unlikely that this fraction is larger than 1%. If it were, however, only the gas-phase abundances of some large molecules such as CH$_3$OH would be increased in the outer parts of the protostellar envelope.
Grain-surface species are dissociated by penetrating UV radiation and cosmic-ray induced UV radiation. We note that our model indirectly includes photodesorption via the second non-thermal desorption process discussed above. For example, the photodissociation of water ice produces OH radicals, a fraction of which recombine with hydrogen atoms to re-generate water. Since we assume the partial desorption of the surface-reaction products, UV irradiation of water ice results in desorption of water.
Species can diffuse on the grain surfaces by thermal hopping and react with each other when they meet. No quantum tunneling was assumed even for hydrogen atoms based on recent experimental results [see @gwh06 for discussion on this point]. Other details concerning the model can be found in @gh06 and @gwh06.
During the first $1\times 10^6$ yrs of the integration, we computed the chemical abundances under static dense cloud conditions in order to obtain the initial abundances for the collapse. The chemical evolution in infalling shells was then computed as the shells experience temporal variations of density, temperature and visual extinction $A_{\rm v}$. Although the original model of @mi00 gives the temperatures of gas and dust of various compositions separately, we assumed that the dust temperature is equal to the gas temperature for simplicity.
We calculated the column density of hydrogen nuclei ($N_{\rm H}$) from the core outer edge to each shell and converted it to $A_{\rm v}$ by the formula $A_{\rm v}=N_{\rm H}/(1.59 \times 10^{21} {\rm cm}^{-2}$) mag. Initially the visual extinction from the outer edge ($r=4\times 10^4$ AU) to the core center is about 5.5 mag, and the shells we follow are located at $\sim 1\times 10^4$ AU, where $A_{\rm v} \sim 1$ mag. Assuming that our model core is embedded in ambient clouds, we added 3 mag to the visual extinction obtained above, and ignored photodissociation of CO and H$_2$. In §4, we also report molecular evolution in an isolated core, in which the extra 3 mag is not added to $A_{\rm v}$
Results
=======
Physical evolution of the core and sublimation radius
-----------------------------------------------------
Figure \[MImodel\] shows the radial distributions of density, temperature and infall velocity in the model core at assorted evolutionary stages. We define the moment of the protostar formation as $t_{\rm core}=0$. The left panels refer to the prestellar phase, which occurs before the birth of the protostar, and the right panels to the protostellar phase. The distributions are shown at different times in each panel.
We concentrate on the region outside 1 AU, which is of importance for radio observations but is not discussed in detail by @mi00. At $t_{\rm core} < -1\times 10^3$ yr, more than $1\times10^3$ yr before the formation of a protostar, the core is almost isothermal and the core contraction is similar to the Larson-Penston (L-P) collapse with a constant temperature [@lar69]. At $t_{\rm core}\sim -1\times 10^3$ yr, the core center starts to heat-up, and the core deviates from the L-P core. The increasing pressure decelerates the contraction, and the first hydrostatic core, of radius $\sim 1$ AU, is formed at $t_{\rm core}\sim -5.6\times 10^2$ yr (see the sharp velocity gradient at $\sim 1$ AU in Figure \[MImodel\]). When the central density and the central temperature reach $n_{\rm H}\sim$ several $10^{17}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $\sim 2000$ K, dissociation of H$_2$ leads to the second collapse, which ceases in a short time scale ($\sim 1$ yr). In the protostellar stage, the density in the core envelope decreases with time because of the accretion to the central star, while the temperature and infall velocity increase.
In Figure \[central\_T\], the temperature at the core center through 200 K is plotted as a function of the central density $n_{\rm H}^{\rm center}$. The dashed line indicates a temperature of 20 K, which is roughly the sublimation temperature of CO, or the temperature at which the rate coefficients of accretion and thermal desorption for pure CO ice becomes equal. In the prestellar phase, the core temperature is determined by the balance between cooling by thermal radiation and heating by cosmic rays, cosmic background radiation, ambient stellar radiation, and compressional effects. The central temperature for a time decreases to $\sim 5$ K, because the increasing column density of the cloud prevents the penetration of optical photons. The core temperature starts to rise at $n_{\rm H}^{\rm center}\gtrsim 10^6$ cm$^{-3}$, when compressional heating dominates radiative cooling. The temperature increase is, however, rather moderate until the central density reaches $\sim 10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$. Shortly thereafter, CO sublimation starts when the central density reaches a few $\times$ $10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$. This occurs only several $\times$ $10^2$ yr before the first-core formation and $\sim 10^3$ yr before the second-core formation.
Figure \[L\_R20\] shows the temporal variation of two radii, inside of which the temperature is higher than 20 K ($r_{\rm 20K}$) and 100 K ($r_{\rm 100K}$). The former is roughly the sublimation temperatures of CO. Desorption energies and thus sublimation temperatures vary among species, but some large organic species such as CH$_3$OH and HCOOH, which are of current interest, have sublimation temperatures of $\sim 100$ K. The sublimation radii are plotted as a function of total luminosity of the core instead of the core age, since the former is an observable value. The labels with arrows depict the core age $t_{\rm core}$. The plot starts about 770 yr before the second-core formation, when the first core is about to be formed. As the first core grows in density, the core luminosity and envelope temperatures increase. At the moment of the second-core formation ($t_{\rm core}=0$), $r_{\rm 20K}$ and $r_{\rm 100K}$ are $\sim 100$ AU and $\sim 10$ AU, respectively. At the final stage of the model, $t_{\rm core}=9.3\times 10^4$ yr, the total luminosity reaches $\sim 23
L_{\odot}$, and the sublimation radii are $r_{\rm 20K}\sim 3.9\times 10^3$ AU and $r_{\rm 100K}\sim1.2\times 10^2$ AU.
Physical conditions in infalling material
-----------------------------------------
Up to now, we have described the core model with physical parameters that are given as functions of radius at each evolutionary stage, the so-called Eulerian approach. In order to calculate molecular evolution, however, it is more convenient to follow the Lagrangian approach, in which we consider the temporal variation of physical parameters in assorted collapsing shells, because this temporal variation represents the conditions in which the chemical reaction network is solved [@aik01; @aik05].
Figure \[fluid\_parcel\] shows the temporal variation of density and temperature in shells that reach $r=2.5, 15, 125$ and 500 AU at the final stage of our model ($t_{\rm core}=9.3\times 10^4$ yr $\equiv t_{\rm final}$). The infalling shells begin at $r\sim 1\times 10^4$ AU in the prestellar core, where they stay for $1\times 10^6$ yr, a temporal period omitted in Figure \[fluid\_parcel\]. After the core starts contraction, each shell migrates inwards. In the prestellar stage, the variation of density and temperature is not very significant; these shells are at $r\gtrsim 6\times 10^3$ AU, where the infall velocity is small and the radial gradient of density and temperature is moderate (Figure \[MImodel\]). In the protostellar stage, which occupies a large fraction of Figure \[fluid\_parcel\], they migrate to inner radii where the infall velocity, temperature, and density steeply increase inwards. Hence, the temporal variation of density and temperature accelerate. In order to highlight the rapid variation near and at the final stage, the horizontal axis in Figure \[fluid\_parcel\] is set to be the logarithm of $t_{\rm final}-t_{\rm core}$.
A key parameter for the chemistry of hot-core species is the time scale of the hot-core phase and/or, its predecessor, the warm-up phase. In a classical hot-core chemical model, in which the gas-phase reactions of sublimates are followed with a fixed temperature of $\sim 200$ K, it takes $10^4-10^5$ yr to form new large organic species. In other words, the hot-core phase of $10^4-10^5$ yr is needed to account for the existence of large organic species [e.g. @mh98]. In more recent hot-core models, the temperature first increases with time rather than remaining fixed; the warm-up phase is the period in which the temperature rises from 10 K to $\sim 100$ K. Various reactions occur during the warm-up phase, because many volatile species return to the gas phase, and because the sublimation temperature varies with species [e.g. @vw99]. Grain-surface reactions between molecular radicals containing heavy elements are also enhanced in this temperature range [@gh06]. Considering the formation time scale of stars, @vit04 argued that the warm-up phase is longer in stars with lower masses, and estimated the warm-up phase to be $10^6$ yr for solar-type stars. Our model, in contrast, gives a warm-up phase of only several $10^4$ yr; since the gas and dust are falling inwards towards the central star, the timescale of the warm-up phase is determined not by the time scale of the star formation, but by the size of the warm region divided by the infall velocity. The timescale of the hot-core phase, in which the temperature of the infalling shells is $\sim 100-200$ K, is even shorter; the shell reaching $r=2.5$ AU at $t_{\rm final}$ spends only 100 yr in the region of $T\gtrsim 100$ K before it falls onto the central star. There would thus not be sufficient time for the gas-phase reactions of sublimated species to form complex species. We are dealing here with the formation of a low-mass protostar, so the hot-core stage is more aptly referred to as a “hot corino”, and short time scales have previously been discussed for such regions [@wakelam04; @bot04a]. It should also be noted that in our contracting core model, the central region with high temperatures ($T >$ several tens of K) is continuously fed by infalling materials, which are then lost to the central star.
Molecular evolution in infalling shells
---------------------------------------
Figure \[evol\_abun\] shows the temporal variation of molecular abundances in the infalling shell that reaches $r=2.5$ AU at $t_{\rm final}$. The horizontal axis is again the logarithm of $t_{\rm final}-t_{\rm core}$. Black and gray lines represent species in the ice mantle and in the gas phase, respectively. The chemical evolution at $t_{\rm final} -t_{\rm core}\le 4$ yr should be taken with caution because the temperature in the shell exceeds 300 K, while our chemical network is originally constructed for temperatures of $\lesssim 300$ K. The species shown in Figure \[evol\_abun\] are mostly (except CO and H) formed by grain-surface reactions. They are desorbed into the gas phase when the shell temperature reaches the sublimation temperature of each species; at this time the fractional abundance of the surface species is simply transferred to a similar fractional abundance in the gas.
Water, the most abundant molecule with a heavy atom, is formed by the hydrogenation of oxygen atoms on a grain surface, and is already abundant when the contraction starts. Methanol, on the other hand, takes longer to reach a high abundance: it is formed by the hydrogenation of solid CO, which occurs efficiently until the shell temperature reaches $\gtrsim 15$ K and the H atom abundance in the ice mantle drops due to evaporation. The fractional abundance of methanol exceeds 10$^{-6}$ at times within 10$^{5}$ yr of the final time. Then the abundance reaches a constant value; CH$_3$OH is constantly destroyed by the cosmic-ray induced photodissociation and re-formed by a low rate of hydrogenation. Solid carbon dioxide is formed by O + HCO $\rightarrow$ CO$_2$ + H and CO + OH $\rightarrow$ CO$_2$ + H. It reaches a fractional abundance of 10$^{-5}$ about 10$^{4}$ yr before the final time.
The large organic species are also formed mainly by grain-surface reactions. Dimethyl ether (CH$_{3}$OCH$_{3}$)and methyl formate (HCOOCH$_3$) are produced by the surface reactions of the radical H$_2$COH with CH$_3$ and HCO, respectively, where H$_2$COH is formed by hydrogenation of H$_2$CO. Formaldehyde, at this stage, is constantly formed by hydrogenation and destroyed by a reaction with OH ice and cosmic-ray induced photodissociation. Both CH$_{3}$OCH$_{3}$ and HCOOCH$_3$ reach terminal fractional abundances of $\approx 10^{-9}$. Formic acid (HCOOH), on the other hand, is formed by the gas-phase reaction of OH with sublimated H$_2$CO, after which it is adsorbed onto grains, and remains in the ice mantle until the temperature gets high enough for its sublimation. Its asymptotic fractional abundance is slightly greater than 10$^{-8}$. Comparing Figure \[evol\_abun\] with Figure \[fluid\_parcel\], we can see that these large organic species are mostly produced at temperatures of $20-40$ K, rather than at $T\gtrsim 100$ K where CH$_3$OH is sublimated into the gas phase [see also @gh06]. In this temperature range, heavy-element species such as CO, HCO and CH$_3$ can diffuse on the grain surface and form complex molecules efficiently.
Distribution of molecules in a protostellar core
------------------------------------------------
In order to derive the spatial distribution of molecules in the protostellar core, we have calculated molecular evolution in 13 shells, which reach $r=2.5-8000$ AU at $t_{\rm final}$. Figure \[dist\] shows the radial distribution of (a) physical parameters and (b-d) molecular abundances at $t_{\rm final}$. Abundances inside 10 AU are not shown for the following two reasons: firstly they are very similar to the abundances at 10 AU, except that the H$_2$CO abundance drops inwards, and secondly, the temperature in the inner radius is somewhat higher than the temperature range originally considered in our chemical model (§2.2). Figure \[dist\] (b-d) show that large organic molecules are abundant in the gas phase in the central region of the protostellar core. Since they are formed mostly on grain-surfaces, rather than from gas-phase reactions among sublimates, their gas-phase abundances sharply increase at radii corresponding to their own sublimation temperatures and remain high at smaller radii. For example, CH$_3$CHO extends to $\sim 500$ AU, while CH$_3$OH extends to $\sim 100$ AU. One exception, again, is HCOOH, which extends to $\sim 500$ AU because of its formation in the gas phase.
Large organic species are abundant in ice mantles at radii of $100-1000$ AU. For radii $r\gtrsim 10^3$ AU, the abundances of these species tend to decrease sharply with increasing radius except for methanol. Water, another hydrogen-rich, or saturated, species, remains nearly constant in abundance. In the outer region ($r > 4000$ AU), a large fraction of carbon on the grain surface is in the form of CH$_4$ [cf. @gwh06].
Discussion
==========
Physical structure of the core and sublimation radius
-----------------------------------------------------
We have re-analyzed and adopted the results of @mi00 to derive the sublimation temperatures of CO and large organic species, and to investigate molecular evolution in a star-forming core. The chosen conditions in the envelope can be different from those of other models because the temperature distribution in the envelope depends not only on the evolutionary state and mass of the central object (either the first or second core), but also on the mass distribution in the envelope, which should depend on the initial conditions. Recently, @omu07 investigated the temperature distribution in the first-core envelope assuming mass distributions from the L-P model [@lar69] and Shu model [@shu77] similarity solutions. The former has a more massive envelope than the latter. When the first core has a mass of $0.05 M_{\odot}$, for example, the hydrogen number density at $r=10$ AU is several $10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ and $\sim 10^9$ cm$^{-3}$ with the L-P model and the Shu model, respectively. The L-P model gives a core luminosity of $10^{-1} L_{\odot}$, and sublimation radii of $r_{\rm 20K} \sim 100$ AU and $r_{\rm 100 K}\sim 10$ AU, while the Shu model yields a core luminosity of $\sim 10^{-3} L_{\odot}$ and an $r_{\rm 20 K}$ of $\sim 20$ AU. The latter model does not exceed 100 K at any radius. Our core model is warmer than the Shu model but colder than the L-P model.
In the second core stage, on the other hand, the envelope structure can deviate from spherical symmetry and be accompanied by a circumstellar disk. Considering a typical angular velocity for molecular cloud cores [$\sim 10^{-14}$ s$^{-1}$; e.g., @ga85], the centrifugal radius (i.e. the initial disk radius) is $\sim 100$ AU. Our results at $r\gtrsim$ several hundred AU are thus relatively robust, while the core structure would be significantly different from our model at smaller radii. For example, the large organic species could be sublimated by the accretion shock onto the forming disk rather than in the envelope, since the centrifugal radius $\sim 100$ AU coincides with the sublimation radius of large organic species in our model.
Simple molecules
----------------
[@lbe04] investigated the evolution of relatively simple molecules, such as HCN and N$_2$H$^+$, in a star-forming core by combining a sequence of Bonnor-Ebert spheres for the prestellar stage with the inside-out collapse model of [@shu77] for the core after the first-core formation. These simple molecules are often observed in star-forming cores and are of importance as observational probes, while we mainly discussed large organic species in §3. Figure \[cfLee\] shows the radial distribution of simple molecules in our model at $t_{\rm final}$.
Comparison with [@lbe04] is not easy because there are many differences in the physical core models and chemical reaction networks. First, the inside-out core model, which is adopted in [@lbe04], yields lower temperatures than our core model, as discussed above. Secondly, we adopt different binding energies for molecules to the grain surface. While the difference is on the order of only a few hundred K for many species, the binding energy of NH$_3$ is significantly higher in our model (5534 K) than in [@lbe04] (1082 K); the latter value seems to originate from [@hh93], in which the hydrogen bonding of NH$_3$ is not taken into account. Thirdly, grain-surface reactions, which are the main formation processes of saturated species such as NH$_3$ and H$_2$CO in our model, are not included in [@lbe04]. Hence, here we compare our results with [@lbe04] qualitatively rather than quantitatively.
A main conclusion of [@lbe04] is that the molecular abundances vary significantly near and inside the CO sublimation radius. For instance, N$_2$H$^+$ is destroyed by CO, and thus declines steeply inwards across the CO sublimation radius, an effect which happens in our model as well. [@lbe04] also found that some molecules, such as H$_2$CO, have their peak abundance at the sublimation radius; the gas-phase abundance first increases inward via sublimation, but then decreases due to gas-phase reactions at smaller radii. Similar phenomena can be seen in our model, but the spatial variation of the gas-phase abundances is more moderate than in [@lbe04], for which we can think of a few reasons. First, [@lbe04] calculated the molecular evolution in 512 shells, while we calculated the chemistry in only 13 shells. A larger number of shells are needed to resolve abundance fluctuations on a smaller radial scale. Secondly, higher infall speeds, in general, make the abundance distributions more uniform. Since the infall speed is higher at inner radii in the infalling envelope, it would be natural that the molecular abundances remain relatively uniform at $r\lesssim 100$ AU, which is not calculated in [@lbe04]. Thirdly, our chemical network includes a much larger number of species and reactions. [@lbe04] used a reduced reaction network with $\sim 80$ species and $\sim 800$ reactions to save computational time, while our model includes 655 species and 6309 reactions. In a small reaction network, a sudden increase of a species (e.g., as caused by sublimation) can easily change the abundances of other species though chemical reactions. In a large reaction network, on the other hand, a larger number of reactions contribute to the formation and destruction of each species, and thus the sudden abundance change of one species does not necessararily propagate to other species. Another noticeable difference in our results from those of [@lbe04] is that HCO$^+$ decreases more steeply inwards at $r\lesssim 1000$ AU in our model; H$_3$CO$^+$ and C$_3$H$_5^+$ are the dominant positive ions rather than HCO$^+$ at the inner radii.
The oxygen-bearing species atomic oxygen (O), molecular oxygen (O$_2$), and gaseous H$_2$O are also of special interest because O is very reactive and because the two molecules have been intensively observed by [*the Submillimeter Wave Astronomy Satellite (SWAS)*]{} and [*Odin*]{} Satellite in recent years. Our model predicts that O reaches an abundance of $4\times 10^{-5}$ relative to hydrogen nuclei at $r=8000$ AU, while it steeply decreases inwards from $\sim 1000$ AU to 100 AU. Even at $r=8000$ AU, however, H$_2$O ice is the most abundant O-bearing species (Figure \[dist\]). [@ber00] summarized the [*SWAS*]{} observations of cold molecular clouds by stating that the fractional abundance of O$_2$ lies under $10^{-6}$ and that of gaseous water lies in the range $10^{-9}$ to a few $\times$ $10^{-8}$. Molecular oxygen has recently been detected towards $\rho$ Oph by Odin with an abundance of $5\times 10^{-8}$ relative to hydrogen [@lar07]. These abundances are consistent with our predictions for the outermost radius $r=8000$ AU, where the density $n_{\rm H}\sim 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$ and temperature $T<20$ K are similar to those in molecular clouds.
Dependence on visual extinction at the core edge
------------------------------------------------
So far we have assumed that the model core is embedded in ambient clouds of $A_{\rm v}= 3$ mag. In reality, some cores (e.g. Bok globules) are isolated, while others are embedded in clouds. Isolated cores are directly irradiated by interstellar UV radiation, which causes photo-reactions (photodissociation and ionization) in the gas-phase and ice mantles [e.g. @lee96; @rh01]. In order to evaluate the effect of ambient UV radiation, we recalculated molecular abundances in a core that is directly irradiated by interstellar UV radiation; i.e. $A_{\rm v}=0$ mag at the outer edge of the core ($r=4\times 10^4$ AU). The photodissociation rates of H$_2$ and CO were calculated by following @lee96, which gives the shielding factors as a function of $A_{\rm v}$ and column densities of CO and H$_2$ in the outer radii. The outermost shell for which we calculate molecular evolution is initially located at $r\sim 1.4\times 10^4$ AU and declines to $r=8000$ AU at $t_{\rm final}$. Column densities of CO and H$_2$ outside of this shell were estimated by assuming $n$(CO)/$n_{\rm H}=5\times 10^{-5}$ and $n$(H$_2$)/$n_{\rm H}=0.5$.
Figure \[av0\] shows the resultant distribution of molecular abundances in a protostellar core at $t_{\rm final}$. Compared with the embedded core model (Figure \[dist\]), the fractional abundances of CH$_3$OH and H$_2$CO are lower by more than one order of magnitude, while the CO$_2$ abundance is higher. When the shells are still at $r\gtrsim$ several thousand AU and have relatively low $A_{\rm v}$ ($\lesssim 4$ mag), the photodissociation of H$_2$O ice efficiently produces OH, which reacts with CO to produce CO$_2$ ice. Methanol in the ice mantle is dissociated to H$_2$CO, which is further dissociated to CO. Species such as CH$_3$CHO, HCOOCH$_3$ and CH$_3$OCH$_3$ are also less abundant in the isolated model, because their formation path includes H$_2$CO in the ice mantle. Formic acid in the gas phase extends only up to $\sim 100$ AU, while it extends to several hundred AU in the embedded model. In the isolated model, it is formed mainly by OH + HCO on the grain surface. Our results may indicate that molecular abundances in hot cores and corinos depend on whether the core is isolated or embedded in clouds.
The importance of photo-reactions on ice mantle abundances has also been investigated in a number of laboratory experiments. For example, @wk02 and @wm07 found that carbon dioxide is efficiently produced by UV irradiation on a binary ice mixture of H$_2$O and CO, a result that is consistent with our model. However, [@wm07] found that the UV irradiation also produces CH$_3$OH with a relative abundance of $n$(CH$_3$OH)/$n$(CO) $\sim 10$ % in the ice mixture. Comparison of our model with their experiment is not straightforward because of differences in temperature and included reactions, but we may have underestimated the CH$_3$OH ice abundance in the irradiated core model. The discrepancy can arise from the H atom desorption rate in our model. We calculated that UV radiation penetrates into the ice mantle and dissociates H$_2$O to produce H atoms embedded in ice. Although we do not discriminate between H atoms on the ice surface and those embedded in the ice mantle, the embedded H atoms in reality would have a lower desorption rate and a better chance of reacting with neighboring CO, a reaction that initiates the formation of methanol in the mantles. Discrimination between surface and embedded hydrogen atoms should be included in future work.
Comparison with observation
---------------------------
Our model results can be compared with observational results of low-mass protostars. Comparison of the physical structure of the core has already been discussed in detail by @mi00. Here we concentrate on molecular abundances. First, we compare molecules in ice mantles. The observation of ices towards the low-mass protostar Elias 29 is summarized in @es00; the abundances of CO, CO$_2$, CH$_3$OH and CH$_4$ relative to water ice are 5.6 %, 22 %, $< 4$ %, and $< 1.6$ %, respectively. On the other hand, @ppp03 detected a high abundance (15-25 % relative to water ice) of CH$_3$OH ice towards 3 low-mass protostars among 40 observed protostars. Although the observation of ice features is difficult, it is probable that the composition of ice mantles depends on their environment and the history of the observed regions. From a theoretical point of view, the abundances of molecules on grains and their fractional abundances compared with H$_2$O ice depend on time and radius from the protostar. In addition, an embedded core and an isolated core lead to significantly different calculated abundances for solid CH$_3$OH, H$_2$CO and CO$_2$.
Table \[solid\_theo\] lists ratios of ice species with respect to water ice at $t_{\rm final}$ for local abundances at radii of 1000 AU and 8000 AU and for column densities towards the core center. Since most of the core material exists at $r\le 8000$ AU along the line of sight, and since the ices are present at $r>10$ AU, the column density is calculated by integrating the number density of ice species from 10 AU to 8000 AU. It is interesting to note that regardless of the distance from the protostar, the isolated core model gives smaller surface abundances of CH$_3$OH and H$_2$CO and a higher surface abundance of CO$_2$ than the embedded model. In both models, the surface abundance of CO at 1000 AU is much smaller than observed, but it increases towards larger radii up to 10 and 20% in the embedded and isolated models respectively. Comparison with the observations is best done using our column density ratios, which are in reasonable agreement with Elias 29 for both models. Considering the variation among cores, our models show reasonable agreement with observation. The disagreement with CO doubtless results from our assumption concerning desorption rates. In the present work, we use a desorption energy for each species mainly referring to laboratory experiments on pure ice sublimation or theoretical estimates that sum up the van der Waals forces between adsorbed atoms and grain surface. But in reality, interstellar ice is a mixture, and hence volatile species can be entrapped by less volatile species; recent temperature-programmed desorption results show that in a mixture rich in water ice, much CO desorbs at considerably higher temperatures [@cdf03]. Table \[obs\] lists the gas-phase abundances of large molecules towards the low-mass protostar IRAS 16293-2422 and in the central region ($r=30.6$ AU) of our core model. The physical and chemical structures of IRAS 16293-2422 have been intensively studied [@cec00a; @cec00b; @sch02; @cau03; @cha05]. The physical parameters derived by the model at $t_{\rm final}$ ($\sim 23 L_{\odot}$ and $r_{\rm 100K}\sim1.2\times 10^2$ AU) are very close to the ones of IRAS16293-2422; the observed luminosity of the source is 27 $L_{\odot}$ [@wal86] and the physical structure has been constrained by multi-line analysis of H$_2$O and H$_2$CO observations through a detailed radiative transfer code [@cec00b]. It should be noted that the emission lines of large organic molecules observed in this source are not spatially resolved, except for a few lines investigated by interferometric observations [@bot04b; @kua04; @rem06]. The density and temperature of the gas should vary both within the beam and along the line of sight. Hence the derived molecular abundances vary significantly depending on the assumptions concerning the physical structure of the core and the emitting region, which explains the difference in abundances determined by different investigators (see Table \[obs\]).
Although it is not obvious which core model, embedded or isolated, should be compared with IRAS16293-2422, we would prefer the embedded core model. While IRAS16293-2422 is in the Ophiuchus molecular cloud, which harbors several UV sources in the form of OB stars, the $^{13}$CO and C$^{18}$O observations indicate that the core is embedded in dense gas [@lor89; @tac00]. The high molecular D/H ratios observed towards IRAS 16293-2422 and its neighboring starless core IRAS16293E [@cec07; @vas04] indicate that these cores have been very cold and thus well-shielded from the ambient stellar radiation. Considering the uncertainties in observationally-estimated molecular abundances, HCOOCH$_3$, HCOOH, and CH$_3$CN in our embedded core model show reasonable agreement with the observations. The embedded model, however, underestimates CH$_3$OCH$_3$ and overestimates H$_2$CO and CH$_3$OH. The isolated core model, on the other hand, reproduces observed abundances of CH$_3$OH, HCOOH and CH$_3$CN, but strongly underestimates H$_2$CO, HCOOCH$_3$, and CH$_3$OCH$_3$.
We can think of several possible solutions to improve the agreement with observation. First, it is noteworthy that the gaseous CH$_3$OH abundance estimated in IRAS 16293-2422 is much lower than the abundance of CH$_3$OH ice ($n$(CH$_3$OH ice)/$n_{\rm H} \sim 10^{-5}$, assuming n(H$_2$O ice)/ $n_{\rm H}\sim 10^{-4}$) detected by @ppp03 towards some low-mass protostars. We may have missed or underestimated the reactions which transform CH$_3$OH to other large organic species. Secondly, the abundances of large organic species in the central region can vary with time. In the present work, we have concentrated on the distribution of molecules only at $t_{\rm final}$. Shells that reach the central region at different times should experience different temporal variations of physical conditions. Some shells may experience longer periods at $T\sim 20-40$ K, where large organic species start to be efficiently formed. This possibility will be pursued in a future work. Thirdly, core models with rotation could produce higher abundances of large organic species; because of the centrifugal force, core material migrates more slowly and stays longer in the temperature range preferable for the formation of large organic molecules (e.g. in a forming disk).
Because of the beam size of the current radio observations, little is known concerning the spatial distribution of the large organic species; they are mostly confined within a few arc seconds from the core center [e.g. @kua04]. But there are exceptions; @rem06 found that HCOOH and HCOOCH$_3$ show extended emission of $\sim 5$ arcsec. Our embedded core model reproduces the extended emission of HCOOH, while HCOOCH$_3$ is confined to $r<100$ AU.
Carbon chains in a protostellar core
------------------------------------
Recently, [@sshk07] detected strong emission lines of carbon chain species such as C$_4$H and C$_4$H$_2$ towards the low-mass protostar L1527, which is considered to be in a transient phase from class 0 to class I. In general, carbon-chain species are associated with the early stages of a cold cloud core when the dominant form of carbon changes from atomic carbon to CO. Hence, the existence of carbon-chain species towards L1527 is a surprise. Figure \[carbon\_chain\] (a-b) shows the temporal variation of CH$_4$ and carbon-chain abundances in the shell that reaches $r=2.5$ AU at $t_{\rm final}$. When the core starts to contract, methane (CH$_4$) and C$_3$H$_4$ are already abundant in ice mantles. Methane has been formed by the hydrogenation of carbon on grain surfaces, while C$_3$H$_4$ has been formed by a combination of gas-phase reactions (to form unsaturated carbon chains such as C$_{3}$H and C$_{3}$H$_{2}$) and grain-surface reactions (to hydrogenate them). When the CH$_4$ sublimates, some fraction reacts with C$^+$ to form C$_2$H$_3^+$, which is a precursor for ion-molecule reactions that lead to the production of larger unsaturated hydrocarbons. While gas-phase reactions tend to make the carbon chains longer, adsorbed species experience hydrogenation and dissociation by cosmic-ray induced UV radiation. Figure \[carbon\_chain\] (c-d) shows the distribution of carbon-chain species in our embedded core model. Methane and C$_3$H$_4$ are abundant in the ice mantle even at $r\gtrsim 10^3$ AU, while other hydrocarbons are abundant at a few 100 AU $\lesssim r \lesssim 10^3$ AU. Most of the carbon-chain species desorb at $r\lesssim$ a few 100 AU.
In summary, our model indicates that carbon-chain species can be re-generated in the protostellar core by the combination of gas-phase reactions and grain-surface reactions. It should be noted, however, that large oxygen-containing organic species are not detected in L1527 [@sak07], while they are abundant in the central region of our model. In future work, the temporal variation of the molecular distribution in model cores should be investigated to see if at certain evolutionary stages carbon-chain species are abundant while large organic species are not. For example, in their recent study of the chemistry of cold cores, [@gwh06] found that generation of gas-phase hydrocarbons from precursor surface methane occurs at very late times, after the abundance of surface methanol has essentially vanished. More detailed observations are also needed for a quantitative comparison with models. While our model predicts the column density of C$_4$H to be $2\times 10^{16}$ cm$^{-2}$ towards the central star, the observation gives $2\times 10^{14}$ cm$^{-2}$. The actual column density towards the central star can, however, be larger, because the emission is averaged within the beam (a few 10 arcsec) in the current observation. Methane ice, the precursor of the carbon-chain species in our model, is as abundant as 23 % relative to water ice at the outer edge of our core model. A deep integration of ice features towards field stars is needed to constrain the CH$_4$ ice abundances at the outer edge of the core and/or quiescent clouds, while the column density ratio of CH$_4$ ice to H$_2$O ice (1 %, see Table 2) in our model is consistent with the observation towards YSO’s (§4.3), because of the relatively large sublimation radius of CH$_4$.
Summary
=======
We have adopted the one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamical core model of @mi00 to investigate molecular evolution in a low-mass star-forming core. The physical structure (density, temperature and infall velocity) of the core is given as a function of time and radius (distance from the core center). The temporal variation of density, temperature and visual extinction is calculated for assorted infalling shells. The temporal variation of molecular abundances in these infalling shells and the radial distribution of molecules in the protostellar core are calculated by solving a chemical reaction network that couples gas-phase and grain-surface chemistry.
In the prestellar phases of star formation, species such as CO, which contain heavy elements, are depleted onto grain surfaces due to low temperatures in the vicinity of 10 K and below. As the contraction proceeds, the compressional heating overwhelms the radiative cooling. When the central density reaches $\sim
10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$, the temperature at the core center starts to rise sharply and soon reaches the sublimation temperature of CO ($\sim 20$ K). The first hydrostatic core is formed shortly (in several $10^2$ yr) thereafter. When the protostar is born, the CO sublimation radius extends to 100 AU, and the temperature at $r\lesssim 10$ AU is higher than 100 K, at which some large organic species start to evaporate.
We investigated the radial distribution of molecules at $9.3\times 10^4$ yr after the birth of a protostar, when the temperature is higher than 20 K and 100 K at $\lesssim 3.9\times 10^3$ AU and $\lesssim 100$ AU, respectively. The time taken by the infalling shells to warm up from 10 K to 100 K is important for the production of large molecules. We found that this warm-up phase occurs for only several $10^4$ yr in our dynamical model. Once the shells enter the region where $T\gtrsim 100$ K, they fall into the central protostar in the very short time of $\sim 10^2$ yr. Large organic molecules such as CH$_3$OH, HCOOCH$_3$ and CH$_3$OCH$_3$ are formed on grain surfaces at temperatures of $20-40$ K and subsequently released into the gas phase by thermal evaporation. In our model, only the abundance of HCOOH seems to be influenced by gas-phase chemistry. As a consequence, the radius at which the gas-phase abundance of an organic molecule typically increases strongly in the envelope corresponds to its sublimation radius. Our model also indicates that carbon-chain species can be formed by a combination of gas-phase reactions and grain-surface reactions after the sublimation of CH$_4$.
We compared molecular abundances in an isolated core model, which is exposed to the ambient UV field, and an embedded core model. We found that the photo-reactions in ice mantles are important in determining the ice abundances and thus the molecular abundances in hot corinos. The molecule CO$_2$, in particular, is enhanced in the isolated model, while methanol and formaldehyde are more abundant in the embedded model. Our model shows acceptable agreement with gas-phase observations of the hot corino IRAS 16293-2422 and ice-phase observations towards the low-mass protostar Elias 29, considering uncertainties and variations in observed abundances. A more detailed comparison, including a radiative transfer treatment to directly compare with the observed spectra, is desirable.
This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (17039008, 18026006) and by “The 21st Century COE Program of Origin and Evolution of Planetary Systems" of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT). E. H. thanks the National Science Foundation for support of his research program in astrochemistry.
Aikawa, Y., Ohashi, N., Inutsuka, S.-I., Herbst, E., & Takakuwa, S. 2001, ApJ, 552, 639
Aikawa, Y., Herbst, E., Roberts, H., & Caselli, P. 2005, ApJ, 620, 330
Allen, M. & Robinson, G. W. 1997, ApJ, 212, 396
Bergin, E. A., & Langer, W. D. 1997, ApJ, 486, 316
Bergin, E.A., et al. 2000, ApJ, 539, L129
Bergin, E.A. & Tafalla, M. 2006, ARA&A, in press
Bottinelli, S., Ceccarelli, C. Lefloch, B., Williams, J.P., Castets, A., Caux, E., Cazaux, S., Maret, S., Parise, B., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2004, ApJ, 615, 354
Bottinelli, S., Ceccarelli, C., Neri, R., Williams, J.P., Caux, E., Cazaux, S. Lefeloch, B., Maret, S., & Tielens, A.G.G.M. 2004, ApJ, 617, L69
Caselli, P., Walmsley, M., Tafalla, M., Dore, L., & Myers, P. 1999, ApJ, 523, L165
Cazaux, E., Tielens, A.G.G.M., Ceccarelli, C., Castets, A., Wakelam, V., Caux, E., Parise, B., & Teyssier, D., 2003, ApJ, 593, L51
Ceccarelli, C., Caselli, P., Herbst, E., Tielens, A.G.G.M., & Caux, E. 2007 in Protostars and Planets., ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, K. Keil (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 47
Ceccarelli, C., Castets, A., Caux, E., Hollenbach, D., Loinard, L., Molinari, S., & Tielens, A. G. G. M. 2000a, A&A, 355, 1129
Ceccarelli, C., Loinard, L., Castets, A., Tielens, A.G.G.M., & Caux, E., 2000b, A&A 357, L9
Chandler, C.J., Brogen, C.L., Shirley, Y.L. & Loinard, L. 2005, ApJ, 632, 371
Chiar, J.E., Adamson, A. J., & Whittet, D.C.B. 1996, ApJ, 472, 665
Collings, M.P., Dever, J.W., Fraser, H.J., McCoustra, M.R.S., & Williams, D.A. 2003, ApJ, 583, 1058
Di Francesco, J., Evans, N. J. II, Caselli, P., Myers, P. C., Shirley, Y., Aikawa, Y., Tafalla, M. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V.,ed. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, K. Keil, (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 17
Doty, S. D., Schöier, F. L., & van Dishoeck, E. F. 2004, A&A, 418, 1021
Ehrenfreund, P., & Shutte, W. A. 2000, in Astrochemistry: From Molecular Clouds to Planetary Systems, ed. Y. C. Minh, Y.C. & E. F. van Dishoeck (Chelsea, MI; Sheridan Books; Astronomical Society of the Pacific), 135
Fuchs, G. W., Ioppolo, S., Bisschop, S. E., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Linnartz, H. 2007, A&A, submitted
Garrod, R. T., & Herbst, E. 2006, A&A 457, 927
Garrod, R. T., Park I-H., Caselli P., & Herbst, E. 2006, Faraday Discussions, 133, 51
Garrod, R. T., Wakelam, V., & Herbst, E. 2007 A&A, 467, 1103
Geppert, W. D., Thomas, R. D., Ehlerding, A. et al. 2006, Faraday Discuss. 133, 177
Gibb. E. L., Rettig, T., Brittain, S., Haywood, R., Simon, T., & Kulesa, C. 2004, ApJ, 610, L113
Goldsmith, P.F. & Arquilla, R. 1985, in Protostars and Planets II., ed. D.C. Black, M.S. Matthews (Tucson: University of Arizona Press), 137
Hasegawa, T.I., Herbst, E. ,& Leung, C. M. 1992, ApJS, 82, 167
Hasegawa, T. I. & Herbst, E. MNRAS, 261, 83
Horn, A., M$\o$llendal, H., Sekiguchi, O. et al. 2004, ApJ, 611, 605
Kroes, G. J. & Andersson, S. 2006, in Astrochemistry: Recent Successes and Current Challenges, ed. D. C. Lis, G. A. Blake, E. Herbst (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press) 427
Kuan, Y.-J., Juang, H.-C., Charnley, S.B., Hirano, N., Takakuwa, S., Wilner, D.J., Liu, S.-Y., Ohashi, N., Bourke, T.L., Qi, C., & Zhang, Q. 2004, ApJ, 616, L27
Larson, R.B. 1969, MNRAS 145, 271
Larsson, B. et al. 2007, A&A, 466, 999
Lee, H-.H., Herbst, E., Pineau des Forêts, G., Roueff, E., & Le Bourlot, J. 1996, A&A, 311, 690
Lee, J.-E., Bergin, E. A., & Evans, N. J. II 2004, ApJ, 617, 360
Lee, J.-E., Evans, N. J. II , & Bergin, E. A. 2005, ApJ, 631, 351
Loren, R.B. 1989, ApJ, 338, 902
Maret, S., Ceccarelli, C., Caux, E., Tielens, A.G.G.M., J$\o$rgensen, J.K., van Dishoeck, E.F., Bacmann, A., Castets, A., Lefloch, B., Loinard, L., Parise, B. & Schöier, F. L. 2004, A&A, 416, 577
Maret, S., Ceccarelli, C., Tielens, A.G.G.M., Caux, E., Lefloch, B., Faure, A., Castet, A., & Flower, D.R. 2005, A&A, 442, 527
Masunaga, H., & Inutsuka, S. 2000, ApJ, 531, 350
Masunaga, H., Miyama, S. M., & Inutsuka, S. 1998, ApJ. 495, 346
Millar, T. J., & Hatchell J. 1998, Faraday Discuss. 109, 15
Omukai, K. 2007, PASJ in press
Pontoppidan, K. M., Dartois, E., van Dishoeck, E. F., Thi, W. -F., & d’Hendecourt, L. 2003, A&A, 404, L17
Remijian, A.J., & Hollis, J. M. 2006, ApJ, 640, 842
Ruffle, D. P., & Herbst, E. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 837
Ruffle, D. P., & Herbst, E. 2001, MNRAS, 324, 1054
Sakai, N., Sakai, T., & Yamamoto, S. 2007b, ApSS, in press
Sakai, N., Sakai, T., Hirota, T., & Yamamoto, S. 2007a, ApJ, in press
Sandford, S. A., & Allamandola, L. J. 1988, Icarus, 76, 201
Schoier, F. L., J[ø]{}rgensen, J. K., van Dishoeck, E. F.,& Blake, G. A. A&A, 390, 1001
Schöier, F. L., J$\o$rgensen, J. K., van Dishoeck, E. F., & Blake, G. A. 2002, A&A 391, 1001
Shu, F. H. 1977, ApJ, 214, 488
Tachihara, K., Mizuno, A., & Fukui, Y. 2000, ApJ, 528, 817
Tafalla, M., Myers, P. C., Caselli, P., Walmsley, C. M., & Comito, C. 2002, ApJ, 569, 815
Vastel, C., Phillips, T.G., Yoshida, H. 2004, ApJ, 606, 127
Viti, S., & Williams, D. A. 1999, MNRAS, 305, 755
Viti, S., Collings, M. P., Dever, J. W., McCoustra, M. R. S,. & Williams, D. A. 2004, MNRAS, 354, 1141
Wakelam, V., Caselli, P., Ceccarelli, C., Herbst, E., & Castets, A. 2004, A&A, 422, 159
Walker, C. K., Lada, C.J., Young, E.T., Maloney, P.R., & Wilking, B.A. 1986, ApJ, 309, L47
Watanabe, N., & Kouchi, A. 2002a, ApJ, 571, L173,
Watanabe, N, & Kouchi, A. 2002b, ApJ, 567, 651
Watanabe, N., Mouri, O., Nagaoka, A., Kouchi, A., & Pirronello, V. 2007, ApJ, in press
Williams, D.A. 1968, ApJ, 151, 935
--------- -----------
Element Abundance
He 9.75(-1)
N 2.47(-5)
O 1.80(-4)
C$^+$ 7.86(-5)
S$^+$ 9.14(-8)
Si$^+$ 2.74(-9)
Fe$^+$ 2.74(-9)
Na$^+$ 2.25(-9)
Mg$^+$ 1.09(-8)
P$^+$ 2.16(-10)
Cl$^+$ 1.00(-9)
--------- -----------
: Elemental abundances with respect to H.
\[abelem\]
---------- -------------------- --------- -------- ------------------- --------- --------
Species
1000 AU 8000 AU column 1000 AU 8000 AU column
CO $7\times 10^{-11}$ 10 0.4 $8\times 10^{-9}$ 23 0.04
CO$_2$ 10 4 4.2 125 21 45
H$_2$CO 6 3 1.5 $2\times 10^{-6}$ 0.08 0.03
CH$_3$OH 3 2 2.7 0.1 0.04 0.2
CH$_4$ $3\times 10^{-9}$ 23 1 $2\times 10^{-9}$ 5 0.4
---------- -------------------- --------- -------- ------------------- --------- --------
: Percentage abundances of ice-mantle species compared with H$_2$O ice in model cores at $t_{\rm final}$. For each core model, ice abundance at radius of 1000 AU and 8000 AU are listed. Ratios of column densities integrated towards the core center are also listed as “column”.
\[solid\_theo\]
--------------- --------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
Species IRAS 16293-2422
embedded isolated
H$_2$CO 1.0(-7), 1.1(-7) 2.8(-6) 1.3(-11)
CH$_3$OH 1.0(-7), 9.4(-8) 3.0(-6) 8.5(-8)
HCOOCH$_3$ 2.5-5.5(-7), 2.6-4.3(-9), $>$ 1.2(-8) 1.8(-9) 3.2(-11)
HCOOH 6.2(-8), 2.5(-9) 1.7(-8) 2.1(-8)
CH$_3$OCH$_3$ 2.4(-7), 7.6(-8) 3.5(-10) 5.8(-12)
CH$_3$CN 1.0(-8), 7.5(-9) 3.0(-8) 1.3(-8)
--------------- --------------------------------------- ---------- ----------
: Gas-phase molecular abundances in IRAS 16293-2422 and model results.
\[obs\]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Minh D. Nguyen and Won-Yong Shin, '
title: ' Improved Density-Based Spatio–Textual Clustering on Social Media '
---
Introduction
============
Background
----------
lustering is one of the prominent tasks in exploratory data mining, and a common technique for statistical data analysis. Cluster analysis refers to the partitioning of objects into a finite set of categories or clusters so that the objects in one cluster have high similarity but are clearly dissimilar to objects in other clusters [@han2011data]. Several different approaches to clustering have extensively been introduced in the literature. For example, algorithms such as K-means [@hartigan1979algorithm] and Clustering Large Applications based on Randomized Search (CLARANS) [@ng2002clarans] were designed based on a partitioning approach; Gaussian mixture models [@fraley2002model] and COBWEB [@fisher1987improving] belong to a model-based approach; Divisive Analysis (DIANA) [@kaufman2009finding] and Balanced Iterative Reducing and Clustering using Hierarchies (BIRCH) [@zhang1996birch] were developed based on a hierarchical approach; Statistical Information Grid (STING) [@wang1997sting] and Clustering in Quest (CLIQUE) [@clique] were shown as a grid-based approach; and Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (DBSCAN) [@ester1996density] and Ordering Points to Identify the Clustering Structure (OPTICS) [@ankerst1999optics] are examples of a density-based approach.
Among those approaches, density-based clustering has been extensively studied to discover insights in geographic data [@sander1998density]. Due to the fact that density-based clustering returns clusters of an arbitrary shape, is robust to noise, and does not require prior knowledge on the number of clusters, it is suitable for diverse nature-inspired applications [@kriegel2011density]. For instance, through density-based clustering on geographic data, researchers are capable of finding clusters of restaurants in a city, clusters along roads and rivers, and so forth. Due to its robust performance and intuitive representation, DBSCAN stands out as the most frequently used density-based clustering algorithm. Variations of DBSCAN were also widely studied in [@sander1998density; @birant2007; @campello2013density; @wu2018; @bryant2018].
Recently, owing to the popularity of social networks (or social media), the volume of spatio–textual data is rising drastically. Hundreds of millions of users on social media tend to share their geo-tagged media contents such as photos, videos, musics, and texts. For example, when users visit a point-of-interest (POI), they are likely to check in, upload photos of their visit, or post geo-tagged textual data via social media to describe their individual idea, feeling or preference relevant to the POI. As an example, more than five hundred million tweets are posted on Twitter [@kwak2010] everyday,[^1] and approximately 1% of them are geo-tagged [@morstatter2013sample], which correspond to five million geo-tagged tweets everyday. As a result, there is a high demand for processing and making good use of spatio–textual information based on massive datasets of real-world social media. While there were several studies on the spatio-textual queries [@de2008keyword; @cong2009efficient; @yao2010approximate; @tao2014fast], which are to find objects satisfying certain spatial and textual constraints, researches on spatio-textual data analysis by clustering [@choi2017k; @wu2016density] have not been closely carried out.
Motivation and Main Contributions
---------------------------------
Our study is motivated by the insight that when we find clusters (or geographic regions) from geo-tagged records related to a certain POI on social media, DBSCAN [@ester1996density] and its several variations [@sander1998density; @birant2007; @campello2013density; @wu2018; @bryant2018] may not give good clustering results. This comes from the fact that while the geographic region surrounding a POI generally comprises two types of [*heterogeneous*]{} geo-tags that include and do not include annotated keywords about the POI (defined as *POI-relevant* and *POI-irrelevant* geo-tags, respectively), DBSCAN uses only POI-relevant geo-tags in the process of finding clusters. Therefore, although clusters found by DBSCAN seem to correctly discover groups of POI-relevant geo-tags on the surface, they also blindly include geographic regions which contain a large number of undesired POI-irrelevant geo-tags, thus leading to a poor clustering quality. Hence, in the case of such a heterogeneous input data type, the methodology of DBSCAN using only POI-relevant geo-tags may not be a complete solution to finding clusters. It is essential to perform clustering based on a textually heterogeneous input, including both POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant geo-tags, in order not only to find highly dense clusters of POI-relevant data points but also to exclude the regions with a large number of POI-irrelevant points.
To this end, we introduce , a novel spatial clustering algorithm based on *spatio–textual* information on Twitter [@vu2016geosocialbound; @shin2015new].[^2] We first characterize POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant tweets as the texts that include and do not include a POI name or its semantically coherent variations, respectively. By judiciously considering the proportion of both POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant tweets, is shown to greatly improve the clustering quality in terms of $\mathcal{F}_1$ score and its variants including a geographic factor, compared to that of DBSCAN. This gain comes due to the robust ability of that excludes noisy regions which contain a huge number of undesired POI-irrelevant tweets. Note that can be regarded as a generalization of DBSCAN since it performs exactly as DBSCAN with the textually homogeneous inputs and far outperforms DBSCAN with the heterogeneous inputs.
In a preliminary version [@minh] of this work, we defined the above clustering problem and proposed an effective algorithm. We note that assumes the resulting clusters having [*strict*]{} boundaries, which however may not fully exploit the entire geographic features of the data. To further improve the clustering quality based on the observation that the geographic distribution of tweets is generally smooth and thus it is not clear which tweets should be grouped as clusters or be treated as noise, we present a fuzzy DBSTexC () algorithm. relaxes the contraints on a point’s neighborhood density by allowing an ambiguous tweet to belong to a cluster with a distinct membership degree. We empirically evaluate its performance by showing the superiority over the original in terms of our performance metric. This paper subsumes [@minh] by allowing that decision boundaries for clusters can be fuzzy. The runtime complexity of our two algorithms is also analytically shown and our analysis is numerically validated. Our main contributions are five-fold and summarized as follows:
- We introduce , a new spatial clustering algorithm, which intelligently integrates the existing DBSCAN algorithm and the heterogeneous textual information to avoid geographic regions with a large number of POI-irrelevant geo-tagged posts in the resulting clusters.
- We show the evaluation performance of the proposed clustering algorithm in terms of $\mathcal{F}_1$ score and its variants, while demonstrating its superiority over DBSCAN by up to about 60%.
- We also present the algorithm, an extension of , which incorporates the notion of fuzzy clustering into the framework, to fully capture the geographic distribution of tweets in various locations.
- We demonstrate the robust ability of that further improves the clustering quality via intensive experiments, compared to that of by up to about 27% for several POIs that are located especially in sparsely-populated areas.
- We analytically and numerically show the computational complexity of our proposed algorithms when two different implementation approaches are employed.
This paper is the first attempt to integrate the existing DBSCAN and the heterogeneous textual information, and thus our methodology sheds light on how to design highly-improved spatial clustering algorithms by leveraging spatio–textual information on social media.
Organization
------------
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[prior\], we review the prior work related to our research. Section \[data acq\] describes how to collect POIs and search for POI-relevant tweets. In Section \[method\], we present the proposed algorithm and empirically evaluate its performance. The computational complexity of our algorithm is analytically shown in Section \[result\]. Section \[fuzzy\] introduces , an extended version of . Finally, Section \[summary\] summarizes the paper with some concluding remarks.
Notations
---------
The list of all the notations used in our work is presented in Table \[notation\]. Some notations will be more precisely defined as they appear in later sections of this paper.
**Notation** **Description**
----------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\epsilon$ Radius of a point’s neighborhood
$N_{\text{min}}$ Minimum allowable number of POI-relevant tweets in an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of a point
$N_{\text{max}}$ Maximum allowable number of POI-irrelevant tweets in an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of a point
$\eta$ Precision threshold for a query region
$\mathcal{X}$ Set of POI-relevant tweets
$\mathcal{Y}$ Set of POI-irrelevant tweets
$\mathcal{X}_{\epsilon}(p)$ Set of POI-relevant tweets contained in an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of point $p$
$\mathcal{Y}_{\epsilon}(p)$ Set of POI-irrelevant tweets contained in an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of point $p$
$\text{dist}(p,q)$ Euclidean distance between points $p$ and $q$
$C$ A cluster with label $C$
$A$ Area of the geographical region covered by clusters
$\bar{A}$ Normalized area of the geographical region covered by clusters
$\alpha$ Area exponent
$\mathcal{F}_1$ $\mathcal{F}_1$ score
$n$ Number of POI-relevant tweets
$m$ Number of POI-irrelevant tweets
$\mu_p$ Fuzzy score of point $p$
: Summary of notations[]{data-label="notation"}
Previous Work {#prior}
=============
Our clustering algorithm is related to four broad areas of research, namely traditional spatial clustering, spatio–textual similarity search, clustering based on spatial and non-spatial attributes, and fuzzy clustering.
**Spatial clustering.** A variety of spatial clustering algorithms have been developed in the literature. Several algorithms using a partitioning approach were introduced and widely utilized in [@hartigan1979algorithm; @ng2002clarans; @park2009simple]. Even though such algorithms are useful for finding sphere-shaped clusters, they require prior knowledge on the number of clusters and thus are unable to find clusters of arbitrary shapes. Next, hierarchical clustering algorithms [@kaufman2009finding; @zhang1996birch] can be further divided into two types based on the following clustering processes: the agglomerative (bottom-up) process and the divisive (top-down) process. Their strengths lie in the hierarchical relation among clusters and an easy interpretation. However, hierarchical clustering does not have well-defined termination criteria, and if some objects are mis-clustered during the growth of the hierarchy, then such objects will remain in a certain wrong cluster until the clustering process is terminated. In addition, from a density-based point of view, the DBSCAN algorithm [@ester1996density] uses a series of density-connected points to form density-based clusters. Since DBSCAN does not require the number of clusters as an input parameter, and does not assume any underlying probability density behind the clusters, it can discover clusters of arbitrary shapes. As follow-up studies on DBSCAN, numerous algorithms have been developed as follows. GDBSCAN [@sander1998density] generalized DBSCAN by extending the notion of a neighborhood over the traditional $\epsilon$-neighborhood and by using different measures to define the “cardinality" of the neighborhood; ST-DBSCAN [@birant2007] was designed by discovering clusters based on spatial and temporal attributes; HDBSCAN [@campello2013density] was presented by generating a density-based clustering hierarchy and then extracting a set of significant clusters based on a measure of stability; DCPGS [@wu2018] revised DBSCAN in such as way that places are clustered based on both spatial and social distances between them (i.e., the geo-social network data); and RNN-DBSCAN [@bryant2018] was proposed by defining observation density using reverse nearest neighbors, which leads to a reduction in complexity and is preferable when clusters have high variations in density. Unlike the aforementioned studies, our work aims to integrate the existing DBSCAN and the heterogeneous textual information to avoid noisy regions having numerous POI-irrelevant geo-tags.
**Spatio–textual similarity search.** It is of paramount importance to find spatially and textually closest objects to query objects. To offer compelling solutions to this problem, several algorithms [@de2008keyword; @cong2009efficient; @yao2010approximate; @tao2014fast] were introduced. Particularly, a method to answer queries containing a location and a set of keywords was presented in [@de2008keyword]. Next, an indexing framework for processing top-*k* query that considers both spatial proximity and text relevancy was introduced in [@cong2009efficient]. Although these algorithms study the spatio-textual distance between objects, they are inherently different from our proposed approach, which finds density-based spatio–textual clusters using the textually heterogeneous input data type on social media such as Twitter.
**Clustering based on spatial and non-spatial attributes.** There have been recent studies on the use of spatial and non-spatial attributes to improve the clustering performance in various applications. Spectral clustering was applied in [@van2013community] to identify clusters among gang members based on both the observation of social interactions and the geographic locations of individuals. On the other hand, another clustering method was presented in [@wang2011spatial] to discover clusters that are dense spatially and have high spatial correlation based on their non-spatial attributes.
**Fuzzy clustering.** Most of fuzzy clustering algorithms were built upon the fuzzy c-means algorithm [@bezdek1984fcm; @miyamoto2008algorithms; @li2008]. These algorithms integrate crisp clustering techniques and the theory of fuzzy sets so as to discover clusters whose objects belong to multiple clusters simultaneously with different degrees of membership [@smiti2013soft; @zahid2001fuzzy]. However, fuzzy density-based clustering algorithms may or may not allow overlapping clusters. Fuzzy neighborhood DBSCAN (FN-DBSCAN) [@nasibov2009robustness] was proposed by introducing the definition of fuzzy neighborhood size along with various neighborhood membership functions to capture different neighborhood sensitivities. Three extensions of DBSCAN were also presented in [@ienco2016fuzzy], while producing clusters with distinct fuzzy and overlapping properties. A survey on popular fuzzy density-based clustering algorithms was presented in [@ulutagay2012fuzzy].
Note that results presented below partially overlap with our prior conference paper [@minh]. The present paper significantly extends the earlier work in several ways, including the proof of correctness of algorithm, the revised analysis of the computational complexity, and the introduction to , an extension of that incorporates the notion of fuzzy clustering to capture the entire geographic features of the data.
Data Acquisition and Processing {#data acq}
===============================
We first explain how we acquire the Twitter data and choose POIs. Then, for every POI, we outline our approach to searching for POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant tweets.
Collecting Twitter Data
-----------------------
We utilize the Twitter Streaming Application Programming Interface (API) [@twittermonitor], which is a widely popular tool to collect data from Twitter for various research purposes such as topic modeling, network analysis, and statistical content analysis. Streaming API returns tweets that match a query written by an API user. An interesting finding is that even if Twitter Streaming API returns at most a 1% sample of all the tweets created at a given moment, it gives an almost complete set of *geo-tagged* tweets despite sampling [@morstatter2013sample].
The dataset that we use includes a large number of geo-tagged records (i.e., tweets) collected from Twitter users from May 31, 2016 to June 30, 2016 in the UK. We deleted the contents that were generated by the users posting more than three times consecutively at the same exact location, as those were likely to be products of other services such as Tweetbot, TweetDeck, Twimight, and so forth. Moreover, we notice that each record consists of a number of attributes that can be distinguished by their associated field names. For data analysis, we select the following three attributes from the collected tweets:
- *text*: actual UTF-8 text of the tweet;
- *lat*: latitude of the location where the tweet was posted;
- *lon*: longitude of the location where the tweet was posted.
Collecting POIs
---------------
We select POIs as popular point locations that people may be interested in and are likely to visit. Moreover, for the geographic diversity, we choose POIs from both populous metropolitan areas and sparsely populated cities. The names of chosen POIs and their geographic regions are shown in Table \[tb1\]. Based on the UK gridded population dataset [@UKgridded], we are able to approximate the population as follows: the population density for the areas surrounding POIs in London, Edinburgh, and Oxford is $>$7,000/km^2^, $<$2,000/km^2^, and $<$1,000/km^2^, respectively.
**POI name** **Region**
---------------------- ----------------------------
Hyde Park Populous metropolitan area
Regent’s Park Populous metropolitan area
University of Oxford Sparsely populated city
Edinburgh Castle Sparsely populated city
: POI names and the corresponding geographic regions[]{data-label="tb1"}
Searching POI-Relevant Tweets
-----------------------------
Since Twitter users tend to convey their interest in a POI by mentioning or tagging it in their tweets, we are able to collect all POI-relevant tweets by querying for keywords related to the POI in the text field of the collected tweets. However, when users type the actual terms of each POI in their tweets, they may misspell or implicitly mention the POI name. We thus implement a keyword-based search for [*semantically coherent*]{} variations of a POI, which would contain its shortened names, its informal names (if any), and so forth. For a POI formed into a large geographic area, we include names of famous attractions inside the POI to increase the search accuracy. The list of search queries for four POIs shown in Table \[tb1\] is summarized in Table \[POIquery\].[^3] Therefore, the dataset can be divided into two subgroups of geo-tagged tweets that include and do not include the annotated POI keywords, which correspond to POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant tweets, respectively.
**POI name**
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------
Hyde Park *Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, Royal Park*
Regent’s Park *Regent’s Park, London Zoo, tasteoflondon*
University of Oxford *Oxford Univ, oxford univ, Univ Oxford*
Edinburgh Castle *Edinburgh Castle, edinburgh castle, EdinburghCastle*
: POI names and their search queries[]{data-label="POIquery"}
Proposed Methodology {#method}
====================
To elaborate on the proposed methodology, we first present the important definitions and analysis that are essential to the design of our algorithm, and show the analysis that validates the correctness of our algorithm. Then, we elaborate on our DBSTexC algorithm.
Definitions
-----------
We start by introducing the definition of a query region. A query region is defined as a geographic area from which we collect the geo-tagged tweets for a particular POI. Generally, we are likely to find both POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant tweets inside the region. Nevertheless, since the relevance of information to the POI varies according to the geographic distance between the POI and the locations where the data are generated, tweets posted at locations far away from the POI are likely to have little or no textual description for the POI. We thus focus only on a region that contains almost all relevant tweets but omit the majority of irrelevant tweets that were posted geographically far from the POI, which would lead to a reduced computational complexity. Motivated by this observation, we define a query region as follows:
*Definition 1 (Query region):* Given a POI, a query region is a circle whose center corresponds to the center point of the POI’s administrative bounding box provided by Google Maps. The radius of the circle is then increased stepwise until Precision of the query region is lower than a threshold $\eta$, where $\eta$ can be set appropriately based on POI types. Here, $\text{Precision}$ of the query region is the ratio of true positives (the number of POI-relevant tweets in the query region) to all predicted positives (the number of all retrieved geo-tagged tweets in the query region).
In Fig. \[queryRegion\], we show an example of the query region for Hyde Park. As shown in the figure, starting from the center of the POI, we continue on expanding the query region until the condition in Definition 1 is fulfilled.
![An example of the query region for Hyde Park. The red rectangle is the administrative bounding box, whose center is denoted by the red dot, and the blue circle is the query circle that fulfills the condition in Definition 1.[]{data-label="queryRegion"}](3.jpg){width="1\linewidth"}
Similar to DBSCAN [@ester1996density], we exploit the neighborhood of a point (See Definition 2) and a series of density-connected points (See Definition 6) to find clusters. However, unlike DBSCAN, we present a new parameter $N_{\text{max}}$ to limit the number of [*POI-irrelevant*]{} tweets, resulting in an improved clustering quality. Hence, we can acquire a core point which has not only at least $N_{\text{min}}$ POI-relevant tweets but also at most $N_{\text{max}}$ POI-irrelevant tweets inside its neighborhood (See Definition 3). The result of , whose clusters are composed of connected neighborhoods of core points, would significantly outperform DBSCAN that uses only POI-relevant tweets, which is numerically shown in Section \[result\].
*Definition 2 ($\epsilon$-neighborhood of a point):* Let $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ denote the sets of POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant tweets, respectively. For a point $p\in \mathcal{X}$, the sets of $\epsilon$-neighborhoods containing POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant tweets, denoted by $\mathcal{X}_{\epsilon}(p)$ and $\mathcal{Y}_{\epsilon}(p)$, are defined as the geo-tagged tweets within a scan circle centered at $p$ with radius $\epsilon$ and are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{X}_{\epsilon}(p) = \{q\in \mathcal{X} | \text{dist}(p,q) \le \epsilon\} \\
\mathcal{Y}_{\epsilon}(p) = \{q\in \mathcal{Y} | \text{dist}(p,q) \le \epsilon\},\end{aligned}$$ respectively, where dist($p,q$) is the geographic distance between coordinates $p$ and $q$. Note that we focus on the $\epsilon$-neighborhood only for POI-relevant tweets while neglecting the neighborhood of POI-irrelevant tweets, since our algorithm finds clusters based on a series of $\epsilon$-neighborhoods of only POI-relevant tweets.
*Definition 3 (Core point):* A point $p\in \mathcal{X}$ is a core point if it fulfills the following condition: $$|\mathcal{X}_{\epsilon}(p)| \ge N_{\text{min}} \; \text{and} \; |\mathcal{Y}_{\epsilon}(p)| \le N_{\text{max}}.$$
Analysis
--------
The analytical part essentially follows the same line as that in [@clustering], but is modified so that it fits into our framework. In this subsection, we present fundamental definitions that provide the basis for our algorithm to find clusters according to a density-based approach using spatio–textual information. Then, we analytically validate the correctness of our algorithm by introducing two lemmas.
*Definition 4 (Directly density-reachable):* A point $p$ is directly density-reachable from a core point $q$ with respect to (w.r.t.) $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$ if $$p\in \mathcal{X}_{\epsilon}(q) \; \text{or} \; p\in \mathcal{Y}_{\epsilon}(q).$$
If point $p$ is directly density-reachable from a point $q$ and is a core point itself, then $q$ is also directly density-reachable from $p$. Therefore, it is obvious that “directly density-reachable" is symmetric for pairs of core points.
*Definition 5 (Density-reachable):* A point $p$ is density-reachable from a point $q$ w.r.t. $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$ if there is a chain of points $p_1,\cdots,p_n$, $p_1=q$, and $p_n=p$ such that $p_{i+1}$ is directly density-reachable from $p_i$.
The density-reachable relation is not symmetric. For example, given a directly density-reachable chain as in Definition 5, the points $p_1,\cdots,p_{n-1}$ are all core points. However, $p_n$ can be either a border point or a core point. If $p_n$ is a core point, then point $p_1$ is also symmetrically density-reachable from $p_n$. Therefore, if the two points $p$ and $q$ are density-reachable from each other, then they are core points and belong to the same cluster.
*Definition 6 (Density-connected):* A point $p$ is density-connected to a point $q$ w.r.t. $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$ if there is a point $o$ such that both $p$ and $q$ are density-reachable from $o$ w.r.t. $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$.
With the above six definitions, we are now ready to define a new notion of a cluster. In brief, a cluster (See Definition 7) is defined as a set of density-connected points. Noise points (See Definition 8) are defined as the set of points not belonging to any clusters.
*Definition 7 (Cluster):* Let $\mathcal{T}$ denote the dataset of all retrieved geo-tagged tweets. Then, a cluster $C$ w.r.t. $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$ is a non-empty subset of the dataset $\mathcal{T}$ satisfying the following conditions:
1. \[imt51\] $\forall p \in \mathcal{X}$ and $q \in \mathcal{T}$: if $p \in C$ and $q$ is density-reachable from $p$ w.r.t. $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$, then $q \in C$.
2. $\forall p,q \in C$: $p$ is density-connected to $q$ w.r.t. $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$.
*Definition 8 (Noise):* Let $C_1,\cdots,C_k$ be the clusters of the dataset $\mathcal{T}$ w.r.t. $\epsilon_i$, $N_{\text{min}}^i$, and $N_{\text{max}}^i$ for $i\in\{1,\cdots,k\}$. Then, noise is defined as the set of points in $\mathcal{T}$ not belonging to any cluster $C_i$, i.e., $\{p\in \mathcal{T} | p \notin C_i, \forall i\}$.
Given the above eight definitions, our algorithm can then be intuitively stated as a two-step clustering algorithm using spatio–textual information. The first step is to choose an arbitrary POI-relevant tweet satisfying the core point condition as a seed. The second step is to retrieve all points that are density-reachable from the seed, thus obtaining the cluster containing the seed. To formally justify the credibility of our algorithm, we establish the following two lemmas.
\[lemma1\] Let $p$ be a point in $\mathcal{X}$, $|\mathcal{X}_{\epsilon}(p)|\ge N_{\text{min}}$, and $|\mathcal{Y}_{\epsilon}(p)|\le N_{\text{max}}$. Then, the set $O = \{o|o\in \mathcal{T}$ and $o$ is density-reachable from $p$ w.r.t. $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$ $\}$ is a cluster w.r.t. $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$.
Since $p\in \mathcal{X}$, $|\mathcal{X}_{\epsilon}(p)|\ge N_{\text{min}}$ and $|\mathcal{Y}_{\epsilon}(p)|\le N_{\text{max}}$, $p$ is a core point and thus is contained in some cluster $C$. We need to show that $O\subseteq C$. Definition 7-1 indicates that all points that belong to $O$ should also belong to $C$, resulting in $O\subseteq C$. This completes the proof of this lemma.
Let $C$ be a cluster w.r.t. $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$. Let $p$ be any point in $C\cap \mathcal{X}$ with $|\mathcal{X}_{\epsilon}(p)|\ge N_{\text{min}}$ and $|\mathcal{Y}_{\epsilon}(p)|\le N_{\text{max}}$. Then, $C$ is equal to the set $O = \{o| o$ is density-reachable from $p$ w.r.t. $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}\}$.
We need to show that $C = O$. Similarly as in the proof for **Lemma 1**, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemma1}
O\subseteq C. \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, to show that $C = O$, we need to prove that $C\subseteq O$. Let $q$ be an arbitrary point in $C$. Since $p\in C$, $q$ is density-connected to $p$ from Definition 7-2. It means that there is a core point $m\in C$ such that $p$ and $q$ are density-reachable from $m$ (see Definition 6). However, $p$ and $m$ are both core points, which represents that $p$ is density-reachable from $m$ if and only if $m$ is density-reachable from $p$. This shows that $q$ is density-reachable from $p$, which indicates that $q\in O$. Therefore, it follows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{lemma2}
C\subseteq O. \end{aligned}$$ From (\[lemma1\]) and (\[lemma2\]), we finally have $$C = O,$$ which completes the proof of this lemma.
Algorithm {#DBAlgo}
----------
In this subsection, we describe our algorithm that makes use of both POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant tweets. In the clustering process, starts with a random point $p_i$ in $\mathcal{X}$ (i.e., the set of POI-relevant tweets) for $i \in \{1,...,|\mathcal{X}|\}$ and retrieves all points that are density-reachable from $p_i$ with respect to $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, and $N_{\text{max}}$ (See Algorithm \[alg:Tex1\]). If $p_i$ is a core point, then a cluster is formed and expanded until all points that belong to the cluster are included (See Algorithm \[alg:Tex2\]). Otherwise, moves on to the next point in the set of POI-relevant tweets.
$\mathcal{X}$,$\mathcal{Y}$, $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}}$, $N_{\text{max}}$ Clusters with different labels $C$ $C\gets 0$; $n\gets |\mathcal{X}|$; $m\gets |\mathcal{Y}|$; $p_i$ is a point in the set $\mathcal{X}$ Mark $p_i$ as visited $[\mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i), \mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i)] =$ RangeQuery$(p_i)$ $C\gets C+1$ ExpandCluster$(p_i,\mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i),\mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i))$
In Algorithm \[alg:Tex1\], RangeQuery() is a function that returns points in an $\epsilon$-neighborhood, where it can be implemented using spatial access methods, i.e., *R-trees* and *k-d trees*. By searching for both POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant points along with two parameters $N_{\text{min}}$ and $N_{\text{max}}$ to determine whether to create a new cluster and/or expand the current cluster, our proposed algorithm effectively excludes noisy areas from its clusters.
$p_i, \mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i), \mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i)$ Cluster $C$ with all of its members Add $p_i$ to the current cluster Mark $p_j$ as visited $[\mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_j), \mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_j)] =$ RangeQuery$(p_j)$ $\mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i) = \mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i) \cup \mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_j)$ $\mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i) = \mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i) \cup \mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_j)$ Add $p_j$ to the current cluster Mark $q_j$ as visited Add $q_j$ to the current cluster
In Algorithm \[alg:Tex2\], for every point $p_j \in \mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i)$, we explore the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of $p_j$. If $p_j$ is a core point, then $p_j$ is added to the current cluster and the algorithm continues by appending its neighbors to the neighbor sets $\mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i)$ and $\mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i)$. We repeat this process until all the points in the set $\mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i)$ are examined. Eventually, when the process is terminated, the points in the set $\mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i)$ are included in our current cluster.
Experimental Results and Discussion {#result}
===================================
In this section, to show performance of the proposed algorithm in Section \[DBAlgo\], we present our performance metric, illustrate experimental results, and analyze the overall average computational complexity.
Performance Metric {#OpProb}
------------------
We choose the $\mathcal{F}_1$ score as a key component of our performance metric, since it is a popular measure in machine learning and statistical analysis for a test’s accuracy and thus can be a useful tool to assess the clustering quality. The $\mathcal{F}_1$ score is expressed as $$\mathcal{F}_1 = 2\cdot \frac{\text{Precision}\cdot \text{Recall}}{\text{Precision} + \text{Recall}},$$ which is the harmonic mean of $\text{Precision}$ and $\text{Recall}$. In our work, $\text{Precision}$ is the ratio of true positives (the number of POI-relevant tweets in clusters) to all predicted positives (the number of all geo-tagged tweets in clusters), that is, $\frac{\text{True Positives (TP)}}{\text{TP} + \text{False Positives (FP)}}$; and $\text{Recall}$ is the ratio of true positives to actual positives that should have been returned (the total number of POI-relevant tweets), that is, $\frac{\text{TP}}{\text{TP}+\text{False Negatives (FN)}}$.
In the process of discovering clusters from geo-tagged tweets relevant to a POI, the area covered by the clusters can be a matter of great interest, since several applications such as geo-marketing may desire a widespread geographic area. To illustrate this point, in Fig. \[f1ToArea\], we plot the $\mathcal{F}_1$ score according to the clusters’ area (in km^2^) for four chosen POIs. One can observe that the highest $\mathcal{F}_1$ score tends to be found when the clusters’ area is very small. Therefore, although it is good to find clusters with the highest $\mathcal{F}_1$ score, it is more preferred to considerably extend the area of the resulting clusters at the expense of a slightly reduced value of $\mathcal{F}_1$ in some applications. To this end, we would like to formulate a following new performance metric expressed as the product of a power law in the clusters’ area $A$ (in km^2^) normalized to the area of the query region, denoted by $\bar{A} = \frac{\text{Area covered by the clusters}}{\text{Area of the query region}}$, and the $\mathcal{F}_1$ score: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pm}
\bar{A}^\alpha \mathcal{F}_1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha \geq 0$ is the area exponent, which balances between different levels of geographic coverage. When $\alpha$ is small, clusters with the almost highest $\mathcal{F}_1$ score are returned, and as a special case, when $\alpha=0$, our performance metric becomes the $\mathcal{F}_1$ score. On the other hand, as $\alpha$ increases, clusters covering a wide area are obtained at the cost of a reduced $\mathcal{F}_1$. Hence, given parameters for the two algorithms (i.e., ($\epsilon, N_{\text{min}}$) for DBSCAN and ($\epsilon, N_{\text{min}}, N_{\text{max}}$) for ), we are able to calculate the performance metric in Equation (\[pm\]) along with the corresponding $\mathcal{F}_1$ score and the normalized clusters’ area $\bar{A}$ in each case.
Experimental Evaluation
-----------------------
We exhibit the experimental results for various values of $\alpha \geq 0$. In regard to the query region, for all chosen POIs, we assume that $\eta = 0.07$, which can also be set to other values to control the clustering quality constraint. We summarize and compare the performance of both and DBSCAN for four POIs in Table \[DBtex\], where $\alpha \in \{0, 0.5, 0.75,1\}$. From the table, it is evident that outperforms DBSCAN in terms of our performance metric in (\[pm\]) by up to 60.09% for all four chosen POIs. The performance improvement is manifest especially for Hyde Park, which is one of the biggest and the most visited parks in London. In Figs. \[TexHP\]–\[TexEd\], we show the clustering results of DBSCAN and for the four POIs when $\alpha = 0.5$. To emphasize the performance gap between the two algorithms, we illustrate the geographic cluster region with the distribution of POI-irrelevant tweets. From Fig. \[TexHP\], one can see that in the Hyde Park case, dramatically excludes a huge number of POI-irrelevant tweets from its clusters, while covering a much bigger geographic area in comparison with DBSCAN. This highlights the robustness of to discover high-quality clusters in terms of the proposed performance metric $\bar{A}^\alpha \mathcal{F}_1$.
On the other hand, for a special case where $\alpha = 0$, we notice from Table \[DBtex\] that the algorithm has almost the same performance as that of DBSCAN. While both algorithms are able to find clusters with the high $\mathcal{F}_1$ score, it is revealed from Fig. \[TexAlpha0\] that the clusters cover remarkably small geographic areas, which do not provide any insight or useful information about the regions where people are interested in the POIs. As a result, to obtain high-quality clusters covering large geographic areas, it is needed to incorporate the clusters’ area into the performance metric.
Computational Complexity
------------------------
We hereby analyze the computational complexity of the DBSCAN and algorithms. The runtime complexity of both algorithms is calculated by the input size (the number of tweets) times the basic operation $\epsilon$-neighborhood query (range query), which indeed dominates the complexity.
In the case of , from Algorithms \[alg:Tex1\] and \[alg:Tex2\], we can clearly see that the RangeQuery() function is invoked only for POI-relevant tweets that have not yet been visited, and the algorithm will visit every POI-relevant tweet in the dataset once. Therefore, we execute exactly one range query for every POI-relevant tweet in the dataset. For analysis, let $Q$ denote the complexity of the function range query, and $n$ and $m$ denote the number of POI-relevant and irrelevant tweets, respectively. It then follows that the complexity is expressed as $\mathcal{O}(n \cdot Q)$. Based on how the function RangeQuery() is implemented, its complexity analysis can be divided into the following two cases:
- If the range query is implemented using a [*linear scan*]{}, then we have $Q = \mathcal{O}( (n+m) \cdot D)$, where $D$ indicates the cost of computing the distance between two points. Because each geo-tagged tweet in our dataset has a two-dimensional coordinate and is represented by a 64-bit data type in the database, the cost $D$ can be treated as a constant, independent of $n$ and $m$. Hence, the complexity of the range query and are $\mathcal{O}(n+m)$ and $\mathcal{O}(n^2+nm)$, respectively.
- If the range query is implemented using a [*spatial index*]{}, then we can calculate the worst-case runtime complexity by analyzing both the cost of building the index and the worst-case complexity of the function RangeQuery() used along with the spatial index. For example, for a two-dimensional tree, the worst-case complexity of RangeQuery() is $\mathcal{O}(n+m)$, and the cost of building a two-dimensional tree from $n+m$ geo-tagged points is
&((n+m)(n+m))\
& = ((n+m))\
&= ((n+m)n),
where the last equality holds under the assumption that $m=n^\beta$ for $\beta\ge1$. Therefore, it follows that the time complexity of is $\mathcal{O}(n\cdot (n+m) + (n+m) \cdot \log n) = \mathcal{O}(n^2 + nm)$.
For the DBSCAN algorithm, it has recently been proved in [@schubert2017dbscan] that the worst-case complexity is $\mathcal{O}(n \cdot Q)$. Based on the arguments above, when the range query is implemented using a linear scan, the complexity is $\mathcal{O}( n^2 \cdot D) = \mathcal{O} (n^2)$. On the contrary, if the range query is accelerated using a spatial index such as a two-dimensional tree, the worst-case runtime complexity of DBSCAN is $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ since it takes $O(n\log n)$ to build the tree from $n$ geo-tagged points and the range query has the worst-case complexity of $O(n)$.
To summarize the aforementioned analysis, the worst-case time complexity of and DBSCAN is $\mathcal{O}(n^2 + nm)$ and $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$, respectively. If we focus on a region where $m = c \cdot n$ for a constant $c>0$, then the complexity of is $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$. In the other region where $m = n^\beta$ for $\beta > 1$, the the complexity of is $\mathcal{O}(n^{1+\beta})$.
To numerically validate our complexity analysis, we first plot the number of tweets according to different radii of the query region. From Fig. \[NoTweetToRadius\], we observe a common trend that the numbers of POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant tweets, denoted by $n$ and $m$, respectively, increase with the increasing radius of the query region. However, their rates of growth are different; up to a certain radius of the query region, the numbers of POI-relevant and the POI-irrelevant tweets grow at a similar rate, but beyond such a radius (depicted in the figure with a star), the number of POI-irrelevant tweets grows faster than the number of POI-relevant tweets. This observation is basically consistent with our prior assumption: there is a region where the number of POI-irrelevant tweets is a constant times the number of POI-relevant tweets, having the complexity of $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ for ; and there is another region where the rate of growth of the number of POI-irrelevant tweets is higher than that of the POI-relevant tweets, having the complexity of $\mathcal{O}(n^{1+\beta})$ for $\beta > 1$ for .
We further validate our complexity analysis by plotting the actual runtime complexity of the and DBSCAN algorithm for the worst case. It is easily seen that the worst case takes place when the parameters of and DBSCAN are set to extreme values corresponding to ($\epsilon, N_{\text{min}}$) = (radius of the query region, 1) for DBSCAN and ($\epsilon, N_{\text{min}}, N_{\text{max}}$) = (radius of the query region, 1, total number of POI-irrelevant tweets) for . Under this parameter setting, Fig. \[TexCANRuntime\] numerically shows the runtime complexity of the and DBSCAN algorithms in log-log scale according to four different POIs. From Fig. \[TexCANRuntime\], we clearly see that up to a certain value of the number of geo-tagged tweets, the and DBSCAN have a similar rate of growth maintaining a constant gap between each other. Beyond the point (depicted in the figure with a star), the time complexity of is higher than that of DBSCAN. Compared with Fig. \[NoTweetToRadius\], these transitional points exactly match the ones dividing our query region into two sub-regions corresponding to $m = c \cdot n$ for a constant $c$ and $m = n^\beta$ for $\beta > 1$. Therefore, from Figs. \[NoTweetToRadius\] and \[TexCANRuntime\], it is possible to adequately substantiate our analysis on the complexity of the and DBSCAN algorithms.
Fuzzy DBSTexC () {#fuzzy}
================
Thus far, the algorithm has been designed by finding clusters with strict boundaries. For further analysis, we study the geographic distribution of tweets (i.e., two-dimensional coordinates) by using the sorted $k$-th-nearest neighbor ($k$-NN) distance plot, which shows the distance from geo-tagged points to their $k$-th-nearest neighbors sorted in ascending order. If there exists a sudden and sharp increase in the distances between geo-tagged points, then it indicates that clusters and noise points are clearly separated. On the other hand, if we observe a smooth increase in the distances between tweets, then it may not be clear which tweets should be grouped as clusters and which tweets should be treated as noise. In other words, decision boundaries for clusters would be fuzzy. In Fig. \[fig:fig4\], the $k$-NN distance plot for the four POIs is shown when $k=4$. From the figure, we observe that the geographic distribution of tweets is generally smooth. For this reason, using crisp boundaries to separate clusters may not exploit the entire geographic features of the data. To overcome this problem, we hereby propose an extension of , called Fuzzy (), which incorporates the notion of fuzzy clustering into with a view to fully capturing the smoothly distributed geographic characteristics of tweets.
Algorithm {#algorithm}
----------
To design a new algorithm with the notion of fuzzy clustering, we relax the constraints on a point’s neighborhood density. That is, we replace the parameters $N_{\text{min}}$ and $N_{\text{max}}$ by two new sets of parameters ($N_{\text{min}_1}$, $N_{\text{min}_2}$) and ($N_{\text{max}_1}$, $N_{\text{max}_2}$), respectively, which specify the soft constraints on a point’s neighborhood density. For example, in an $\epsilon$-neighborhood of a POI-relevant tweet, if the number of POI-relevant tweets is larger than $N_{\text{min}_1}$ and the number of POI-irrelevant tweets is smaller than $N_{\text{max}_2}$, then a fuzzy neighborhood is generated. To determine the neighborhood cardinality, we introduce monotonically non-decreasing membership functions $J_{Re}(p)$ and $J_{Irre}(p)$ for the POI-relevant tweets and POI-irrelevant tweets, respectively, as follows [@ienco2016fuzzy]:[^4]
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{jre}
J_{Re}(p) =
\begin{cases}
1 &\mbox{if } |X_\epsilon (p)| \ge N_{\text{min}_2} \\
\frac{|X_\epsilon (p)| - N_{\text{min}_1}}{N_{\text{min}_2} - N_{\text{min}_1}} &\mbox{if } N_{\text{min}_1} \le |X_\epsilon (p)| \le N_{\text{min}_2} \\
0 &\mbox{if } |X_\epsilon (p)| \le N_{\text{min}_1}, \\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{jirre}
J_{Irre}(p) =
\begin{cases}
1 &\mbox{if } |Y_\epsilon (p)| \le N_{\text{max}_1} \\
\frac{N_{\text{max}_2} - |Y_\epsilon (p)|}{N_{\text{max}_2} - N_{\text{max}_1}} &\mbox{if } N_{\text{max}_1} \le |Y_\epsilon (p)| \le N_{\text{max}_2} \\
0 &\mbox{if } |Y_\epsilon (p)| \ge N_{\text{max}_2}, \\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
where $|X_\epsilon (p)|$ and $|Y_\epsilon (p)|$ denote the number of POI-relevant and POI-irrelevant tweets, respectively, in a neighborhood of point $p$. The final cardinality of the $\epsilon$-neighborhood of a point $p$ is then given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mup}
\mu_p = \frac{1}{2}[J_{Re}(p) + J_{Irre}(p)].\end{aligned}$$
Based on this notation, the definition of a core point in Definition 3 is revised as below.
*Definition 9 (Core point):* A point $p\in \mathcal{X}$ is a core point if it fulfills the following condition: $$|\mathcal{X}_{\epsilon}(p)| \ge N_{\text{min}_1} \; \text{and} \; |\mathcal{Y}_{\epsilon}(p)| \le N_{\text{max}_2}.$$
Next, the algorithm is specified in Algorithms \[alg:FTex1\] and \[alg:FTex2\]. Compared to the original , modified parts correspond to line \[change1\] of Algorithm \[alg:FTex1\] and line 6 of Algorithm \[alg:FTex2\], which serve to relax the constraints on a point’s neighborhood density. The algorithm adds points to the clusters with their distinct fuzzy score $\mu_{p}$, as expressed in line 9 of Algorithm \[alg:FTex2\].
$\mathcal{X}$,$\mathcal{Y}$, $\epsilon$, $N_{\text{min}_1}$, $N_{\text{min}_2}$, $N_{\text{max}_1}$, $N_{\text{max}_2}$ Clusters with different labels $C$ $C\gets 0$; $n\gets |\mathcal{X}|$; $m\gets |\mathcal{Y}|$; $p_i$ is a point in the set $\mathcal{X}$ Mark $p_i$ as visited $[\mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i), \mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i)] =$ RangeQuery$(p_i)$ \[change1\] $C\gets C+1$ ExpandCluster$(p_i,\mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i),\mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i))$
$p_i, \mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i), \mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i)$ Cluster $C$ with all of its members Add $p_i$ to the current cluster with fuzzy score $\mu_{p_i}$ Mark $p_j$ as visited $[\mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_j), \mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_j)] =$ RangeQuery$(p_j)$ \[FTex:change2\] $\mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i) = \mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_i) \cup \mathcal{X}_\epsilon (p_j)$ $\mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i) = \mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_i) \cup \mathcal{Y}_\epsilon (p_j)$. Add $p_j$ to the current cluster with fuzzy score $\mu_{p_j}$ \[FTex:change3\] Add $p_j$ to the current cluster Mark $q_j$ as visited Add $q_j$ to the current cluster
Experimental Evaluation
-----------------------
We summarize the experimental results in Table \[FDBTexC\] according to different values of $\alpha \geq 0$. From the table, one can make the following insightful observations:
- The clustering quality of is greater than or at least equal to that of for all chosen POIs, showing the performance gain over by up to 27.33%.
- Although has slightly better performance than that of for the two POIs located in London (i.e., Hyde Park and Regent’s Park), it remarkably outperforms for POIs in smaller cities such as University of Oxford and Edinburgh Castle.
The first observation can be easily understood because is a fuzzy extension of ; therefore its performance is guaranteed to be at least as good as that of . On the other hand, the second observation may not be straightforward. We scrutinize the geographic distribution of tweets in various locations and notice that in general, POIs in crowded cities like London are surrounded by a significant number of POI-irrelevant tweets. As a result, further extension of the clusters’ area would not be beneficial. However, for POIs in smaller cities such as Oxford and Edinburgh, the geographic distribution of POI-irrelevant tweets around a POI tends to be much more sparse, enabling fuzzy extension of to work effectively. To verify our observation, we conduct additional experiments for four different POIs both in populous metropolitan areas and smaller cities. The experimental results are summarized in Table \[FDBTexC\_cont\]. Among the four newly chosen POIs, Buckingham Palace and Greenwich Park are located in London; Cambridge University and Glasgow University are in the city of Cambridge and Glasgow, respectively. One can see that for POIs in London, shows a slightly better clustering quality than that of . However, for POIs in Cambridge and Glasgow, two smaller cities, is much superior to . This remark highlights our proposition that is a dynamic extension of , allowing to apply in different situations with diverse types of POIs.
Computational Complexity
------------------------
Compared to , relaxes the constraints on a point’s neighborhood density. However, the computational complexity of is still dominated by the function RangeQuery(), and invokes the function exactly once for every POI-relevant data point. Therefore, the computational complexity of is of the same order as that of , which is $\mathcal{O}(n^2 + nm)$. More specifically, the complexity of is $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ in a region where $m=c\times n$ for a constant $c$, and it follows $\mathcal{O}(n^{1+\beta})$ in another region where $m=n^\beta$ for $\beta>1$.
Concluding Remarks {#SEC:Conclusion}
==================
\[summary\] As a generalized version of DBSCAN, we introduced , a new spatial clustering algorithm that further leverages textual information on Twitter, composed of $n$ POI-relevant tweets and $m$ POI-irrelevant tweets. The algorithm is beneficial when we aim to find clusters from geo-tagged tweets which are heterogeneous in terms of textual description since effectively excludes regions containing a huge number of undesired POI-irrelevant tweets. The computational complexity of was shown to be $\mathcal{O}(n^2)$ in a region where $m = c \cdot n$ for a constant $c>0$, and $\mathcal{O}(n^{1+\beta})$ in the other region where $m = n^\beta$ for $\beta > 1$. We demonstrated the performance of to be far superior to that of DBSCAN in terms of our performance metric $\bar{A}^\alpha \mathcal{F}_1$, where $\alpha\geq0$ is the area exponent. As a further extension, we introduced , which incorporates the notion of fuzzy clustering into . By fully capturing their geographic features, the algorithm was shown to outperform the original for the POIs located in sparsely-populated cities. The design methodology that and provide takes an important step towards a better understanding of jointly utilizing spatial and textual information in designing density-based clustering and towards a broad range of applications from geo-marketing to location-based services such as geo-targeting, geo-fencing, and Beacons.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (2017R1D1A1A09000835). The material in this paper was presented in part at the IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining, Sydney, Australia, July/August 2017, and has been significantly extended based on the prior work [@minh]. Won-Yong Shin is the corresponding author.
[99]{}
url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixhref \#1\#2[\#2]{} \#1[\#1]{}
, [ *Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques*]{}. [Third ed.]{}, Elsevier, [2011]{}.
, [“Algorithm as 136: A [K]{}-means clustering algorithm,"]{} *J. of the Royal Stat. Soc. Ser. C (Applied Statistics)*, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 100–108, 1979.
, [“C[LARANS]{}: A method for clustering objects for spatial data mining,"]{} *IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng.*, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1003–1016, Sep./Oct. 2002.
, [“Model-based clustering, discriminant analysis, and density estimation,"]{} *J. of the Am. Stat. Assoc.*, vol. 97, no. 458, pp. 611–631, Jun. 2002.
, [“Improving inference through conceptual clustering,"]{} in *Proc. 6th Nat. Conf. Artificial Intell. (AAAI-87)*, Seattle, WA, [Jul. 1987]{}, pp. [461–465]{}.
, *[Finding Groups in Data: [A]{}n Introduction to Cluster Analysis]{}*. Wiley, 1990.
, [“B[IRCH]{}: An efficient data clustering method for very large databases,"]{} in *Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Manage. Data (SIGMOD’96)*, Montreal, Canada, Jun. 1996, pp. 103–114.
, [“S[TING]{}: A statistical information grid approach to spatial data mining,"]{} in *Proc. 23rd Int. Conf. Very Large Data Bases (VLDB)*, Athens, Greece, [Aug. 1997]{}, pp. 186–195.
, [“Automatic subspace clustering of high dimensional data for data mining applications,"]{} in *Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Manage. Data (SIGMOD’98)*, Seattle, WA, [Jun. 1998]{}, pp. [94–105]{}.
, [“A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise,"]{} *Data Min. and Knowl. Discov.*, vol. 96, no. 34, pp. 226–231, Aug. 1996.
, [“O[PTICS]{}: Ordering points to identify the clustering structure,"]{} in *Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Manage. Data (SIGMOD’99)*, Philadelphia, PA, [May/Jun. 1999]{}, pp. [49–60]{}.
, [“Density-based clustering in spatial databases: The algorithm [GDBSCAN]{} and its applications,"]{} *Data Min. and Knowl. Discov.*, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 169–194, Jun. 1998.
, [“Density-based clustering,"]{} *WIREs: Data Min. and Knowl. Discov.*, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 231–240, Apr. 2011.
, [“S[T]{}-[DBSCAN]{}: An algorithm for clustering spatial–temporal data,"]{} *Data & Knowl. Eng.*, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 208–221, Jan. 2007.
, [“Density-based clustering based on hierarchical density estimates,"]{} in *Proc. Pacific-Asia Conf. Knowl. Discov. and Data Min. (PAKDD)*, Gold Coast, Australia, [Apr. 2013]{}, pp. [160–172]{}.
, [“Density-based place clustering using geo-social network data,"]{} *IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.*, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 838–851, May 2018.
, [“RNN-DBSCAN: A density-based clustering algorithm using reverse nearest neighbor density estimates,"]{} *IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.*, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1109–1121, Jun. 2018. , [“What is [T]{}witter, a social network or a news media?,"]{} in *Proc. 19th Int. Conf. World wide Web (WWW’10)*, Raleigh, NC, [Apr. 2010]{}, pp. [591–600]{}.
, [“Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter’s Streaming API with Twitter’s Firehose,"]{} in *Proc. 7th Int. AAAI Conf. Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM-13)*, Boston, MA, [Jul. 2013]{}, pp. 400–408.
, [“Keyword search on spatial databases,"]{} in *Proc 24th IEEE Int. Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE)*, Cancun, Mexico, [Apr. 2008]{}, pp. [656–665]{}.
, [“Efficient retrieval of the top-$k$ most relevant spatial web objects,"]{} in *Proc. VLDB Endowment*, Lyon, France, [Aug. 2009]{}, pp. [337–348]{}.
, [“Approximate string search in spatial databases,"]{} in *Proc. 26th IEEE Int. Conf. Data Eng. (ICDE)*, Long Beach, CA, [Mar. 2010]{}, pp. 545–556.
, [“Fast nearest neighbor search with keywords,"]{} *IEEE Trans. on Knowl. and Data Eng.*, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 878–888, Apr. 2014.
, [“A [K]{}-partitioning algorithm for clustering large-scale spatio-textual data,"]{} *Inf. Syst.*, vol. 64, pp. 1–11, Mar. 2017.
, [“A density-based approach to the retrieval of top-$k$ spatial textual clusters,"]{} in *Proc. 25th ACM Int. Conf. Info. and Knowl. Manage. (CIKM)*, Indianapolis, IN, [Oct. 2016]{}, pp. 2095–2100.
, [“Geo[S]{}ocial[B]{}ound: An efficient framework for estimating social POI boundaries using spatio–textual information,"]{} in *Proc. Third Int. ACM SIGMOD Worksh. Manag. and Min. Enriched Geo-Spatial Data (GeoRich)*, San Francisco, CA, [Jun. 2016]{}.
, [“A new understanding of friendships in space: Complex networks meet [T]{}witter,"]{} *J. of Inf. Sci.*, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 751–764, 2015.
, [“DBSTexC: Density-based spatio-textual clustering on Twitter,"]{} in *Proc. IEEE/ACM Int. Conf. Advances in Social Netw. Analysis and Mining (ASONAM)*, Sydney, Australia, Jul./Aug. 2017, pp. [23–26]{}.
, [“A simple and fast algorithm for K-medoids clustering,"]{} *Expert Syst. with Appl.*, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 3336–3341, Mar. 2009.
, [“Community detection using spectral clustering on sparse geosocial data,"]{} *SIAM J. on Appl. Math.*, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 67–83, Jan. 2013.
, [“Spatial entropy-based clustering for mining data with spatial correlation,"]{} in *Proc. Pacific-Asia Conf. Knowl. Discov. and Data Min. (PAKDD)*, Shenzhen, China, [May 2011]{}, pp. 196–208.
, [“F[CM]{}: The fuzzy c-means clustering algorithm,"]{} *Comput. & Geosci.*, vol. 10, no. 2-3, pp. 191–203, 1984.
, [*Algorithms for Fuzzy Clustering*]{}. Springer, 2008.
, [“Agglomerative fuzzy $K$-means clustering algorithm with selection of number of clusters,"]{} *IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng.*, vol. 20, no. 11, pp. 1519–1534, Nov. 2008.
, [“Soft [DBSCAN]{}: Improving [DBSCAN]{} clustering method using fuzzy set theory,"]{} in *Proc. 6th Int. Conf. Human Syst. Interaction (HSI)*, Sopot, Poland, [Jun. 2013]{}, pp. [380–385]{}.
, [“Fuzzy clustering based on $k$-nearest-neighbours rule,"]{} *Fuzzy Sets and Syst.*, vol. 120, no. 2, pp. 239–247, Jan. 2001.
, [“Robustness of density-based clustering methods with various neighborhood relations,"]{} *Fuzzy Sets and Syst.*, vol. 160, no. 24, pp. 3601–3615, Dec. 2009.
, [“Fuzzy extensions of the [DBSCAN]{} clustering algorithm,"]{} *Soft Comput.*, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 1719–1730, Mar. 2018.
, [“Fuzzy and crisp clustering methods based on the neighborhood concept: A comprehensive review,"]{} *J. of Intell. & Fuzzy Syst.: Applications in Engineering and Technology*, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 271–281, Nov. 2012.
, [“Twitter[M]{}onitor: Trend detection over the [T]{}witter stream,"]{} in *Proc. ACM SIGMOD Int. Conf. Manage. of Data (SIGMOD’10)*, Indianapolis, IN, [Jun. 2010]{}, pp. 1155–1158.
, [*UK Gridded Population Based on Census 2011 and Land Cover Map 2007*]{}. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre, 2016.
, [*Clustering Algorithms*]{}, Lecture Notes WS 2012/13. Paderborn University, Germany.
, [“D[BSCAN]{} revisited, revisited: Why and how you should (still) use [DBSCAN]{},"]{} [*ACM Trans. Database Syst.*]{}, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 19:1–19:21, Aug. 2017.
[^1]: www.internetlivestats.com/ accessed on November 9, 2017
[^2]: Even if our focus is on analyzing tweets, the dataset on other social media (or micro-blogs) can also be directly applicable to our research.
[^3]: Search queries for more POIs to be added in Section \[fuzzy\] are not shown for the sake of brevity.
[^4]: Other types of membership functions [@ienco2016fuzzy] can also be applicable.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study effects of charged Higgs boson exchange in the $B$ semileptonic decays $\bar B \rightarrow D^{(*)}\tau\bar\nu_\tau$. Both branching ratio and $\tau$ polarization are examined. We use the recent experimental data on semileptonic $B$ decays and the heavy quark effective theory in order to reduce theoretical uncertainty in the hadronic form factors. Theoretical uncertainty in the branching ratio is found to be rather small and that in the $\tau$ polarization is almost negligible. Their measurements will give nontrivial constraints on the charged Higgs sector.'
address: 'Theory Group, KEK, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan '
author:
- 'M. Tanaka[^1]'
title: 'Charged Higgs Effects on Exclusive Semi-tauonic $\bbox{B}$ Decays'
---
[*To be published in Zeitschrift für Physik C.*]{}
The evidence for top quarks[@CDF] leaves the Higgs sector as the only missing part of the standard model (SM). In the minimal SM, we have one Higgs doublet, which gives a neutral scalar particle as a physical state. An extension of the Higgs sector is an interesting possibility for new physics beyond the SM. One of the most attractive possibilities is the supersymmetric extension of the SM[@HK]. In the minimal supersymmetric SM, we have to introduce two Higgs doublets in order to cancel the anomaly and to give the fermions masses. Another important possibility is CP violation in the Higgs sector[@TDL; @WB]. It is known that CP can be broken in the Higgs sector if we have two or more Higgs doublets. Since the existence of one or more charged Higgs bosons is an inevitable consequence of the multi-Higgs-doublet extensions of the SM, the search for their effects is one of the key points in the quest for new physics.
The most stringent experimental bound on the charged Higgs boson mass at present is $m_H\gtrsim 260 {\rm GeV}$, given by the measurement of the inclusive radiative $b$ quark decay $b\rightarrow s \gamma$[@BSG]. This bound was found for the two-Higgs-doublet model of the “SUSY-type” Higgs couplings to fermions, called Model II[@HHG]. Since this process takes place via 1-loop diagrams, the bound may be changed depending on details of the model considered. If the model contains new particles other than the charged Higgs boson which contribute to the $b\rightarrow s \gamma$ process, the above lower bound may be modified. This is indeed the case in the minimal supersymmetric SM[@BG]. From this point of view, it is worthwhile to investigate charged Higgs boson effects in tree level processes which are less dependent on the other sectors of the multi-Higgs-doublet models.
In this paper, we study effects of the charged Higgs boson on the branching ratio and the $\tau$ polarization of the processes $\bar B \rightarrow D^{(*)}\tau\bar\nu_\tau$. These processes are expected to be much more sensitive to the charged Higgs sector than the semileptonic $K$ decay processes because the Higgs couplings to fermions are proportional to the fermion mass. The 1% level branching ratio of these modes expected in the SM will give of order $10^6$ semi-tauonic $B$ decay events at the planned $B$ factories.
In $N$-Higgs-doublet models, we have $N-1$ physical charged Higgs bosons. Their couplings to quarks and leptons are described by the following interaction Lagrangian[@AST]: $${\cal L}_H=(2\sqrt{2}G_F)^{1/2}\sum_{i=1}^{N-1}
\left[X_i\overline{U}_L V_{KM}M_D D_R+
Y_i\overline{U}_R M_U V_{KM}D_L+
Z_i\overline{N}_L M_E E_R\right]H_i^+
+{\rm h.c.}\;.
\label{LAG}$$ Here $H_i^{\pm}$ is the i-th lightest physical charged Higgs boson, $$U_{L(R)}=(u,c,t)_{L(R)}^T\;,\;\;
D_{L(R)}=(d,s,b)_{L(R)}^T\;,\;\;
N_{L}=(\nu_e,\nu_\mu,\nu_\tau)_L^T\;,\;\;
E_R=(e,\mu,\tau)_R^T\;,
\label{FIELDS}$$ $$M_U={\rm diag.}(m_u,m_c,m_t)\;,\;\;
M_D={\rm diag.}(m_d,m_s,m_b)\;,\;\;
M_E={\rm diag.}(m_e,m_\mu,m_\tau)\;,
\label{MASSES}$$ represent the quark and lepton fields and their masses respectively, and $V_{KM}$ is the Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix. Note that the KM matrix which appears in the charged current mixing appears in the above Lagrangian. This is a consequence of the natural flavor conservation[@GW] which we implicitly assumed in Eq. (\[LAG\]) in order to suppress flavor changing neutral Higgs interactions.
In the case of $N\ge 3$, the coefficients $X_i,\,Y_i,\,Z_i$ can be complex, while they are real when $N=2$. In particular they are real in Model II of two-Higgs-doublets or in the minimal supersymmetric SM, and can be written as[@HHG] $$X_1=Z_1=\tan\beta\;,\;\;Y_1=\cot\beta\;,
\label{SC}$$ where $\tan\beta=v_u/v_d$ is the ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two Higgs fields.
Given the above Lagrangian in Eq. (\[LAG\]) and the standard charged current Lagrangian, we can evaluate effects of the charged Higgs boson exchange in $\bar B \rightarrow M\tau\bar\nu_\tau$ processes for $M=D$ or $D^*$. We adopt a helicity amplitude formalism since it is convenient for calculating $\tau$ polarizations. We follow the convention in Refs. [@HMW1] and [@HMW2].
The $W$ boson exchange amplitude is given by $${\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^{\lambda_\tau}(q^2,x)_W=
\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cb} \frac{M_W^2}{M_W^2-q^2}
\sum_{\lambda_W}\eta_{\lambda_W} L_{\lambda_W}^{\lambda_\tau}
H_{\lambda_W}^{\lambda_M}\;,
\label{WEX}$$ where $\lambda_M=\pm,0$ denote three possible $D^*$ helicity states, $\lambda_M=s$ stands for the $D$ mode, and $\lambda_\tau=\pm$ is the $\tau$ helicity. The invariant mass squared of the leptonic system is $q^2$, and $x=p_\tau\cdot p_B/m_B^2$ is the $\tau$ energy divided by the $B$ meson mass in the $\bar B$ meson rest frame. The virtual $W$ helicity is denoted by $\lambda_W=\pm,0,s$, and the metric factor $\eta_{\lambda_W}$ is given by $\eta_{\pm,0}=1$ and $\eta_s=(q^2-M_W^2)/M_W^2$. The hadronic and leptonic amplitudes which describe the processes $\bar B\rightarrow MW^*$ and $W^*\rightarrow \tau\bar\nu_\tau$ are defined respectively by $$H_{\lambda_W}^{\lambda_M}(q^2)\equiv
\epsilon_\mu^*(\lambda_W)\langle M(p_M,\lambda_M)|
\bar c\gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)b
|\bar B(p_B)\rangle\;,
\label{HAW}$$ and $$L_{\lambda_W}^{\lambda_\tau}(q^2,x)\equiv
\epsilon_\mu(\lambda_W)\langle\tau(p_\tau,\lambda_\tau)
\bar\nu_\tau(p_\nu)|
\bar \tau\gamma^\mu(1-\gamma_5)\nu_\tau
|0\rangle\;,
\label{LAW}$$ where $\epsilon_\mu(\lambda_W)$ is the polarization vector of the virtual $W$ boson. Note that the leptonic amplitude $L_{\lambda_W}^{\lambda_\tau}$ depends on the frame in which the $\tau$ helicity is defined. $L_{\lambda_W}^{\lambda_\tau}$ with the $\tau$ helicity defined in the virtual $W$ rest frame is given in Ref. [@HMW1] and the one with the $\tau$ helicity defined in the initial $\bar B$ rest frame is given in Ref. [@HMW2]. The hadronic amplitude is also given in Ref. [@HMW1].
The amplitude of the charged Higgs exchange can be written as $${\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^{\lambda_\tau}(q^2,x)_H=
\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{cb}\sum_i L^{\lambda_\tau}
\left[X_i Z_i^* \frac{m_b m_\tau}{M_{H_i}^2-q^2}H_R^{\lambda_M}+
Y_i Z_i^* \frac{m_c m_\tau}{M_{H_i}^2-q^2}H_L^{\lambda_M}
\right]\;,
\label{HEX}$$ where $$H_{R,L}^{\lambda_M}(q^2)\equiv
2\langle M(p_M,\lambda_M)|\bar c P_{R,L}b|\bar B(p_B)\rangle\;,
\quad P_R=\frac{1+\gamma_5}{2}\;,\;\;P_L=\frac{1-\gamma_5}{2}\;,
\label{HAH}$$ $$L^{\lambda_\tau}(q^2,x)\equiv
\langle\tau(p_\tau,\lambda_\tau)\bar\nu_\tau(p_\nu)|
\bar \tau (1-\gamma_5)\nu_\tau|0\rangle\;.
\label{LAH}$$ Using the equations of motion, the hadronic and leptonic amplitudes of charged Higgs exchange are related to those of $W$ exchange with scalar $W^*$ polarization ($\lambda_W=s$): $$H_{R,L}^s=\frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{m_b-m_c} H_s^s\;,\;\;
H_R^\pm=0\;,\quad H_R^0=\frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{m_b+m_c} H_s^0\;,\;\;
H_L^{\pm,0}=-H_R^{\pm,0}\;,
\label{HH}$$ $$L^{\lambda_\tau}=\frac{\sqrt{q^2}}{m_\tau}L_s^{\lambda_\tau}\;.
\label{LL}$$ As can be seen in Eq. (\[HH\]), the Higgs exchange does not contribute to the decay into transversely polarized $D^*$ meson ($\lambda_M=\pm$) because of angular momentum conservation. Therefore, we study charged Higgs boson effects in $\bar B$ decays into $D$ mesons ($\lambda_M=s$) and those into longitudinally polarized $D^*$ mesons ($\lambda_M=0$) in the $\bar B$ rest frame.
Using the helicity amplitudes of Eqs. (\[WEX\]) and (\[HEX\]), it is straightforward to calculate the differential decay rate[^2]: $$d\Gamma_{\lambda_M}=
\frac{1}{2 m_B}\sum_{\lambda_\tau}
|{\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^{\lambda_\tau}|^2
d\Phi_3\;,
\label{DR}$$ where ${\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^{\lambda_\tau}=
{\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^{\lambda_\tau}(q^2,x)_W+
{\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^{\lambda_\tau}(q^2,x)_H$, and $d\Phi_3=dq^2\,dx/64\pi^3$ is the three-body phase space. Also, $\tau$ polarizations can be calculated conveniently with the helicity amplitudes. Let us consider the decay rate with a definite $\tau$ spin direction. It can be written as $$d\Gamma_{\lambda_M}(\bbox{s})=
\frac{1}{2}\left[d\Gamma_{\lambda_M}+
(d\Gamma_{\lambda_M}^L\bbox{e}_L+
d\Gamma_{\lambda_M}^\bot \bbox{e}_\bot+
d\Gamma_{\lambda_M}^T \bbox{e}_T)\cdot\bbox{s}
\right]\;,
\label{DRS}$$ where $\bbox{s}$ is the unit vector which points toward the $\tau$ spin direction in the $\tau$ rest frame, and the basis vectors are defined as $\bbox{e}_L\equiv\bbox{p}_\tau/|\bbox{p}_\tau|$, $\bbox{e}_T\equiv\bbox{p}_M\times\bbox{p}_\tau/
|\bbox{p}_M\times\bbox{p}_\tau|$, and $\bbox{e}_\bot\equiv\bbox{e}_T\times
\bbox{e}_L$, with the convention that the angle from $\bbox{p}_M$ to $\bbox{p}_\tau$ lies between $0$ and $\pi$. The situation is depicted in Fig. \[KD\]. These definitions can be used both in the virtual $W$ (or Higgs) rest frame and in the $\bar B$ rest frame. The components of the spin-dependent part of the decay rate in Eq. (\[DRS\]) are given in terms of the helicity amplitudes as $$d\Gamma_{\lambda_M}^L=
\frac{1}{2 m_B}\left(|{\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^+|^2-
|{\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^-|^2\right)
d\Phi_3\;,
\label{DRL}$$ $$d\Gamma_{\lambda_M}^\bot=
\frac{1}{m_B}{\rm Re}\left({\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^{+*}
{\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^-\right)
d\Phi_3\;,
\label{DRP}$$ $$d\Gamma_{\lambda_M}^T=
\frac{1}{m_B}{\rm Im}\left({\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^{+*}
{\cal M}_{\lambda_M}^-\right)
d\Phi_3\;.
\label{DRT}$$ From Eq. (\[DRS\]), the possible three $\tau$ polarizations are defined by $$P_L\equiv \frac{d\Gamma(\bbox{e}_L)-
d\Gamma(-\bbox{e}_L)}
{d\Gamma(\bbox{e}_L)+
d\Gamma(-\bbox{e}_L)}
=\frac{ d\Gamma^L}{d\Gamma}\;,
\label{PL}$$ $$P_\bot\equiv \frac{d\Gamma(\bbox{e}_\bot)-
d\Gamma(-\bbox{e}_\bot)}
{d\Gamma(\bbox{e}_\bot)+
d\Gamma(-\bbox{e}_\bot)}
=\frac{ d\Gamma^\bot}{d\Gamma}\;,
\label{PP}$$ $$P_T\equiv \frac{d\Gamma(\bbox{e}_T)-
d\Gamma(-\bbox{e}_T)}
{d\Gamma(\bbox{e}_T)+
d\Gamma(-\bbox{e}_T)}
=\frac{ d\Gamma^T}{d\Gamma}\;,
\label{PT}$$ where we omit the common helicity index $\lambda_M$. Note that $P_L^2+P_\bot^2+P_T^2=1$ at an arbitrary kinematical configuration because of the definite neutrino helicity. The longitudinal polarization ($P_L$) and the perpendicular polarization ($P_\bot$) depend on the frame in which the $\tau$ helicity is defined. On the other hand, the transverse polarization ($P_T$) is frame-independent. It is well-known that the transverse polarization is a T-violating quantity as long as the final state interaction can be ignored. The T- or CP-violating nature of the transverse polarization can be seen in Eq. (\[DRT\]) since all the tree-level amplitudes of Eqs. (\[WEX\]) and (\[HEX\]) are chosen to be real in the CP-conserving limit in our convention.
In order to find numerical predictions, the hadronic transition form factors are needed. In Ref. [@HMW1], the following set of hadronic form factors are employed and the hadronic amplitude $H_{\lambda_W}^{\lambda_M}$ in Eq. (\[HAW\]) is given in terms of them: $$\langle D(p_M)|\bar c\gamma^\mu b|\bar B(p_B)\rangle=
f_+(q^2)(p_B+p_M)^\mu+f_-(q^2)(p_B-p_M)^\mu\;,
\label{FD}$$ $$\langle D^*(p_M,\lambda_M)|\bar c\gamma^\mu b|\bar B(p_B)\rangle=
if_1(q^2)\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
\epsilon^*_{M\nu}(p_B+p_M)_\rho(p_B-p_M)_\sigma\;,
\label{FDSV}$$ $$\langle D^*(p_M,\lambda_M)|\bar c\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 b
|\bar B(p_B)\rangle=
f_2(q^2)\epsilon^{*\mu}_M+\epsilon^*_M\cdot p_B
\left\{f_3(q^2)(p_B+p_M)^\mu+f_4(q^2)(p_B-p_M)^\mu\right\}\;,
\label{FDSA}$$ where $\epsilon_M=\epsilon_M(p_M,\lambda_M)$ is the polarization vector of the $D^*$ meson. In the following, however, we adopt a different set of form factors which is more convenient to incorporate the results of the heavy quark effective theory. We use the following form factors[@N1]: $$\langle D(v')|\bar c\gamma^\mu b|\bar B(v)\rangle=
\sqrt{m_Bm_M}\left[\xi_+(y)(v+v')^\mu+
\xi_-(y)(v-v')^\mu\right]\;,
\label{HFD}$$ $$\langle D^*(v',\lambda_M)|\bar c\gamma^\mu b|\bar B(v)\rangle=
i\sqrt{m_Bm_M}\,\xi_V(y)\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}
\epsilon^*_{M\nu}v'_\rho v_\sigma\;,
\label{HFDSV}$$ $$\langle D^*(v',\lambda_M)|\bar c\gamma^\mu\gamma_5 b
|\bar B(v)\rangle=\sqrt{m_Bm_M}\left[
\xi_{A_1}(y)(1+y)\epsilon^{*\mu}_M-
\xi_{A_2}(y)\epsilon^*_M\cdot v\; v^\mu-
\xi_{A_3}(y)\epsilon^*_M\cdot v\; v'^\mu\right]\;,
\label{HFDSA}$$ where $v=p_B/m_B$ and $v'=p_M/m_M$ are the four-velocities of the $\bar B$ and $M(=D,D^*)$ mesons respectively, and $y\equiv v\cdot v'=(m_B^2+m_M^2-q^2)/(2 m_B m_M)$. The form factors in Eqs. (\[FD\])$\sim$(\[FDSA\]) can be written in terms of the form factors in Eqs. (\[HFD\])$\sim$(\[HFDSA\]): $$f_\pm=\pm\frac{1}{2\sqrt{r}}[(1\pm r)\xi_+-(1\mp r)\xi_-]\;,
\label{FR1}$$ $$f_1=\frac{1}{2m_B\sqrt{r}}\,\xi_V\;,\;\;
f_2=m_B\left(\sqrt{r}+\frac{p_B\cdot p_M}{m_B^2\sqrt{r}}\right)
\xi_{A_1}\;,\;\;
f_{3,4}=-\frac{1}{2m_B}\left(\sqrt{r}\,\xi_{A_2}\pm
\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}\,\xi_{A_3}\right)\;,
\label{FR2}$$ where $r=m_M/m_B$ and we omitted the arguments of the $f\/$’s and $\xi\/$’s.
In the heavy quark limit and in the leading logarithmic approximation (LLA), we have[@QCD; @IW] $$\xi_+=\xi_V=\xi_{A_1}=\xi_{A_3}\equiv C\,\xi\;,\;\;
\xi_-=\xi_{A_2}=0\;,
\label{HQL}$$ where $\xi(1)=1$ and $C$ denotes the QCD correction factor in the LLA[^3]. We assume the following form of the universal form factor[^4],
$$\xi(y)=\left(\frac{2}{1+y}\right)^{2\rho^2}\;,
\label{POLE}$$
and determine the slope parameter $\rho$ from the experimental data of semileptonic $B$ decays[@CLEO]. As a result, we obtain $$\rho=1.08\pm 0.11\;,
\label{RHQL}$$ with $\chi^2_{min}/\mbox{\em d.o.f.}=0.48$. Eq. (\[RHQL\]) gives the uncertainty of the predictions in the approximation of Eqs. (\[HQL\]) and (\[POLE\]).
In our numerical analysis, we consider only the effects of the lightest charged Higgs boson exchange. Other charged Higgs bosons (if they exist) are assumed to be too heavy to give significant contributions. Moreover, we concentrate on the case of the Model II Higgs couplings as shown in Eq. (\[SC\]). So, the strength of the charged Higgs couplings to fermions are determined by $\tan\beta$ only.
We use $m_b=4.8$GeV, $m_c=1.4$GeV, and $m_\tau=1.78$GeV, and we do not consider the uncertainty in the quark masses, because its effect appears mostly through the combination $m_bm_\tau\tan^2\beta/M_H^2$ and a variation in $m_b$ can be absorbed by changing $\tan\beta$ or the charged Higgs boson mass $M_H$.
Our predictions for the branching ratio are shown in Figs. \[BD\] and \[BDL\]. In Figs. \[BD\](a) and \[BDL\](a), we show the decay rate of the process $\bar B \rightarrow D^{(*)}\tau\bar\nu_\tau$ in the presence of the charged Higgs boson exchange, normalized to the rate of $\bar B \rightarrow D^{(*)}\mu\bar\nu_\mu$ in the SM, against the charged Higgs mass for several values of $\tan\beta$. The shaded regions correspond to the predictions in the approximation of Eqs. (\[HQL\]) and (\[POLE\]) within the uncertainty of Eq. (\[RHQL\]). In Figs. \[BD\](b) and \[BDL\](b), we also show the decay rate normalized to $\tilde\Gamma$, the decay rate of $\bar B \rightarrow D^{(*)}\mu\bar\nu_\mu$ in the SM, but integrated in the same $q^2$ region as the $\tau$ mode, [*i.e.*]{} $m_\tau^2\leq q^2\leq (m_B-m_M)^2$. As seen in Figs. \[BD\] and \[BDL\], this restriction in the $q^2$ range decreases the uncertainty in the hadronic form factors and improve the sensitivity to the charged Higgs sector. The theoretical sensitivity to the charged Higgs sector can be represented by the minimum value of $R\equiv M_W\tan\beta/M_H$ which can be detected in an ideal experiment. From Fig. \[BD\](b), we expect the theoretical reach of $R\sim 6$ with the uncertainty of Eq. (\[RHQL\]). As can be seen in Fig. \[BDL\], the longitudinal $D^*$ ($D^*_L$) mode is less sensitive to the charged Higgs boson exchange because of the angular momentum barrier. Actually, the hadronic amplitude $H_s^0(q^2)$ vanishes as $q^2\rightarrow (m_B-m_M)^2$.
In order to get an idea on the size of the $1/m_{b,c}$ correction and the non-LLA QCD correction which violate the relation among the form factors in Eq. (\[HQL\]), we employ the estimation of these corrections by Neubert[@N2]. In Ref. [@N2] both the $1/m_{b,c}$ correction as estimated by the QCD sum rule and the perturbative QCD correction beyond the LLA are given. The form factors in Eqs. (\[HFD\])$\sim$(\[HFDSA\]) are then written as $$\xi_i(y)=\left[\alpha_i+\beta_i(y)+
\gamma_i(y)\right]\xi(y)\;,
\qquad i=+,-,V,A_1,A_2,A_3\;,
\label{FC}$$ where $\alpha_+=\alpha_V=\alpha_{A_1}=\alpha_{A_3}=1$, $\alpha_-=\alpha_{A_2}=0$, $\beta_i(y)$ represents the perturbative QCD correction, and $\gamma_i(y)$ is the $1/m_{b,c}$ correction. The functions $\beta_i$’s and $\gamma_i$’s are given in Ref. [@N2]. Assuming the form of $\xi(y)$ in Eq. (\[POLE\]) again, we obtain the following range of the slope parameter from the experimental data[@CLEO]: $$\rho=1.23\pm 0.09\;,
\label{RC}$$ with $\chi^2_{min}/\mbox{\em d.o.f.}=0.55$.
The results on the decay rate by using Eq. (\[FC\]) and the central value of Eq. (\[RC\]), [*i.e.*]{} $\rho=1.23$, are shown in Figs. \[BD\] and \[BDL\] by dashed lines. The magnitude of the uncertainty from the range of the parameter $\rho$ in Eq. (\[RC\]) is roughly as the same as in the leading order approximation of Eqs. (\[HQL\]) $\sim$ (\[RHQL\]). Fig. \[BD\] shows that the non-leading corrections are not the major uncertainty in the $\bar B$ to $D$ mode, and the theoretical reach of $R\sim 6$ for the $D$ mode remains valid. On the other hand, as can be seen from Fig. \[BDL\], the non-leading corrections can be as large as the uncertainty in the slope parameter of Eq. (\[RC\]) for the $D^*_L$ mode. In future, the non-leading corrections may become dominant uncertainties in both the $D$ and $D^*_L$ modes if the ranges of Eqs. (\[RHQL\]) and (\[RC\]) are reduced enough by detailed studies of the semileptonic $B$ decays at $B$ factories.
As for the $\tau$ polarizations, we can calculate any of their distributions by using Eqs. (\[DR\]) and (\[DRL\])$\sim$(\[PT\]) given the helicity amplitudes. For the couplings of Eq. (\[SC\]), we obtain $P_T=0$, and $P_L^2+P_\bot^2=1$ at any phase space point $(q^2,x)$. However, for simplicity, we concentrate on the longitudinal polarization $P_L$ integrated over the whole phase space separately in the numerator and the denominator of Eq. (\[PL\]). Note that $P_L^2+P_\bot^2\neq 1$ after this integration. In the following, we consider two of the possible frames in which the $\tau$ helicity is defined, the virtual $W(H)$ rest frame and the $\bar B$ rest frame. The longitudinal $\tau$ polarization in the former frame is denoted by $P_L(W^*)$, and in the latter frame by $P_L(B)$.
Our numerical results on $P_L(W^*)$ and $P_L(B)$ are given in Figs. \[PD\] and \[PDL\]. Fig. \[PD\](a) and (b) show the $P_L(W^*)$ and the $P_L(B)$ respectively in the $D$ mode. Fig. \[PDL\](a) and (b) show the same quantities in the $D^*_L$ mode. The values in the leading order approximation of Eqs. (\[HQL\]) and (\[POLE\]) with the uncertainty due to the range of $\rho$ in Eq. (\[RHQL\]) are again shown by the shaded region. The uncertainty in the prediction is found to be much smaller than that in the branching ratio; it is almost negligible except for $P_L(B)$ in the $D$ mode. The predictions with the non-leading corrections of Eq. (\[FC\]) for the central value of Eq. (\[RC\]) are also shown by dashed lines. The non-leading corrections can be regarded as the major uncertainty in the calculations of these polarizations except for $P_L(B)$ in the $D$ mode.
From Fig. \[PD\](a), we expect the best possible theoretical reach of $R\sim 4.5$ among the calculations in this paper, regarding the difference between the center line of the shaded region which shrinks to almost a line and the dashed line as possible theoretical uncertainties. However, this estimation of the theoretical reach is rather ambiguous because it heavily relies on the estimation of the non-leading corrections in Ref. [@N2]. On the other hand, as expected, the $D^*_L$ mode is less sensitive to the charged Higgs boson exchange in these polarizations too, see Fig. \[PDL\].
The above results on the sensitivity of the branching ratio and the $\tau$ polarizations to the charged Higgs boson effects in the exclusive semi-tauonic $B$ decays should be compared with those in the inclusive semi-tauonic $B$ decay. The inclusive decay has been studied in Ref. [@GL], which finds the sensitivity of $R\sim 32$ for the branching ratio, and $R\sim 20$ for the $\tau$ polarization[^5], despite the fact that the uncertainties in the inclusive study of Ref. [@GL] seem to be slightly smaller than those in the exclusive study of the present paper. These less sensitive results are understood as the above-explained insensitivity of the $D^*$ mode which gives a large portion of the inclusive decay and cannot be separated in the inclusive study. In other words, the $D^*$ modes dilute the effects of the charged Higgs boson exchange in the inclusive decay. On the other hand, in the exclusive study, we can select out the sensitive $D$ mode. Therefore, measurements of the branching ratio and the $\tau$ polarizations for $\bar B\rightarrow D\tau\bar\nu_\tau$ mode may give the best bound on the charged Higgs boson exchange at the tree level.
Finally, we comment on reconstruction of the $\tau$ momentum. Reconstruction of the $\tau$ momentum is desirable in several measurements discussed above, in particular it is necessary to measure $x$ and $q^2$ distributions. Even if we know the momenta $p_B$, $p_M$, and $p_h$ in the decay process $\bar B\rightarrow M\tau\bar\nu_\tau$ followed by $\tau\rightarrow {\rm hadrons}(h)+\nu_\tau$, the $\tau$ momentum cannot be reconstructed because of two missing neutrinos. In this case, the $\tau$ momentum is parametrized by its azimuthal angle in the virtual $W(H)$ rest frame in which $\bbox{p}_h$ points toward the positive $z$ direction. Improvements in vertex detector technology can improve the situation. Measurements of several quantities in semi-tauonic $B$ decays should be improved significantly by systematically taking into account the vertex information. In principle, by using the knowledge about the tracks originating from $M$ and $\tau$, we can measure the impact parameter between the flight lines of $M$ and $h$. If the position of the $\bar B$ decay vertex or the $\tau$ decay vertex is known in addition to this impact parameter, we can obtain the $\tau$ momentum by determining the azimuthal angle mentioned above. However, there remains a two-fold ambiguity in general. To disentangle this ambiguity, both the $\bar B$ decay vertex and the $\tau$ decay vertex should be known. In principle, the $\bar B$ decay vertex can be measured when the beam axis is well-known or when $\bar B$ decays into $D^*$. The $\tau$ decay vertex can be measured in the three-prong decays.
The author would like to thank K. Hagiwara for his careful reading of the manuscript and valuable discussions. He also thanks Y. Kuno for useful discussions and B. Bullock for his reading of the manuscript.
CDF Collaboration (F. Abe [*et al.*]{}), Phys. Rev. [**D50**]{}, 2966 (1994). For a recent review, [*e.g.*]{}, H. E. Haber and G. L. Kane, Phys. Rep. [**117**]{}, 75 (1985). T.D. Lee, Phys. Rev. [**D8**]{}, 1226 (1973); Phys. Rep. [**9C**]{}, 143 (1974). S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**37**]{}, 657 (1976). CLEO Collaboration (B. Barish [*et al.*]{}), CLEO CONF 94-1, 1994 (unpublished). J.F. Gunion, H.E. Haber, G.L. Kane, and S. Dawson, [*The Higgs Hunter’s Guide*]{} (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990), and references therein. R. Barbieri and G.F. Giudice, Phys. Lett. [**B309**]{}, 86 (1993). C. Albright, J. Smith, and S.-H. Tye, Phys. Rev. [**D21**]{}, 711 (1980). S.L. Glashow and S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. [**D15**]{}, 1958 (1977). K. Hagiwara, A.D. Martin, and M.F. Wade, Nucl. Phys. [**B327**]{}, 569 (1989). K. Hagiwara, A.D. Martin, and M.F. Wade, Z. Phys. [**C46**]{}, 299 (1990). M. Neubert, Phys. Lett. [**B264**]{}, 455 (1991). M.B. Voloshin and M.A. Shifman, Yad. Fiz. [**45**]{}, 463 (1987) \[Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**45**]{}, 292 (1987)\]; H.D. Politzer and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett [**B206**]{}, 681 (1988); Phys. Lett [**B208**]{}, 504 (1988). N. Isgur and M.B. Wise, Phys. Lett [**B232**]{}, 113 (1989); Phys. Lett [**B237**]{}, 527 (1990). ARGUS Collaboration (H. Albrecht [*et al.*]{}), Z. Phys. [**C57**]{}, 533 (1993). CLEO Collaboration (B. Barish [*et al.*]{}), CLNS 94/1285, 1994 (unpublished). M. Neubert, Phys. Rev. [**D46**]{}, 3914 (1992). Y. Grossman and Z. Ligeti, Phys. Lett. [**B332**]{}, 373 (1994).
[Fig. \[KD\]]{}
[Fig. \[BD\]]{}
[Fig. \[BDL\]]{}
[Fig. \[PD\]]{}
[Fig. \[PDL\]]{}
[^1]: Electronic address: [email protected]
[^2]: The decay distributions of the charge conjugate processes ($B\rightarrow\bar M\tau^+\nu_\tau$ with $M=\bar D,\;\bar D^*$) are obtained by taking complex conjugate of all the couplings.
[^3]: The factor $C$ drops out in our results.
[^4]: The following results in this paper are not affected significantly by adopting alternative forms such as those used in Ref. [@ARGUS]
[^5]: In Ref. [@GL], the longitudinal $\tau$ polarization in the $\bar B$ rest frame is discussed.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Proton radii of $^{12-19}$C densities derived from first accurate charge changing cross section measurements at 900$A$ MeV with a carbon target are reported. A thick neutron surface evolves from $\sim$ 0.5 fm in $^{15}$C to $\sim$ 1 fm in $^{19}$C. The halo radius in $^{19}$C is found to be 6.4$\pm$0.7 fm as large as $^{11}$Li. *Ab initio* calculations based on chiral nucleon-nucleon and three-nucleon forces reproduce well the radii.'
author:
- 'R. Kanungo$^{1}$, W. Horiuchi$^2$, G. Hagen$^{3,4}$[^1], G. R. Jansen$^{5,3}$, P. Navratil$^{6}$, F. Ameil$^7$, J. Atkinson$^1$, Y. Ayyad$^8$, D. Cortina-Gil$^8$, I. Dillmann$^7$$\footnote{Present address : TRIUMF, Vancouver, Canada}$, A. Estradé$^{1,7}$, A. Evdokimov$^7$, F. Farinon$^7$, H. Geissel$^{7,9}$, G. Guastalla$^7$, R. Janik$^{10}$, M. Kimura$^2$, R. Knöbel$^7$, J. Kurcewicz$^7$, Yu. A. Litvinov$^7$, M. Marta$^7$, M. Mostazo$^8$, I. Mukha$^7$, C. Nociforo$^7$, H.J. Ong$^{11}$, S. Pietri$^7$, A. Prochazka$^7$, C. Scheidenberger$^{7,9}$, B. Sitar$^{10}$, P. Strmen$^{10}$, Y. Suzuki$^{12,13}$, M. Takechi$^7$, J. Tanaka$^{11}$, I. Tanihata$^{11,14}$, S. Terashima$^{14}$, J. Vargas$^8$, H. Weick$^7$, J. S. Winfield$^7$'
title: 'Proton distribution radii of $^{12-19}$C illuminate features of neutron halos'
---
The existence of thick neutron skins and halos [@TA85; @HA87; @TA13] in neutron-rich nuclei has brought a dramatic change in our view of the nucleus. These unexpected features are exhibited through formation of neutron dominated nuclear surfaces and hence large root mean square point matter radii ($R_m$). The knowledge on how root mean square point proton distribution radii, henceforth in the article referred to as proton radii ($R_p$), evolve with neutron excess is still extremely limited. Proton radii are crucial for deriving the neutron skin (surface) thickness and understanding the spatial correlation between halo neutrons and its core-nucleus. Proton radii can also provide knowledge on shell structure evolution, as recently discussed for $^{52}$Ca [@RU16]. The neutron skin may also be related to the symmetry energy (*S*$_v$) and its density derivative at saturation density (*L*) defining the equation of state (EOS) of asymmetric nuclear matter [@LA12].
Here we report the first precise determination of proton radii of neutron-rich isotopes $^{15-19}$C from the measurement of charge changing cross sections that show rapidly growing thick neutron surfaces approaching the neutron drip line. The proton radii derived for $^{12-14}$C are in agreement with those obtained from traditional methods such as electron scattering without any scaling factor. This clearly established the present technique as a valuable method to determine the proton radii of very neutron-rich isotopes. The measured radii are in good agreement with those computed using *ab initio* coupled-cluster theory based on chiral nucleon-nucleon and three-nucleon interactions [@HA15].
The carbon isotopes draw interest because their $R_m$ show large enhancements for $^{15,19}$C [@OZ01] and $^{22}$C [@HO06; @TA10]. This signals the presence of neutron halos. It is interesting to see how such structure evolution of neutron-rich C isotopes affects their proton distribution.
Electron-nucleus scattering and measurement of muonic X-rays are used to determine the charge radii ($R_c$) of stable nuclei. The $R_c$ of $^{12}$C from e$^-$ scattering was found to be 2.478$\pm$0.009 fm [@OF91] which is consistent with 2.472$\pm$0.015 fm from muonic X ray studies [@SC82]. For $^{13}$C, the weighted average of two e$^-$ scattering measurements [@HE70; @BE71] yields $R_c$ = 2.43$\pm$0.02 fm, while the muonic X-ray measurements [@SC82; @BO85] find $R_c$ =2.463$\pm$0.004 fm. Results from e$^-$ scattering of $^{14}$C gives $R_c$ =2.56$\pm$0.05 fm [@KL73], which is in agreement with 2.496$\pm$0.019 fm from muonic X-ray measurements.
At present these techniques cannot be used for neutron-rich carbon isotopes. A new approach, used in this work, is to measure the charge changing cross section ($\sigma_{cc}$) and derive the point proton radius ($R_p$) from it using the finite-range Glauber model. This method has been employed in Refs.[@ES15; @TE] and with zero-range calculations in Ref.[@YA11]. The effect of proton evaporation from neutron removal cross sections to states above the proton threshold is negligibly small for $^{12-19}$C since these nuclei are not in the vicinity of any proton unbound isotopes and the proton separation energies are fairly large. At beam energies $\sim$900$A$ MeV, nuclear inelastic excitation cross section to states above the proton emission threshold is also negligibly small. The above effects become relevant for correction for nuclei at or neighbouring the proton drip-line.
The first precise measurements of charge changing cross sections and hence $R_p$ of neutron-rich isotopes $^{15-19}$C as well as for $^{12-14}$C are reported here. The experiment was performed using the fragment separator FRS [@GE92] at GSI, Darmstadt, Germany. The carbon isotopes were produced through fragmentation of 1$A$ GeV primary beams of $^{20}$Ne and $^{40}$Ar interacting with a 6.3 g/cm$^2$ thick Be target. The isotopes of interest were separated, identified, and counted using event-by-event information of magnetic rigidity (B$\rho$), time-of-flight (TOF), and energy-loss ($\Delta$E). A multi-sampling ionization chamber (MUSIC) [@ST02] provides the $Z$ identification from $\Delta$E. Figure 1 shows the experiment setup. The first three (F1, F2 and F3), focal planes of the FRS are dispersive while the final one, F4, is achromatic, where the reaction target, C (4.01 g/cm$^2$) was placed. The energies of the isotopes at the reaction target were $\sim$900$A$ MeV and are listed in Table 1. Plastic scintillator detectors placed at the mid-plane F2 and before the reaction target at F4 measured the time-of-flight of the incoming beam. The scintillator before the target at F4 was used as the trigger of the data acquisition system. Two position sensitive time projection chambers (TPC) [@HL98] were placed before the target at F4 which provided beam tracking defining the beam profile on the target. In addition, TPCs were also placed at F2. The position information in combination with the central magnetic rigidity of the dipoles was used to determine event by event B$\rho$ of the incident particle.
![\[fig:epsart\] Schematic view of the experiment setup at the FRS with detector arrangement at the final focus F4. ](Cpradii_Fig1.pdf){width="9cm" height="4cm"}
The $\sigma_{cc}$ is measured using the transmission technique, where the number ($N_{in}$) of incident nuclei $^AZ$, before the reaction target is identified and counted. After the target, the nuclei with the same charge $Z$ are identified and counted event by event ($N_{sameZ}$). The $\sigma_{cc}$ is obtained from a ratio of these counts and is defined as $ \sigma_{cc} = t^{-1} {\mathrm {ln}} \big(
T_{t_{out}} / T_{t_{in}} \big) $ where $T=N_{sameZ}/N_{in}$, $t_{in}$ and $t_{out}$ refer to measurements with and without the reaction target, $t$ is the thickness of the target.
A restricted position and angle selection of the beam on target eliminated spurious effects of losses due to large angle scattering out of the detector acceptance. A veto scintillator was placed before the target with a central hole of a size smaller than the target. This rejected scattered events from upstream matter and multi-hit events where one of the particles can miss hitting a MUSIC giving incorrect reaction information. The particle identification condition of the incident beam was defined in a way such that the contamination level from $Z$=5 and 7 beam events relative to $Z$=6 is $\leq$10$^{-4}$.
After the reaction target the beam events with $Z$=6 were counted using the second MUSIC. The energy-loss values of the TPC and the plastic scintillator detectors placed after the target provided additional information to ensure proper $Z$ identification and counting. The resolution of the MUSIC for $Z$=$6$ was $\Delta Z$ (in $\sigma$) = 0.12. The selection window covered $\sim \pm$4$\sigma$ of the $Z$=6 particles.
With the desired isotope of C selected as the incoming beam, the production of $Z$=7 events after the target is from charge exchange or proton transfer reactions where one proton is added to the nucleus. This cross section therefore does not involve reactions with the protons in the C isotope and is hence subtracted to derive the measured charge changing cross section. While this cross section is generally very small ($<$1 mb), for the neutron-rich C isotopes it was found to be a few mb [@TA16].
![\[fig:epsart\] $R_p$ extracted from $\sigma_{cc}$ for $^{12-19}$C (black filled circles). The blue open diamonds are $R_p$ from $e^-$-scattering and muonic X-rays for $^{12-14}$C. (a) The relativistic mean field theory calculations with spherical/deformed potentials are shown by the red solid line/ blue dashed line. The green dotted line shows results of Hartree Fock calculations. The AMD results are shown by open triangles [@EN15] and open squares [@KI]. (b) The $R_m$ from the present analysis of $\sigma_{I}$ [@OZ01] are shown by black open circles. The results of coupled cluster calculations are shown for $R_p$ as solid (red) and dotted (black) lines using the chiral NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ interaction and the nucleon-nucleon interaction NNLO$_{\rm opt}$ [@ekstrom2013], respectively. The matter radii with NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ is shown by the red dashed line. The shaded bands show the predicted uncertainty.](C_pradii_Fig2_rev1.pdf){width="6cm" height="10cm"}
The measured values of $\sigma_{cc}$ are listed in Table 1. The cross section increases for $^{15}$C which has a halo structure and continues gradually increasing for $^{16,17}$C. This is unlike Ref.[@YA11], reporting the $\sigma_{cc}$ of $^{16}$C to be smaller than $^{15}$C. With the halo-effect of $^{15}$C one would expect a small increase in the proton radius as seen for example for $^{11}$Be [@NO09]. A large increase in $\sigma_{cc}$ is not found for $^{19}$C although it is a halo nucleus. This is because the effect of the center of mass motion of the halo on the proton radius becomes smaller with larger mass number than in $^{11}$Be. The $\sigma_{cc}$ for $^{12-20}$C reported in Ref.[@CH00] with large uncertainties are systematically higher than those in [@WE90] for stable isotopes and not consistent with $R_p$ from e$^-$ scattering.
The finite-range Glauber model [@SU] with harmonic oscillator density is used for deriving the $R_p$ from the $\sigma_{cc}$. The $R_p$ are listed in Table 1. The charge radii of $^{12-14}$C known from e$^-$- scattering and muonic X-ray measurements are used to find the respective $R_p$ (blue diamonds in Fig.2 and R$_p^{(e^-,\mu)}$ in Table 1) following the formula in Ref.[@NO09]. A good agreement is seen with the $R_p$ found in this work. This lends strong support to this technique of successfully extracting $R_p$ from $\sigma_{cc}$. No scaling factor of $\sigma_{cc}$ was required for this agreement as was also seen in Ref.[@ES15], unlike the discussion in Ref.[@YA11].
The matter radii of $^{12-19}$C shown in Fig.2b (open circles) are derived in this work from a finite-range Glauber model [@HO07] analysis of the interaction cross section $(\sigma_I)$ data from Ref.[@OZ01]. In this analysis the $R_p$ are fixed to the values from Table 1 while the neutron radii are varied to reproduce the $(\sigma_I)$ data. The matter radius of $^{20}$C is shown from Ref.[@OZ01]. The combined information from proton radii and matter radii allow to fully characterize the halo features of $^{15,19}$C. In a core plus neutron model following Ref.[@TA13], the halo radius, R$_h$, of $\sim$ 6.4$\pm$0.7 fm for $^{19}$C derived in this work shows the presence of a more prominent halo in this nucleus compared to $\sim$ 4.2$\pm$0.5 fm for $^{15}$C. The root mean square distance between the center of mass of the core and the halo neutron $R_{c-n}$ using the method in Ref.[@TA13] for $^{15}$C is 7.2 $\pm$ 4.0 fm derived using $R_p$ and 4.15 $\pm$ 0.5 fm using $R_m$. For $^{19}$C it is 4.1 $\pm$ 10 fm using $R_p$ and 6.6 $\pm$ 0.5 fm using $R_m$. The radius of the valence neutron in $^{19}$C was deduced to be 5.5$\pm$0.3 fm from Coulomb dissociation [@NA99].
The $R_p$ predicted by the relativistic mean field theory [@SH15] using the NL3 parameters in a spherical potential is in overall agreement (Fig. 2a) with the $R_p$ of $^{13-17}$C and slightly higher for $^{18,19}$C. Those with a non-spherical potential predict slightly higher radii for $^{14-19}$C. The radii predicted in the framework of microscopic non-relativistic Hartree-Fock method with a hybrid of Gogny and Skyrme effective interactions is in agreement with the data of some isotopes [@SH15]. The radii calculated in the Antisymmetrized Molecular Dynamics (AMD) framework greatly overpredict the data in Fig.2a (open triangles [@EN15]) and (open squares [@KI]).
We also perform coupled-cluster computations for the radii and compare with data. For the closed (sub-)shell nucleus $^{14}$C we use the coupled-cluster method with singles-and-doubles excitations [@bartlett2007] to compute the expectation value of the intrinsic point-proton and neutron radii. To access the open-shell nuclei $^{13,15}$C we use particle-removed/attached equation-of-motion coupled-cluster method [@gour2006; @hagen2014], while for $^{16-19}$C we employ the recently developed coupled-cluster effective interaction (CCEI) method in the $sd$ shell [@jansen2014; @jansen2015]. To compute the intrinsic radii of $^{16-19}$C within CCEI we follow the scheme outlined in Ref.[@jansen2014], and include the core and one-body parts of the valence-space radius operator, while we neglect the two-body part. We solve our coupled-cluster equations using a Hartree-Fock basis built from a harmonic-oscillator basis consisting of fifteen major oscillator shells ($N_{\rm max} = 2n+l = 14$) with the additional energy cut $E_{3\text{max}}=N_1+N_2+N_3 \leq 16$ for the three-nucleon interaction. Here $N_i = 2n_i + l_i$ refers to the major oscillator shell of the $i^{th}$ particle. For the computed radii we estimate an uncertainty of $\pm$0.04 fm coming from the model-space and coupled-cluster method.
We perform our coupled-cluster calculations using various state-of-the-art chiral interactions. First, we focus on NNLO$_{{\rm
sat}}$ which was obtained using a novel optimization strategy that simultaneously optimized the low-energy constants in the nucleon-nucleon (NN) and three-nucleon (3NF) sector at next-to-next-to leading order (NNLO) including data on charge radii and binding energies of selected nuclei up to $^{25}$O in the fit [@EK15]. NNLO$_{{\rm sat}}$ was recently successfully applied to compute radii of $^{48}$Ca [@HA15], and is for the first time employed for $^{13-19}$C in this work. Fig. 2b shows a comparison between data and coupled-cluster computations using NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ for the point-proton and matter radii of $^{13-19}$C. In addition to NNLO$_{{\rm sat}}$ we also compare data with the chiral interaction NNLO$_{{\rm opt}}$ [@ekstrom2013] which does not include 3NFs. We observe that results with the NNLO$_{{\rm sat}}$ gives overall good agreement with data, while those with the NNLO$_{{\rm opt}}$ interaction significantly underestimate the radii. It is seen that the effects of simultaneously optimizing the low-energy coupling constants in the NN and three-nucleon sector, the inclusion of binding energies and radii of selected nuclei with $A\leq 25$ in the objecive function, and the inclusion of 3NFs with non-local regulators are indeed very significant and crucial for reproducing the measured proton radii. The results for the matter radii (Fig.2b dashed red curve) using NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ are also in good agreement with the data. Since $^{19}$C is a weakly bound nucleus and the coupling to the particle continuum is not included in these calculations the CCEI result with NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ leads to $^{19}$C being unbound. For this reason the radius is not defined and not shown in Fig. 2.
![\[fig:epsart\] The comparison of data with coupled cluster predictions for (a) proton radii (b) matter radii. The chiral interactions [@HE11] are EM1 (dotted blue curve), EM3 (dashed double-dotted pink curve), EM4 (dashed black curve) and EM5 (solid green curve). ](C_pradii_Fig3_rev1.pdf){width="8cm" height="4cm"}
With the successful description of the radii in the coupled cluster framework using the NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ interaction, we now investigate how the data compares to a set of other chiral interactions. These interactions are adopted from Ref.[@HE11] and include NN and 3NFs. The NN interactions are based on a similarity renormalization group transformation [@bogner2007] of the chiral interaction at N$^3$LO from Ref. [@entem2003] and with a non-local 3NF at N$^2$LO. In contrast to NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ the low-energy coupling constants were determined from a fit to scattering data, binding energies and radii of nuclei with $A\leq 4$. The different forces used have different NN (3NF) cutoffs, namely EM1 = 2.0 fm$^{-1}$ (2.0 fm$^{-1}$), EM3 = 1.8 fm$^{-1}$ (2.0 fm$^{-1}$), EM4= 2.2 fm$^{-1}$ (2.0 fm$^{-1}$), EM5 = 2.8 fm$^{-1}$ (2.0 fm$^{-1}$). Fig. 3a and Fig. 3b compare the data of proton radii and matter radii, respectively, with predictions using these interactions that are shown as EM1 (dotted blue curve), EM3 (dashed double-dotted pink curve), EM4 (dashed black curve) and EM5 (solid green curve). It is seen that the agreement with the data over the different isotopes with the NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ is much better than any of the “EM” interactions. The $R_p$ for $^{13-17}$C are not reproduced by the EM3 interaction. The EM1 and EM4 interactions do not reproduce the measured $R_p$ for $^{15-17}$C. The interactions with a lower NN cutoff seems to predict smaller radii values. The agreement of the predictions with the matter radii (Fig. 3b) is better using the EM5 interaction than the other “EM” interactions, though once again the NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ predictions seem to be in much better agreement overall. This suggests that the NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ interaction has a better predictive capability for bulk properties of nuclei such as nuclear radii.
![\[fig:epsart\] (a) The measured neutron skin thickness for $^{12-19}$C compared to predictions using the different interactions, NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ (red solid curve), EM1 (dotted blue curve), EM3 (dashed double-dotted pink curve), EM4 (dashed black curve) and EM5 (solid green curve).(b) The measured neutron skin thickness variation with $S_n - S_p$ for $^{12-19}$C.](C_pradii_Fig4_rev2.pdf){width="8cm" height="4cm"}
The neutron skin thickness defined as the difference of point neutron radius ($R_n$) and $R_p$ is shown in Fig.4a. The red curve shows the coupled cluster calculations with the NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ interaction to be in good agreement with the data. The predictions with the other interactions are all very similar to each other and to that with the NNLO$_{\rm sat}$ interaction. We see a very thick neutron skin developing with increasing neutron-proton asymmetry. In Fig. 4b the relationship of the neutron skin thickness as a function of the difference between the one-neutron separation energy ($S_n$) and one-proton separation energy ($S_p$) is shown. The strong correlation observed in Fig. 4b points to a thick neutron skin (surface) being associated with the large Fermi-level difference of neutrons and protons, that occurs as nuclei become highly neutron-rich.
In summary, the first accurate determination of $R_p$ of $^{12-19}$C is accomplished from charge changing cross section ($\sigma_{cc}$) measurements with a carbon target at 900$A$ MeV. The Glauber model successfully relates the $\sigma_{cc}$ to $R_p$ which is seen from their agreement with radii from electron scattering. The radii are in overall good agreement with coupled-cluster computations using the chiral interaction NNLO$_{\rm sat}$.
---------- ------- -------------------- ------------ ------------------- ------------
Isotope E/A $\sigma_{cc}^{ex}$ R$_p^{ex}$ R$_p^{(e^-,\mu)}$ R$_m^{ex}$
(MeV) (mb) (fm) (fm) (fm)
$^{12}$C 937 733(7) 2.32(2) 2.33(1) 2.35(2)
$^{13}$C 828 726(7) 2.30(4) 2.32(1) 2.28(4)
$^{14}$C 900 731(7) 2.32(4) 2.37(2) 2.33(7)
$^{15}$C 907 743(7) 2.37(3) 2.54(4)
$^{16}$C 907 748(7) 2.40(4) 2.74(3)
$^{17}$C 979 754(7) 2.42(4) 2.76(3)
$^{18}$C 895 747(7) 2.39(4) 2.86(4)
$^{19}$C 895 749(9) 2.40(3) 3.16(7)
---------- ------- -------------------- ------------ ------------------- ------------
: \[tab:table1\] Secondary beam energies, measured $\sigma_{cc}$ and the root mean square proton and matter radii derived from the data for the carbon isotopes.
The authors are thankful for the support of the GSI accelerator staff and the FRS technical staff for an efficient running of the experiment. The support from NSERC, Canada for this work is gratefully acknowledged. R. Kanungo thankfully acknowledges the HIC-for-FAIR program and JLU-Giessen for supporting part of the research stay. The support of the PR China government and Beihang university under the Thousand Talent program is gratefully acknowledged. The experiment is partly supported by the grant-in-aid program of the Japanese government under the contract number 23224008. This work was supported by the Office of Nuclear Physics, U.S. Department of Energy (Oak Ridge National Laboratory), DE-SC0008499 (NUCLEI SciDAC collaboration), NERRSC Grant No. 491045-2011, and the Field Work Proposal ERKBP57 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Computer time was provided by the Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment (INCITE) program. TRIUMF receives funding via a contribution through the National Research Council Canada. This research used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility located in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is supported by the Office of Science of the Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725, and used computational resources of the National Center for Computational Sciences and the National Institute for Computational Sciences.
[99]{}
I. Tanihata [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{}, 2676 (1985). P.G. Hansen and B. Jonson, Euro. Phys. Lett. [**4**]{}, 409 (1987). I. Tanihata [*et al.*]{}, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**68**]{}, 215 (2013). R. F. Garcia Ruiz [*et al*]{}, Nature Physics (2016), doi:10.1038/nphys3645 J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**62**]{}, 485 (2012) G. Hagen [*et al.*]{}, Nature Physics [**12**]{}, 186 (2016). A. Ozawa, T. Suzuki and I. Tanihata, Nucl. Phys. [**A 693**]{}, 32 (2001). W. Horiuchi and Y. Suzuki, Phys. Rev. [**C 74**]{}, 034311 (2006). K. Tanaka [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, (2010) 062701. E.A.J.M. Offerman [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C 44**]{}, 1096 (1991). L.A. Schaller [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A 379**]{}, 523 (1982). J. Heisenberg [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A 157**]{}, 435 (1970). H.A. Bentz [*et al.*]{}, Z. Phys. [**A 243**]{}, 138 (1971). F.W.N. De Boer [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A 379**]{}, 523 (1982). F.J. Kline [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A 209**]{}, 381 (1973). A. Estrade [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 132501 (2014). S. Terashima [*et al.*]{}. Prog. in Theor. Exp. Phys., 101D02, (2014). T. Yamaguchi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 032502 (2011). H. Geissel [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrm. and Meth. in Phys. Res. [**B 70**]{}, 286 (1992). A. Stolz [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C 65**]{}, 064603 (2002). V. Hlinka [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrm. and Meth. in Phys. Res. [**A 419**]{}, 503 (1998). I. Tanihata [*et al.*]{}, Prog. in Theor. Exp. Phys., 043D05 (2016). W. N" ortersh" auser [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 062503 (2009). L.V. Chulkov [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A 674**]{}, 330 (2000). W. R. Webber, J. C. Kish, and D. A. Schrier, Phys. Rev. [**C 41**]{}, 520 (1990). Y. Suzuki [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C 94**]{}, 011602(R) (2016). Y. Kanada En’yo, Phys. Rev. [**C 91**]{}, 014315 (2015). M. Kimura, [*private communication*]{}. A. Ekström [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 192502 (2013). W. Horiuchi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C 75**]{}, 044607 (2007). T. Nakamura [*et al.*]{} Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{} 112, (1999). M.K. Sharma [*et al.*]{}, Chin, Phys. [**C 39**]{}, 064102 (2015). R.J. Bartlett and M. Musiał, Rev. Mod. Phys., [**79**]{}, 291 (2007). J.R. Gour [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C 74**]{}, 024310 (2006). G. Hagen [*et al.*]{}, Rep. on Prog. in Phys. [**77**]{}, 096302 (2014). G.R. Jansen [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 142502 (2014). G.R. Jansen [*et al.*]{}, arXiv, nucl.-th 1511.00757, (2015). A. Ekström [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C 91**]{}, 051301(R) (2015). K. Hebeler [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. [**C83**]{}, 031301 (2011). S.K. Bogner, R.J. Furnstahl and R.J. Perry, Phys. Rev. [**C 75**]{}. 061001 (2007). D.R. Entem and R. Machleidt, Phys. Rev. [**C 68**]{}, 041001 (2003).
[^1]: This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes. The Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan)
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper concerns cup product pairings in étale cohomology related to work of M. Kim and of W. McCallum and R. Sharifi. We will show that by considering Ext groups rather than cohomology groups, one arrives at a pairing which combines invariants defined by Kim with a pairing defined by McCallum and Sharifi. We also prove a formula for Kim’s invariant in terms of Artin maps in the case of cyclic unramified Kummer extensions. One consequence is that for all $n > 1$, there are infinitely many number fields $F$ over which there are both trivial and non-trivial Kim invariants associated to cyclic groups of order $n$.'
address:
- |
F. M. Bleher, Dept. of Mathematics\
Univ. of Iowa\
Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
- |
T. Chinburg, Dept. of Mathematics\
Univ. of Pennsylvania\
Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
- |
R. Greenberg\
Dept. of Mathematics\
Univ. of Washington\
Box 354350\
Seattle, WA 98195, USA
- |
M. Kakde\
Dept. of Mathematics\
King’s College\
Strand\
London WC2R 2LS, UK
- |
G. Pappas\
Dept. of Mathematics\
Michigan State Univ.\
E. Lansing, MI 48824, USA
- |
M. J. Taylor\
Merton College, Univ. of Oxford\
Oxford, OX1 4JD, UK
author:
- 'F. M. Bleher'
- 'T. Chinburg'
- 'R. Greenberg'
- 'M. Kakde'
- 'G. Pappas'
- 'M. J. Taylor'
title: Cup products in the étale cohomology of number fields
---
[^1]
[^2]
[^3]
[^4]
Introduction {#s:introsect}
============
This paper concerns cup product pairings in étale cohomology which underlie an important case of the arithmetic Chern-Simons theory introduced by M. Kim in [@Kim] as well as a pairing in Galois cohomology studied by McCallum and Sharifi in [@McS]. Our interest in these pairings arises from the search for new numerical invariants of number fields which pertain to the higher codimension behavior of Iwasawa modules (see [@B]).
Suppose $F$ is a number field and $O_F$ is its ring of integers. Let $X = \mathrm{Spec}(O_F)$ and let $\mu_n$ be the sheaf of $n^{th}$ roots of unity in the étale topology on $X$. The pairing connected with Kim’s work is the natural cup product pairing $$\label{eq:pairit}
\xymatrix{ H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) \times H^2(X,\mu_n) \ar[r] & H^3(X,\mu_n) \ar@{=}[r]^(.6){\mathrm{inv}_n} &\mathbb{Z}/n }$$ in étale cohomology when $\mathrm{inv}_n$ is the invariant map isomorphism (see [@Mazur p. 538]).
Suppose $F$ contains the multiplicative group $\tilde{\mu}_n$ generated by a primitive $n^{th}$ root of unity, and let $G$ be an abstract finite group acting trivially on $\tilde{\mu}_n= \mu_n(X)$. Let $\pi_1(X,\eta)$ be the étale fundamental group of $X$ relative to a fixed base point $\eta$. Then $\pi_1(X,\eta)$ is the Galois group of a maximal everywhere unramified extension of $F$. Suppose $c$ is a class in $H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$, and let $f:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to G$ be a fixed homomorphism. Then $f^*c \in H^3(\pi_1(X,\eta),\tilde{\mu}_n)$ defines via Čech cohomology a class $f^*_X c \in H^3(X,\mu_n)$. Kim’s invariant in [@Kim] in the unramified case is $$\label{eq:kimclass}
S(f,c) = \mathrm{inv}_n(f^*_X c) \in \mathbb{Z}/n.$$ In the ramified case, one replaces $X$ by the complement $X'$ of a non-empty finite set of closed points of $X$. One must then take a different approach, since $H^3(X',\mu_n) = \{0\}$; see [@Kim]. We will return to the ramified case in a later paper.
One way to compute (\[eq:kimclass\]) is to employ the pairing (\[eq:pairit\]). Namely, consider the diagram of pairings $$\label{eq:cuppairnew}
\xymatrix @C=.2pc{
H^1(G,\mathbb{Z}/n)\ar[d]^{f^*_X} &\times &H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)\ar[d]^{f^*_X} &\ar[rrr]&&&& H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)\ar[d]^{f^*_X}\\
H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) &\times &H^2(X,\mu_n) &\ar[rrr]&&&& H^3(X,\mu_n)}$$ in which the vertical homomorphisms are induced by $f$. Picking classes $c_1 \in H^1(G,\mathbb{Z}/n)$ and $c_2 \in H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ such that $c_1 \cup c_2 = c$, the pairing (\[eq:pairit\]) leads to a way to compute $$\label{eq:Kimdef}
S(f,c) = f^*_X(c_1) \cup f_X^*(c_2).$$ The McCallum-Sharifi pairing, on the other hand, is defined using Galois cohomology. It was defined in [@McS] using the cup product pairing $$\label{eq:MC1}
H^1(G_{F,S},\tilde{\mu}_n) \times H^1(G_{F,S},\tilde{\mu}_n) \to H^2(G_{F,S},\tilde{\mu}_n^{\otimes 2})$$ when $S$ is a finite set of places of $F$ containing all the places above $n$ and all real archimedean places, and $G_{F,S}$ is the Galois group of the maximal unramified outside $S$ extension of $F$.
A pairing which incorporates both Kim’s invariant for $G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ and the McCallum-Sharifi pairing is the cup product Ext pairing $$\label{eq:mcsk}
\mathrm{Ext}^1_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n) \times \mathrm{Ext}^2_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n) \to
\mathrm{Ext}^3_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n^{\otimes 2}).$$ To explain this, consider the exact sequence $$0 \to \mathbb{Z} \xrightarrow{\cdot n} \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/n \to 0$$ induced by multiplication by $n$. The long exact Ext sequence associated to this sequence leads to a diagram $$\label{eq:bowow}
\xymatrix @C=.2pc{
0\ar[d]&&0\ar[d]&&&&&0\ar[d]\\
H^0(X,\mu_n)\ar[d]& &H^1(X,\mu_n)\ar[d] &&&&& H^2(X,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})\ar[d] \\
\mathrm{Ext}^1_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n)\ar[d] & \times&\mathrm{Ext}^2_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n)\ar[d]&\ar[rrr] &&&& \mathrm{Ext}^3_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})\ar[d]\\
H^1(X,\mu_n) \ar[d]&\times &H^2(X,\mu_n)\ar[d] &\ar[rrr]&&&& H^3(X,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})\ar[d]\\
0&&0&&&&&0
}$$ in which the vertical sequences are exact and the pairings in the second and third rows are given by cup products. Note that we have natural isomorphisms $$\label{eq:tensoriso}
H^i(X,\mu_n^{\otimes j}) = H^i(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) \otimes \tilde{\mu}_n^{\otimes j}$$ for all $i, j \ge 0$ since $\tilde{\mu}_n = H^0(X,\mu_n)$ has order $n$ by assumption.
We show the following result in §\[s:prooflast\].
\[thm:bigdiagram\]The cup product in the bottom row of (\[eq:bowow\]) can be used to compute Kim’s invariant via (\[eq:cuppairnew\]), (\[eq:Kimdef\]) and (\[eq:tensoriso\]). This pairing is compatible with pushing forward the cup product in the middle row of (\[eq:bowow\]). The cup product pairing $$\label{eq:natural}
H^1(X,\mu_n) \times H^1(X,\mu_n) \to H^2(X,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})$$ is compatible with the McCallum-Sharifi pairing, which results from (\[eq:MC1\]), via the natural inflation maps $H^i(X,\mu_n) \to H^i(G_{F,S},\tilde{\mu}_n)$. The pairing (\[eq:natural\]) arises from the pairing in the second row of (\[eq:bowow\]) by the natural pull back and push forward procedure. Namely, suppose $\alpha \in H^1(X,\mu_n) $ pulls back to $\tilde{\alpha} \in \mathrm{Ext}^1_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n)$ in the first column of (\[eq:bowow\]), and that $\beta \in H^1(X,\mu_n)$ has boundary $\partial \beta \in \mathrm{Ext}^2_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n)$ under the first vertical map in the second column of (\[eq:bowow\]). Then $$\label{eq:cup}
\partial(\alpha \cup \beta) = -(\tilde{\alpha} \cup \partial \beta)$$ where on the left $\partial$ is the boundary map $H^2(X,\mu_n^{\otimes 2}) \to \mathrm{Ext}^3_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})$ in the third column of (\[eq:bowow\]).
Note that the minus sign on the right side of (\[eq:cup\]) comes from the definition of the differential of the total complex of the tensor product of two complexes.
Another pairing in Galois cohomology that is related to Kim’s invariants and different from the McCallum-Sharifi pairing is described in Theorem \[thm:fixitup\] below.
In [@KimEtAl], H. Chung, D. Kim, M. Kim, J. Park and H. Yoo showed how to compute Kim’s invariant by comparing local and global trivializations of Galois three cocycles. Using this method they construct infinitely many examples in which the invariant is non-trivial and the finite group involved is either $\mathbb{Z}/2$, $\mathbb{Z}/2 \times \mathbb{Z}/2$ or the symmetric group $S_4$.
Our next results use a different approach than [@KimEtAl] in the unramified case. When $G$ is cyclic we prove in Theorem \[thm:fixed?\] below a formula that determines the invariant using Artin maps. One consequence of Theorem \[thm:fixed?\] is the following result. This shows that there are infinitely many number fields $F$ over which there are both trivial and non-trivial Kim invariants associated to cyclic groups of order $n$. The methods of this paper carry over *mutatis mutandis* to the case of global function fields provided $n$ is prime to the characteristic of the field.
\[thm:result\] Suppose $n > 1$ is an integer, $G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ and that $c$ is a fixed generator of $H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$. Then there are infinitely many totally complex number fields $F$ for which there are cyclic unramified Kummer extensions $K_1/F$ and $K_2/F$ with the following property. Let $f_i:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to G$ for $i = 1, 2$ be the inflation of an isomorphism $\mathrm{Gal}(K_i/F) \to G$. Then $$\label{eq:Kiminvariant}
S(f_1,c) = 0 \quad \mathrm{and}\quad S(f_2,c) \ne 0.$$
To state our formula for Kim’s invariant in terms of Artin maps, let $f:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ be a fixed surjection. Let $c_1 \in H^1(G,\mathbb{Z}/n) = \mathrm{Hom}(G,\mathbb{Z}/n)$ be the identity map, and let $c_2$ generate $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$. Then $c = c_1 \cup c_2$ generates the cyclic group $H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ of order $n$. We wish to use the diagram (\[eq:cuppairnew\]) to calculate $S(f,c)=f_X^*(c_1) \cup f_X^*(c_2)$.
The element $f_X^*(c_1) \in H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)$ factors through an isomorphism $$\mathrm{Gal}(K/F) \to G = \mathbb{Z}/n$$ for a cyclic unramified extension $K/F$ of degree $n$ which we will use to identify $\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ with $G = \mathbb{Z}/n$.
Using the exact sequence of multiplicative groups $$\label{eq:exactly}
1 \to \tilde{\mu}_n \to K^* \to K^* \to K^*/(K^*)^n \to 1$$ associated to exponentiation by $n$ on $K^*$ we will show that there is an exact sequence $$\label{eq:boundary}
F^* \to (K^*/(K^*)^n)^{\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)} \to H^2(\mathrm{Gal}(K/F),\tilde{\mu}_n) \to 1.$$ Let $\gamma \in K^*$ be such that $\gamma (K^*)^n \in (K^*/(K^*)^n)^G$ has image $c_2$ in $$H^2(\mathrm{Gal}(K/F),\tilde{\mu}_n) = H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$$ under the homomorphism in (\[eq:boundary\]).
\[thm:fixed?\] The $O_F$ ideal $\mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(\gamma) O_F$ is the $n^{th}$ power $I^n$ of a fractional ideal $I$ of $F$. The ideal class $ [I]$ of $I$ in the ideal class group $Cl(O_F)$ of $O_F$ depends only on $c_2$ and is $n$-torsion. Let $\mathrm{Art}:Cl(O_F) \to \mathrm{Gal}(K/F) = G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ be the Artin map associated to $K/F$. Then Kim’s invariant of the class $c = c_1 \cup c_2 \in H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ is $$\label{eq:calculation}
S(f,c) = f_X^* c_1 \cup f_X^*c_2 = \mathrm{Art}([I]) \in G = \mathbb{Z}/n.$$
Note that in this result, the input is $f$ and $c_2$, from which one determines $K$ and $\gamma$. Conversely, we now show how one can start with a cyclic unramified degree $n$ Kummer extension $K/F$ and then use this to determine an $f$ and $c_2$ for which (\[eq:calculation\]) holds.
For the remainder of the paper we fix the following choices.
\[def:roots\] Let $\zeta_n$ be a primitive $n^{th}$ root of unity in $F$. If $m$ is a divisor of $n$, we let $\zeta_m = \zeta_n^{n/m}$.
\[thm:elementary\] Suppose $K/F$ is an everywhere unramified cyclic degree $n$ Kummer extension of number fields. By Hilbert’s norm theorem, $\zeta_n = \mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(x)$ for some $x \in K$. By Hilbert’s Theorem 90, $x^n = \sigma(y)/y$ for some $y \in K$ and a generator $\sigma$ for $G = \mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$. For all such $y$, there is a fractional $O_F$-ideal $J$ such that $\mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(y)O_F = J^n$. Let $c_1:G \to \mathbb{Z}/n$ be the isomorphism sending $\sigma$ to $1$ mod $n$. Let $\gamma = y$ in Theorem \[thm:fixed?\], and let $c_2 \in H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ be the image of $\gamma (K^*)^n$ under (\[eq:boundary\]). Then $c_2$ generates $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$, $J$ is the ideal $I$ of Theorem \[thm:fixed?\] and $S(f,c)$ is given by (\[eq:calculation\]) when $c = c_1 \cup c_2$.
This theorem leads to the following result concerning the functorality of Kim’s invariant under base extensions.
\[cor:elemcor1\] Suppose $F'$ is a finite extension of $F$ which is disjoint from $K$, and let $K' = F'K$ be the compositum of $F'$ and $K$. The ideal $I'$ associated to $K'/F'$ by Theorem \[thm:elementary\] may be taken to be $IO_{F'}$. Kim’s invariant for $K'/F'$ is the image of the invariant for $K/F$ under the transfer map $Tr_{K'/K}:\mathrm{Gal}(K/F) \to \mathrm{Gal}(K'/F')$ we identify both of these Galois groups with $\mathbb{Z}/n$.
Theorem \[thm:elementary\] gives the following criterion for the non-triviality of Kim’s invariant for cyclic unramified Kummer extensions.
\[cor:elemcor2\] With the notations of Theorem \[thm:elementary\], the following are equivalent:
1. The invariant $S(f,c)$ is trivial for all $f:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ factoring through $\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ and all $c \in H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$.
2. $[J]$ is contained in $\mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(Cl(O_K))$.
3. The image of $[J]$ under the Artin map $\mathrm{Art}:Cl(O_F) \to
\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ is trivial.
We now describe another way to find an element $\gamma \in K$ with the properties in Theorem \[thm:fixed?\]. This method will be used to show Theorem \[thm:result\].
\[thm:intrinsic\] Let $f:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to G = \mathbb{Z}/n = \mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ be as above with $c_1:G \to \mathbb{Z}/n$ the identity map.
1. There is a cyclic degree $n^2$ extension $L/F$ such that $K \subset L$. This extension is unique up to twisting by a cyclic degree $n$ extension of $F$, in the following sense. Write $L = K(\gamma^{1/n})$ for some Kummer generator $\gamma$. If $L'$ is any other cyclic degree $n^2$ extension of $F$ which contains $K$, then $L' = K(\gamma'^{1/n})$ for some $\gamma' \in \gamma \cdot (K^*)^n \cdot F^*$, and conversely all such $\gamma'$ give rise to such $L'$.
2. The coset $\gamma (K^*)^n$ of $K^*/(K^*)^n$ is fixed by the action of $\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$. Let $c_2 \in H^2(\mathrm{Gal}(K/F),\tilde{\mu}_n) = H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ be the image of $\gamma (K^*)^n$ under the boundary map in (\[eq:boundary\]). The formula in (\[eq:calculation\]) determines $S(f,c)$ when $c$ is the generator $c_1 \cup c_2$ of $H^3(G,\mu_n)$.
3. Suppose the ideal $I$ of Theorem \[thm:fixed?\] has the form $I = I' \cdot J'$ for some fractional ideals $I'$ and $J'$ of $O_F$ such that any prime in the support of $J'$ is either split in $K$ or unramified in $L/K$. Then $$\label{eq:neater}
S(f,c) = f_X^* c_1 \cup f_X^*c_2 = \mathrm{Art}([I']) \in G = \mathbb{Z}/n.$$
This description leads to the following corollaries, which we will show lead to a proof of Theorem \[thm:result\].
\[cor:easy\] Suppose $K/F$ is contained in a cyclic degree $n^2$ extension $L/F$ such that every prime $\mathcal{P}$ of $O_F$ which ramifies in $L$ splits completely in $K$. Then $S(f,c) = 0$ for all surjections $f:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to \mathrm{Gal}(K/F) = G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ and all $c \in H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$.
\[cor:almost\] Suppose $K/F$ is contained in a cyclic degree $n^2$ extension $L/F$ with the following properties. There is a unique prime ideal $\mathcal{P}$ of $O_F$ which ramifies in $L/F$, $\mathcal{P}$ is undecomposed in $L$ and the inertia group of $\mathcal{P}$ in $\mathrm{Gal}(L/F)$ is $\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)$. Furthermore, the residue characteristic of $\mathcal{P}$ is prime to $n$. Then $S(f,c)$ is of order $n$ for all surjections $f:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to \mathrm{Gal}(K/F) = G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ and all generators $c$ of $H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$.
\[rem:niceremark\] These corollaries explain the examples of [@KimEtAl §5.5] in the following way. Let $n = 2$, and let $F = \mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-pt})$ where $p$ is a prime such that $p \equiv 1$ mod $4$ and $t$ is a positive square-free integer prime to $p$. Let $K$ be $F(\sqrt{p})$. Then $K$ is contained in the unique cyclic degree $4$ extension $L$ of $F$ contained in $F(\tilde{\mu}_p)$. The unique prime $\mathcal{P}$ over $p$ in $F$ is the unique prime which ramifies in $L$. The examples in [@KimEtAl §5.5] arise from Corollaries \[cor:easy\] and \[cor:almost\] because $\mathcal{P}$ splits in $K$ if and only if $t$ is a square mod $p$ since $-1$ is a square mod $p$.
The following two results give examples in which our results show that Kim’s invariants are trivial, where $\zeta_n\in F$ is fixed as in Definition \[def:roots\].
\[thm:Ralph1\] Suppose $n$ is a properly irregular prime in the sense that $n$ divides $\# Cl(\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_n])$ but not $\# Cl(\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_n + \zeta_n^{-1}])$. If $K$ is any cyclic unramified extension of $F = \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_n)$ then $S(f,c) = 0$ for all surjections $f:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to \mathrm{Gal}(K/F) = G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ and all $c \in H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$.
\[thm:Ralph2\] Suppose that $n > 2$ is prime and $K/F$ is a cyclic unramified Kummer extension of degree $n$ such that both $K$ and $F$ are Galois over $\mathbb{Q}$. Then $S(f,c) = 0$ for all surjections $f:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to \mathrm{Gal}(K/F) = G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ and all $c \in H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$.
\[rem:notsoniceremark\] Note that in Theorem \[thm:Ralph1\], $n$ does not divide $[F:\mathbb{Q}]$. One can also construct many examples of Theorem \[thm:Ralph2\] in which $[F:\mathbb{Q}]$ is prime to $n$. However, the examples we will construct in Theorem \[thm:result\] in which Kim’s invariant is non-trivial all have $n|[F:\mathbb{Q}]$. It would be interesting to find examples in which Kim’s invariant is non-trivial when $n$ is prime and $[F:\mathbb{Q}]$ is not divisible by $n$.
We now describe a pairing in Galois cohomology that is different from the McCallum-Sharifi pairing and that gives rise to Kim’s invariants.
Define $$\label{eq:tdef}
T(F) = \{a \in F^*: F(a^{1/n})/F \quad \mathrm{is \ unramified}\}.$$ Suppose $a \in T(F)$ and $b \in O_F^*$. The field $K = F(a^{1/n})$ is a cyclic Kummer extension of degree $m$ dividing $n$. Since $K/F$ is unramified, and $b \in O_F^*$, we have $b = \mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(x)$ for some $x \in K^*$. Let $\sigma \in \mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ be the unique generator such that $\sigma(a^{1/n})/a^{1/n} = \zeta_m = \zeta_n^{n/m}$, where $\zeta_n\in F$ is as in Definition \[def:roots\]. Since $\mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(x^m/b) = 1$, there is an element $\nu \in K^*$ such that $x^m/b = \sigma(\nu)/\nu$. Since $K/F$ is unramified and $b \in O_F^*$, the ideal $\mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(\nu a^{1/n}) O_F$ equals $I^m$ for some fractional ideal $I$ of $O_F$. We define $$\label{eq:defined}
(a,b)_n = [I] \otimes \zeta_m \in Cl(O_F) \otimes_\mathbb{Z} \tilde{\mu}_n$$ where $[I]$ is the ideal class of $I$ in $Cl(O_F)$. The value $(a,b)_n$ does not depend on the choice of $\zeta_n$ in Definition \[def:roots\].
\[thm:fixitup\] Suppose $K = F(a^{1/n})$ has degree $n = m$ over $F$ for some $a \in T(F)$. Let $\sigma \in G$ be the generator such that $\sigma(a^{1/n})/a^{1/n} = \zeta_n$ and set $b = \zeta_n$. Fix an isomorphism $c_1: G = \mathrm{Gal}(K/F) \to \mathbb{Z}/n$ by letting $\sigma \in G$ correspond to $1 \in \mathbb{Z}/n$. Then as above, $b = \mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(x)$ for some $x \in K^*$ and $x^n/b = x^n/\zeta_n = \sigma(\nu)/\nu $ for some $\nu \in K^*$. When $y = \nu a^{1/n}$, the coset $y(K^*)^n$ lies in $(K^*/(K^*)^n)^G$, and its image under the homomorphism in (\[eq:boundary\]) is a generator $c_2 \in H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$. Let $c = c_1 \cup c_2 \in H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$. There is a unique homomorphism $\kappa: Cl(O_F) \otimes_\mathbb{Z} \tilde{\mu}_n \to \mathbb{Z}/n
$ which sends $[J]\otimes \zeta_n$ to $\mathrm{Art}([J]) \in G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ for all fractional ideals $J$ of $O_F$. Kim’s invariant $S(f,c)$ is given by $$\label{eq:Sfcor}
S(f,c) = \kappa( (a,\zeta_n)_n)$$ when $(a,\zeta_n)_n$ is the pairing defined by (\[eq:defined\]).
By contrast, the McCallum-Sharifi pairing is defined in the following way. Let $S$ be the union of set of places of $F$ which have residue characteristics dividing $n$ with the real places. Let $C_{F,S}$ be the $S$-class group of $F$. In [@McS §2] McCallum and Sharifi define a pairing $$\label{eq:MS}
\langle \ , \ \rangle_S : T(F) \times O_F^* \to (C_{F,S}/nC_{F,S}) \otimes \tilde{\mu}_n.$$ See also [@Shar] for further discussion.
\[ex:Kimex\] Here is an example for which the following three statements hold:
1. Kim’s invariant $S(f,c)$ in (\[eq:Sfcor\]) is not trivial.
2. The McCallum-Sharifi pairing value $\langle a,\zeta_n\rangle_S$ in (\[eq:MS\]) is trivial.
3. The homomorphism $Cl(O_F) \to C_{F,S}$ is an isomorphism.
Let $n = 2$, $G = \mathbb{Z}/2$ and $\zeta_n = -1$. Define $F = \mathrm{Q}(\sqrt{-p t})$ for some prime $p \equiv 1$ mod $4$ and some square-free $t > 0$ such that $t$ is not a square mod $p$ and $-pt \equiv 5$ mod $8$. When $K = F(\sqrt{p})$ and $a = p$, Remark \[rem:niceremark\] shows (i). Since $2$ is inert to $F$, (iii) holds when $S$ is the set of places of $F$ over $2$. Finally (ii) follows from the formula in [@McS Thm. 2.4] since $\zeta_2 = -1 = \mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(\epsilon) $ when $\epsilon$ is a fundamental unit of $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{p})\subset K$.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} We would like to thank the authors of [@KimEtAl] for sending us a preprint of their work, which led to our correcting some errors in an earlier version of this paper. We would also like to thank Romyar Sharifi and Roland van der Veen for many very helpful conversations and suggestions about this work. After this paper was written, Theorem \[thm:fixed?\] as well as other pairings related to Kim’s invariant have been investigated further in [@KimEtAl2]. The authors would like to thank the referee for very helpful comments.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:bigdiagram\] {#s:prooflast}
===================================
We assume in this section the notations of Theorem \[thm:bigdiagram\]. We will use the results of Swan in [@Swan] concerning cup products. In [@Swan §3], Swan considers cup products of covariant left exact functors. This can be used to define the cup product pairings in the middle and bottom rows of (\[eq:bowow\]). Namely, in the category of sheaves in the étale topology on $X$, let $$0 \to U \to I^0 \to I^1 \to I^2\to I^3\to \cdots$$ and $$0 \to V \to J^0 \to J^1 \to J^2\to J^3\to \cdots$$ be pure injective resolutions. Then the total complex $I^\bullet\otimes J^\bullet$ is a pure, but not necessarily injective, resolution of $U\otimes V$. Let $$0 \to U\otimes V\to K^0 \to K^1 \to K^2\to K^3\to \cdots$$ be a pure injective resolution, and choose a morphism of resolutions $I^\bullet\otimes J^\bullet\to K^\bullet$ over $U\otimes V$. For étale sheaves $A,B$ on $X$, the composition of morphisms $$\label{eq:cupproductmaps}
\mathrm{Hom}_X(A,I^\bullet)\otimes \mathrm{Hom}_X(B,J^\bullet)\to \mathrm{Hom}_X(A\otimes B,I^\bullet\otimes J^\bullet) \to \mathrm{Hom}_X(A\otimes B,K^\bullet)$$ then induces a cup product pairing $$\mathrm{Ext}^i_X(A,U)\times \mathrm{Ext}^j_X(B,V) \to \mathrm{Ext}^{i+j}_X(A\otimes B, U\otimes V)$$ (see [@Swan Thm. 3.4, Lemma 3.6 and §7]). Given morphisms of étale sheaves $C\to A\otimes B$ and $U\otimes V\to T$, we get $$\label{eq:cupwithpureinjective}
\mathrm{Ext}^i_X(A,U)\times \mathrm{Ext}^j_X(B,V) \to \mathrm{Ext}^{i+j}_X(C,T).$$
The first statement in Theorem \[thm:bigdiagram\] is that the cup products in the middle and bottom rows of (\[eq:bowow\]) are compatible with the vertical homomorphisms from the terms of the middle row to the terms of the bottom row. The latter homomorphisms are those associated to the natural morphism $\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/n$ of étale sheaves on $X$, since $H^i(X,\mu_n) = \mathrm{Ext}^i_X(\mathbb{Z},\mu_n)$ and the terms of the middle row have the form $\mathrm{Ext}^i_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n)$. So the above compatibility of the middle and bottom rows follows from the naturality of cup product (\[eq:cupwithpureinjective\]) with respect to morphisms of the arguments. Note that in showing this, we have not used any compatibility of cup products with boundary maps; the latter requires more hypotheses.
We now turn to analyzing the connection of the cup product pairing (\[eq:natural\]) $$H^1(X,\mu_n) \times H^1(X,\mu_n) \to H^2(X,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})$$ with the diagram (\[eq:bowow\]). We are to prove that this is compatible with pulling back and pushing forward arguments to the second row of (\[eq:bowow\]).
By the naturality of cup product pairings with respect to either argument, we have a commuting diagram of pairings $$\label{eq:bowow2}
\xymatrix @C=.2pc{
\mathrm{Ext}^1_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n)\ar[d] & \times&H^1(X,\mu_n)\ar@{=}[d]&\ar[rrr] &&&& \mathrm{Ext}^2_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})\ar[d]\\
H^1(X,\mu_n) &\times &H^1(X,\mu_n)&\ar[rrr] &&&& H^2(X,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})
}$$ in which the left and right vertical homomorphisms are induced by the canonical surjection $\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/n$. We claim that the top row of this diagram fits into a diagram of pairings $$\label{eq:bowow3}
\xymatrix @C=.2pc{
\mathrm{Ext}^1_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n)\ar@{=}[d] & \times&H^1(X,\mu_n)\ar[d]&\ar[rrr] &&&& \mathrm{Ext}^2_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})\ar[d]\\
\mathrm{Ext}^1_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n) & \times&\mathrm{Ext}^2_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n)&\ar[rrr] &&&&
\mathrm{Ext}^3_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})
}$$ that commutes up to the sign $(-1)$ and in which the middle vertical map is the boundary map resulting from the sequence $$\label{eq:Bseq}
B_\bullet = (0 \to B'' \to B \to B' \to 0) = ( 0 \to \mathbb{Z} \xrightarrow{\cdot n} \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/n\to 0)$$ and the right vertical map is the boundary map associated with the Bockstein sequence $$\label{eq:bock}
C_\bullet = (0 \to C'' \to C \to C' \to 0) = (0 \to \mathbb{Z}/n \to \mathbb{Z}/n^2 \to \mathbb{Z}/n \to 0).$$ Let $A = \mathbb{Z}/n$. We have a morphism $C_\bullet \to A \otimes B_\bullet$ fitting into a commutative diagram $$\label{eq:bowow4}
\xymatrix {
&\mathbb{Z}/n \ar[r]^{0}\ar@{=}[d] &\mathbb{Z}/n\ar[r]^{1} \ar@{=}[d]&\mathbb{Z}/n\ar[r]\ar@{=}[d]&0\;\\
&A \otimes B'' \ar[r]&A \otimes B\ar[r]&A \otimes B'\ar[r]&0\;\\
0\ar[r]&C'' \ar[r]\ar[u]\ar@{=}[d] &C\ar[r]\ar[u] \ar@{=}[d]&C'\ar[r]\ar[u]\ar@{=}[d]&0\;\\
0\ar[r]&\mathbb{Z}/n \ar[r] &\mathbb{Z}/n^2\ar[r] &\mathbb{Z}/n\ar[r]&0.
}$$ Choosing pure injective resolutions $\mu_n\to I^\bullet$ and $\mu_n^{\otimes 2}\to K^\bullet$ and a morphism of resolutions $I^\bullet\otimes I^\bullet\to K^\bullet$ over $\mu_n^{\otimes 2}$, we can apply the respective Hom functors over $X$ to the diagram (\[eq:bowow4\]) to obtain a commutative diagram
$$\xymatrix @C=1.2pc {
0&\mathrm{Hom}_X(A,I^\bullet)\otimes \mathrm{Hom}_X(B'',I^\bullet)\ar[l]\ar[d] &\mathrm{Hom}_X(A,I^\bullet)\otimes \mathrm{Hom}_X(B,I^\bullet)\ar[l]\ar[d]&
\mathrm{Hom}_X(A,I^\bullet)\otimes \mathrm{Hom}_X(B',I^\bullet)\ar[l]\ar[d]&\\
&\mathrm{Hom}_X(A\otimes B'',I^\bullet\otimes I^\bullet)\ar[d] & \mathrm{Hom}_X(A\otimes B,I^\bullet\otimes I^\bullet)\ar[d]\ar[l]&
\mathrm{Hom}_X(A\otimes B',I^\bullet\otimes I^\bullet)\ar[d]\ar[l]&0\;\ar[l]\\
0& \mathrm{Hom}_X(C'',K^\bullet) \ar[l]&\mathrm{Hom}_X(C,K^\bullet)\ar[l] & \mathrm{Hom}_X(C',K^\bullet)\ar[l]&\ar[l] 0.
}$$
It follows from [@Swan Lemma 3.2] that the diagram (\[eq:bowow3\]) commutes up to the sign $(-1)$.
In view of diagrams (\[eq:bowow2\]) and (\[eq:bowow4\]), the last assertion (\[eq:cup\]) of Theorem \[thm:bigdiagram\] concerning the relation of (\[eq:natural\]) to the pairing in the middle row of (\[eq:bowow3\]) will hold if we can show the following assertion. We claim that the rightmost vertical homomorphism $$\lambda: \mathrm{Ext}^2_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})\to \mathrm{Ext}^3_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})$$ in (\[eq:bowow3\]), which is induced by the boundary map of the Bockstein sequence $C_\bullet$ in (\[eq:bock\]), is the composition of the pullback map $$\tau: \mathrm{Ext}^2_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})\to H^2(X,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})$$ associated to $\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/n$ with the boundary map $$\nu: H^2(X,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})\to \mathrm{Ext}^3_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})$$ associated to the sequence $B_\bullet$ in (\[eq:Bseq\]).
This assertion (and the more general fact, which holds in all degrees) can be proved by calculating $\lambda$ and $\nu \circ \tau$ using a pure injective resolution of the second argument, which in this case is $\mu_n^{\otimes 2}$. To be explicit, let $$0\to \mu_n^{\otimes 2}\to K^0\to K^1\to K^2\to K^3\to\cdots$$ be a pure injective resolution. The boundary map $\lambda$ results from taking elements of $\mathrm{Hom}_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,K^2)$ which go to zero in $K^3$, lifting these to elements of $\mathrm{Hom}_X(\mathbb{Z}/n^2,K^2)$ by the injectivity of $K^2$, and then pushing this lift forward by $K^2 \to K^3$ to produce an element of $\mathrm{Hom}_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,K^3)$. The map $\tau$ results from simply inflating a homomorphism in $\mathrm{Hom}_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,K^2)$ to one in $\mathrm{Hom}_X(\mathbb{Z},K^2)$ via the natural surjection $\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/n$. The map $\nu$ results from lifting maps from $\mathrm{Hom}_X(\mathbb{Z},K^2)$ to $\mathrm{Hom}_X(\mathbb{Z},K^2)$ through the multiplication by $n$ homomorphism $\mathbb{Z} \xrightarrow{\cdot n} \mathbb{Z}$ and then pushing the lift forward by $K^2 \to K^3$ to produce an element of $\mathrm{Hom}_X(\mathbb{Z}/n, K^3)$. Since we can use the lifts involved in calculating $\lambda$ to do the calculations to find $\nu$ on maps which come from the inflation map $\tau$, we see that $\lambda = \nu\circ \tau$.
A reformulation of the approach via Artin maps {#s:reformulate}
==============================================
We describe in this section our approach to proving Theorem \[thm:fixed?\]. Instead of the diagram of pairings (\[eq:cuppairnew\]), we consider the diagram of pairings $$\label{eq:cuppair}
\xymatrix @C=.2pc{
H^1(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)\ar[d]^{f^*_X} &\times &H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)\ar[d]^{f^*_X} &\ar[rrr]&&&& H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n^{\otimes 2})& = &H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n) \otimes \tilde{\mu}_n\ar[d]^{f^*_X}\\
H^1(X,\mu_n) &\times &H^2(X,\mu_n) &\ar[rrr]&&&& H^3(X,\mu_n^{\otimes 2})& = & H^3(X,\mu_n) \otimes \tilde{\mu}_n = \tilde{\mu}_n}$$ in which the vertical homomorphisms are induced by $f$. Let $\phi:\mathbb{Z}/n \to \tilde{\mu}_n$ be the isomorphism taking $1$ mod $n$ to $\zeta_n$, where $\zeta_n\in F$ is as in Definition \[def:roots\]. Then $\phi$ takes the generator $c_1$ of $H^1(G,\mathbb{Z}/n)$ to a generator $d_1 = \phi(c_1)$ of $H^1(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$.We have $$\label{eq:goal}
\phi(f^*_X(c)) = \phi(f^*_X(c_1) \cup f^*_X(c_2)) = f^*_X(\phi(c_1)) \cup f^*_X(c_2) = f^*_X(d_1) \cup f_X^*(c_2).$$ We will show (\[eq:calculation\]) of Theorem \[thm:fixed?\] by calculating the cup product of $f_X^*(d_1)$ and $f_X^*(c_2)$ using Mazur’s description in [@Mazur] of the bottom row of (\[eq:cuppair\]).
Analysis of $f_X^*(d_1)$ {#s:analysis}
========================
\[lem:first\] There is a canonical isomorphism $$H^1(X,\mu_n) = \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Pic}(X),\tilde{\mu}_n).$$ The restriction of a class $d \in H^1(X,\mu_n)$ to $H^1(\mathrm{Spec}(F),\mu_n)$ defines a torsor $Y(d)$ for the group scheme ${\mu\!\!\!\mu_n}$ over $\mathrm{Spec}(F)$. The scheme $Y(d)$ is isomorphic to $\mathrm{Spec}(\frac{F[w]}{(w^n - \xi)})$ as a ${\mu\!\!\!\mu_n}$ torsor for an element $\xi \in F^*$ which is unique up to multiplication by an element of $(F^*)^n$.
Our choice of a primitive $n^{th}$ root of unity $\zeta_n$ in $F$ gives an isomorphism of étale sheaves from $\mathbb{Z}/n$ to $\mu_n$. This induces an isomorphism from $H^1(X,\mu_n)$ to $H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)$. The group $H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)$ classifies torsors for the constant group scheme $\mathbb{Z}/n$. Therefore $$H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) = \mathrm{Hom}(\pi_1(X),\mathbb{Z}/n) = \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Pic}(X),\mathbb{Z}/n)$$ where the last isomorphism results from class field theory. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
H^1(X,\mu_n) &=& H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \tilde{\mu}_n \\
&=& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Pic}(X),\mathbb{Z}/n) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \tilde{\mu}_n \\
&=& \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Pic}(X),\tilde{\mu}_n)\end{aligned}$$ and the isomorphism between the far left and far right terms does not depend on the choice of $\zeta_n$. The last statement is clear from Kummer theory over fields of characteristic $0$; see [@Milne p. 125, Thm. 3.9].
\[rem:Kummer2\] Suppose the class $d\in H^1(X,\mu_n)$ has order $n$. Then $Y(d) = \mathrm{Spec}(K)$ for an everywhere unramified $\mathbb{Z}/n$ extension $K = F(\xi^{1/n})$ of $F$ for an element $\xi \in F^*$ as in Lemma \[lem:first\]. Associating $d$ canonically to a homomorphism $d:\mathrm{Pic}(X) \to \tilde{\mu}_n$ as in Lemma \[lem:first\], the element $\xi$ has the property that $$\label{eq:normalize}
\frac{\mathrm{Art}(a)(\xi^{1/n})}{\xi^{1/n} } = d(a)\quad \mathrm{for \ all}\quad a \in \mathrm{Pic}(X)$$ where $\mathrm{Art}(a) \in \mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ is the image of $a \in \mathrm{Pic}(X) $ under the Artin map. The equality (\[eq:normalize\]) does not depend on the choice of $n^{th}$ root $\xi^{1/n}$ of $\xi$ in $K$. It specifies the class of $\xi$ uniquely in the quotient group $F^*/(F^*)^n$.
\[lem:H2picture\] The Pontryagin dual $H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star = \mathrm{Hom}(H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n), \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})$ of $H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)$ lies in an exact sequence $$\label{eq:bound}
1 \to O_F^*/(O_F^*)^n \xrightarrow{\;\tau\;} H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star \xrightarrow{\;\delta\;} \mathrm{Pic}(X)[n] \to 0$$ in which $\mathrm{Pic}(X)[n]$ is the $n$-torsion in $\mathrm{Pic}(X)$. Define $T$ to be the subgroup of $\gamma \in F^*$ such that $\gamma O_F$ is the $n^{th}$ power of some fractional ideal $I(\gamma)$. Then there is a canonical isomorphism $$\label{eq:precise}
T/(F^*)^n = H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star$$ with the following properties.
1. The homomorphisms $\tau$ and $\delta$ in (\[eq:bound\]) are induced by the inclusion $O_F^* \subset T$ and the map which sends $\gamma \in T$ to the ideal class $[I(\gamma)]$ of $I(\gamma)$.
2. The homomorphism $h:H^1(X,\mu_n) \to H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star$ induced by the cup product pairing $$H^1(X,\mu_n) \times H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) \to H^3(X,\mu_n) = \mathbb{Z}/ n\mathbb{Z}$$ has the following description. Suppose $d \in H^1(X,\mu_n)$ gives a ${\mu\!\!\!\mu_n}$ torsor $Y(d)$ over $\mathrm{Spec}(F)$ as in Lemma \[lem:first\]. Let $\xi \in F^*$ be associated to $Y(d)$ as in Lemma \[lem:first\], so that $\xi$ is unique up to multiplication by an element of $(F^*)^n$. Then $\xi \in T$, and $h(d)$ is the coset $\xi (F^*)^n$ in $T/(F^*)^n = H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star$.
The exact sequence (\[eq:bound\]) is shown in [@Mazur p. 539]. This utilizes Artin-Verdier duality (c.f. [@Mazur p. 538]), which gives a canonical isomorphism $H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star = \mathrm{Ext}^1_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,G_{m,X})$. The more precise description in (\[eq:precise\]), together with properties in (i) and (ii) of this description, results from the analysis of $\mathrm{Ext}^1_X(\mathbb{Z}/n,G_{m,X})$ and the computation of duality pairings by Hilbert symbols in [@Mazur p. 540-541].
\[cor:c1analysis\] Suppose $d_1$ is a generator of $H^1(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$. The class $d = f_X^*(d_1) \in H^1(X,\mu_n)$ corresponds to a ${\mu\!\!\!\mu_n}$-torsor $Y(d) = \mathrm{Spec}(K)$ over $\mathrm{Spec}(F)$ such that $K = F(\xi^{1/n})$ of $F$ for an element $\xi \in F^*$ with the following properties.
1. The extension $K/F$ is everywhere unramified and cyclic of degree $n$. Fixing an embedding of $K$ into the maximal unramified extension $F^{un}$ of $F$ determines a surjection $\rho: \mathrm{Gal}(F^{un}/F) = \pi_1(X,\eta) \to \mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$.
2. There is a unique isomorphism $\lambda:\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)
\to G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ such that $\lambda \circ \rho:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to G$ is the homomorphism $f:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to G$ used to construct Kim’s invariant.
3. The element $\xi \in F^*$ is uniquely determined mod $(F^*)^n$ by the requirement that (\[eq:normalize\]) hold when we identify $d$ with an element of $\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Pic}(X),\tilde{\mu}_n)$ as in Lemma \[lem:first\].
4. The image of $d = f_X^*(d_1)$ under the homomorphism $h:H^1(G,\tilde{\mu}_n) \to H^2(G,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star = T/(F^*)^n$ of Lemma \[lem:H2picture\] is the coset $\xi (F^*)^n$.
Hilbert pairings, Artin maps and $H^2(X,\mu_n)$ {#s:H2computation}
===============================================
With the notations of §\[s:reformulate\], our goal is to compute the cup product $$\label{eq:alright}
f_X^*(d_1) \cup f_X^*(c_2) = h(f_X^*(d_1)) ( f_X^*(c_2)) \in \tilde{\mu}_n$$ when $c_2$ is a generator of $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$, $f_X^* c_2$ is the pullback of $c_2$ to $H^2(X,\mu_n)$ and $h(f_X^*(d_1))$ is the element of the Pontryagin dual $H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star$ determined in Corollary \[cor:c1analysis\]. To do this, we first develop in this section a description of $H^2(X,\mu_n) = H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) \otimes \tilde{\mu}_n$ using ideles of $F$.
Let $j:\mathrm{Spec}(F) \to X$ be the inclusion of the generic point of $X$ into $X$. Then $j_* \mu_{n,F} = \mu_{n,X}$ since $F$ contains a primitive $n^{th}$ root of unity. There is a spectral sequence $$\label{eq:spectral}
H^p(X,R^q j_*(\mu_{n,X})) \to H^{p+q}(F,\mu_{n,F}).$$ Consider the $(p,q) = (2,0)$ term. This is associated to the restriction homomorphism $$\label{eq:2zero}
H^2(X,R^0 j_*(\mu_{n,X})) = H^2(X,\mu_{n,X}) \to H^2(F,\mu_{n,F}).$$ By the Kummer sequence $$\label{eq:KummerF}
0 \to \mu_{n,F} \to G_{m,F} \to G_{m,F} \to 0$$ and Hilbert Theorem 90, the homomorphism $H^2(F,\mu_{n,F}) \to H^2(F,G_{m,F})$ is injective. The composition of $H^2(X,\mu_{n,X}) \to H^2(F,\mu_{n,F})$ with this homomorphism factors through the homomorphism $H^2(X,\mu_{n,X}) \to H^2(X,G_{m,X})$. However, elements of $H^2(X,G_{m,X})$ are elements of the Brauer group of $F$ with trivial local invariants everywhere since $F$ is totally complex, and such elements must be trivial. Thus $H^2(X,G_{m,X}) = \{0\}$ and it follows that (\[eq:2zero\]) is the zero homorphism. Hence in the spectral sequence (\[eq:spectral\]) gives an exact sequence $$\label{eq:nicejob}
H^1(F,\mu_{n,F}) \to H^0(X,R^1 j_* \mu_n) \xrightarrow{\;\omega\;} H^2(X,\mu_{n,X}) \to 0.$$ The homomorphism $\omega$ can be realized in the following way (up to a possibly multiplying by $-1$, depending on one’s conventions for boundary maps in spectral sequences). Taking the long exact sequence associated to the functor $j_*$ applied to (\[eq:KummerF\]) gives an exact sequence $$\label{eq:longj}
0 \to \mu_{n,X} \to j_* G_{m,F} \to j_* G_{m,F} \to R^1 j_* \mu_{n,F} \to 0$$ since $R^1 j_* G_{m,F} = 0$ by Hilbert Theorem 90. Splitting (\[eq:longj\]) into two short exact sequences and then taking boundary maps in the associated long exact cohomology sequences over $X$ produces the transgression map $\omega$ in (\[eq:nicejob\]) up to possibly multiplying by $-1$.
We now recall from [@Milne p. 36-39] some definitions.
\[lem:notations\] Let $x$ be a point of $X$ with residue field $k(x)$. Define $O_x = O_{X,x}$ to be the local ring of $x$ on $X$. Let $\overline{x}$ be a geometric point of $X$ over $x$, so that $k(\overline{x})$ is a separable closure of $k(x)$. The Henselization $O_{x,h}$ of $O_x$ (resp. the strict Henselization $O_{x,sh}$ of $O_x$) is the direct limit of all of all local rings $D$ (resp. $D'$) which are étale $O_x$-algebras having residue field $k(x)$ (resp. having residue field inside $\overline{k(x)}$). Let $\hat{O}_x$ be the completion of $O_x$ and let $\hat{O}_{\overline{x}}$ be the direct limit of all finite étale local $\hat{O}_x$ algebras having residue field in $\overline{k(x)}$.
The following result is implicit in [@Mazur], but we will recall the argument since the details of the computation enter into some later calculations.
\[lem:r1comp\] Let $x$ be a point of $X$, and let $\overline{x}$ be a geometric point over $x$. The stalk $(R^1 j_* \mu_n) |_{\overline{x}}$ of $R^1 j_* \mu_n$ at $\overline{x}$ is the cohomology group $H^1(F_{x,sh},\mu_n)$, where $F_{x,sh} = F\otimes_{O_F} O_{x,sh}$. The Kummer sequence $$1 \to \mu_n \to G_m \to G_m \to 1$$ over $F_{x,sh}$ is exact. The $\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{F}_{x,sh}/F_{x,sh})$ cohomology of this sequence gives an isomorphisms $$\label{eq:fx}
F_{x,sh}^* / (F_{x,sh}^*)^n = H^1(F_{x,sh},\mu_n) = (R^1 j_* \mu_n) |_{\overline{x}}.$$ This group is trivial if $x$ is the generic point of $X$. Suppose now that $x$ is a closed point, with residue field $k(x)$. We then have natural isomorphisms $\mathrm{Gal}(F_{x,sh}/F_{x,h}) = \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{k(x)}/k(x)) = \hat {\mathbb{Z}}$ where $F_{x,h} = F \otimes_{O_F} O_{x,sh}$. One has $$\label{eq:local}
H^0(\mathrm{Gal}(F_{x,sh}/F_{x,h}), (R^1 j_* \mu_n) |_{\overline{x}} ) = \hat{F}_x^*/T_x$$ where $\hat{F}_x = \mathrm{Frac}(\hat{O}_x)$ is the completion of $F$ with respect to that discrete absolute value at $x$ and $T_x \supset (\hat{F}_x^*)^n$ is the subgroup of $\gamma \in \hat{F}_x^*$ such that $\hat{F}_x(\gamma^{1/n})$ is unramified over $\hat{F}_x$. Here $T_x/((\hat{F}_x)^*)^n$ is cyclic of order $n$. Finally, $$\label{eq:global}
H^0(X,R^1 j_* \mu_{n,F}) = \bigoplus_{x \in X^0} H^0(\mathrm{Gal}(F_{x,sh}/F_{x,h}), (R^1 j_* \mu_n) |_{\overline{x}} ) = \bigoplus_{x \in X^0} \hat{F}_x^*/T_x$$ where $X^0$ is the set of closed points of $X$.
The isomorphism (\[eq:fx\]) results from the description of stalks of higher direct images in [@Milne Thm 1.15] together with the long exact cohomology sequence of the Kummer sequence over $F_{x,sh}$. If $x$ is the generic point of $X$, then $F_{x,sh}$ is an algebraic closure of $F$ and the groups in (\[eq:fx\]) are trivial. Suppose now that $x$ is a closed point. We then have two exact sequences $$\label{eq:two1}
1 \to \tilde{\mu}_n \to F_{x,sh}^* \to (F_{x,sh}^*)^n \to 1$$ and $$\label{eq:two2}
1 \to (F_{x,sh}^*)^n \to F_{x,sh}^* \to F_{x,sh}^*/ (F_{x,sh}^*)^n \to 1.$$ Taking the cohomology of the second exact sequence (\[eq:two2\]) with respect to $\Gamma = \mathrm{Gal}(F_{x,sh}/F_{x,h}) = \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{k(x)}/k(x))$ and then taking completions gives an exact sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
0 \to ((\hat{F}^{un}_x)^*)^n)^{\Gamma} \to \hat{F}^*_x \to (F_{x,sh}^*/ (F_{x,sh}^*)^n)^\Gamma &&\\
\label{eq:yes} \to H^1(\Gamma,(F_{x,sh}^*)^n) \to H^1(\Gamma,F_{x,sh}^*) = 0 &&\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{F}_x^{un}$ is the maximal unramified extension of the complete local field $\hat{F}_x$. The $\Gamma$-cohomology of the first exact sequence (\[eq:two1\]) gives $$\label{eq:yestwo}
0 = H^1(\Gamma,F_{x,sh}^*) \to H^1(\Gamma,(F_{x,sh}^*)^n) \to H^2(\Gamma,\tilde{\mu}_n).$$ The cohomology of finite modules for $\Gamma = \hat{\mathbb{Z}}$ is trivial above dimension $1$. So (\[eq:yestwo\]) shows $H^1(\Gamma,(F_{x,sh}^*)^n) = 0$. In (\[eq:yes\]), the group $((\hat{F}^{un}_x)^*)^n)^{\Gamma}$ consists of those $\gamma \in \hat{F}_x^*$ such that $\hat{F}_x(\gamma^{1/n})$ is unramified over $\hat{F}_x$, so $((\hat{F}^{un}_x)^*)^n)^{\Gamma} = T_x$. Hence (\[eq:yes\]) now shows (\[eq:local\]).
Now $R^1 j_* \mu_n$ has trivial stalk over the generic point of $X$, and units are $n^{th}$ powers locally in the étale topology over all closed points $x \in X^0$ having residue fields prime to $n$. We conclude from (\[eq:longj\]) that $R^1 j_* \mu_{n,F}$ is the sheaf resulting from the direct sum of the stalks $(R^1 j_* \mu_n) |_{\overline{x}}$ as $x$ ranges over $X^0$, from which (\[eq:global\]) follows.
\[cor:longer\] The exact sequence (\[eq:nicejob\]) is identified with $$\label{eq:evenbetter}
F^*/(F^*)^n \xrightarrow{\;r\;} \bigoplus_{x \in X^0} \hat{F}_x^*/T_x \xrightarrow{\;\omega\;} H^2(X,\mu_n) \to 0.$$
By the Kummer sequence over $F$ we have $H^1(F,\mu_n) = F^*/(F^*)^n$. If $\beta \in F^*$, then $F(\beta^{1/n})$ is unramified at almost all places of $F$, so $\beta \in T_x$ for all but finitely many $x \in X^0$. Thus the natural homomorphisms $F^* \to \hat{F}_x^*/T_x$ give rise to a homomorphism $r$ as in (\[eq:evenbetter\]), and the constructions in Lemma \[lem:r1comp\] identify $r$ with the first map in (\[eq:nicejob\]).
\[lem:cupcalc\] Suppose that in the description $H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star = T/(F^*)^n$ of Lemma \[lem:H2picture\] we are given an element $\eta \in T$ describing a class $\eta (F^*)^n \in T/(F^*)^n$. Let $j \in J(F)$ be an idele of $F$ such that the component $j_x$ of $j$ at almost all $x \in X^0$ lies in $T_x$, so that $j$ defines an element $z(j)$ of $\oplus_{x \in X^0} (\hat{F}_x^*/T_x)$. Then Corollary \[cor:longer\] produces an element $\omega(z(j))$ of $H^2(X,\mu_n)$. We have $H^2(X,\mu_n) = H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \tilde{\mu}_n$ and thus a natural non-degenerate pairing $$\label{eq:h2now}
\langle \ , \ \rangle: H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star \times H^2(X,\mu_n) \to \tilde{\mu}_n$$ resulting from Pontryagin duality pairing $$H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star \times H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) \to \mathbb{Z}/n.$$ The value of the pairing in (\[eq:h2now\]) on the pair $\eta (F^*)^n$ and $\omega(z(j))$ is $$\label{eq:angle1}
\langle \eta (F^*)^n,\omega(z(j)) \rangle = Art(j)(\eta^{1/n})/\eta^{1/n}$$ where $Art(j)$ is the image of $j$ under the Artin map $J(F) \to \mathrm{Gal}(F^{ab}/F)$ when $F^{ab} \supset F(\eta^{1/n})$ is the maximal abelian extension of $F$.
This follows from reducing the computation of duality pairings to the computation of Hilbert symbols, as in [@Mazur §2.4-2.6]. Here is one way to carry this out explicitly.
We have a long exact relative cohomology sequence $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) \to H^1(X - V, \mathbb{Z}/n) \to H^2_V(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)\to H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) &&\\
\label{eq:excision}
\xrightarrow{\;e\;} H^2(X-V,\mathbb{Z}/n) \to H^3_V(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) \xrightarrow{\;b\;}
H^3(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) &&\qquad\end{aligned}$$ associated to a choice of a finite non-empty set $V$ of closed points of $X$ which is discussed in [@Mazur §2.5].
Suppose we take $V$ large enough so that $\mathrm{Pic}(X-V) = 0$ and all of the residue characteristics of points of $X-V$ are relatively prime to $n$. Then the Kummer sequence $$1 \to \mu_{n,X-V} \to G_{m,X-V} \to G_{m,X-V} \to 1$$ is exact. So $$H^1(X-V,G_{m,X-V}) = \mathrm{Pic}(X-V) = 0$$ implies $H^2(X-V,\mu_{n,X-V})$ equals the $n$-torsion in the Brauer group $H^2(X-V,G_{m,X-V})$. This $n$-torsion has order $n^{\#V - 1}$ by the usual theory of elements of the Brauer group of $F$ which are unramified outside of $V$. By local duality (c.f. [@Mazur p. 540, 538]), $$H^3_V(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) = \prod_{P\in V} \tilde{\mu}_n^\star.$$ Global duality gives $$H^3(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) = \mathrm{Ext}_X^0(\mathbb{Z}/n,G_m) = \tilde{\mu}_n^\star.$$ By considering the orders of these groups, we see that the map $b$ in (\[eq:excision\]) has kernel exactly $H^2(X-V,\mathbb{Z}/n)$, so the map $e$ is trivial.
By local duality (*op. cit.*) we have $$H^2_V(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) = \prod_{P \in V} (\hat{O}_P^*/(\hat{O}_P^*)^n)^\star.$$ Using these isomorphisms in (\[eq:excision\]) and taking Pontryagin duals gives an exact sequence $$\label{eq:describe}
0 \to H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star \to \prod_{P \in V} \hat{O}_P^*/(\hat{O}_P^*)^n \to H^1(X - V, \mathbb{Z}/n)^\star \to H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star.$$ By class field theory, $$H^1(X,\mathbb{Z}/n) = \mathrm{Hom}(Cl(O_F),\mathbb{Z}/n)$$ and $$H^1(X- V,\mathbb{Z}/n) = \mathrm{Hom}(Cl_{m_V}(O_F),\mathbb{Z}/n)$$ when $Cl(O_F) = \mathrm{Pic}(O_F)$ is the ideal class group of $O_F$ and $Cl_{m_V}(O_F)$ is the ray class group of conductor $m_V$ for $m_V$ a sufficiently high power of the product of the prime ideals of $O_F$ corresponding to $P \in V$.
Thus (\[eq:describe\]) becomes $$\label{eq:describetwo}
0 \to H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star \to \prod_{P \in V} \hat{O}_P^*/(\hat{O}_P^*)^n \to \frac{Cl_{m_V}(O_F)}{nCl_{m_V}(O_F)} \to \frac{Cl(O_F)}{nCl(O_F)}$$ where the right hand homomorphism is induced by the canonical surjection $Cl_{m_V}(O_F) \to Cl(O_F)$.
Now in (\[eq:evenbetter\]), since $H^2(X,\mu_n)$ is finite, we can take $V$ as above sufficiently large so that there is a surjection $$\label{eq:allright}
\bigoplus_{P \in V \subset X^0} \hat{F}_P^*/T_P \to H^2(X,\mu_n) \to 0.$$ The compatibility of local and global duality pairings shows that pairing $$H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star \times H^2(X,\mu_n) \to \tilde{\mu}_n$$ in (\[eq:h2now\]) results from (\[eq:describetwo\]), (\[eq:allright\]) and the pairings $$\label{eq:dual}
\frac{\hat{O}_P^*}{(\hat{O}_P^*)^n} \times \frac{\hat{F}_P^*}{T_P} \to \tilde{\mu}_n$$ induced by the Hilbert pairings $$\label{eq:dualtwo}
\frac{\hat{F}_P^*}{(\hat{F}_P^*)^n} \times \frac{\hat{F}_P^*}{(\hat{F}_P^*)^n} \to \tilde{\mu}_n.$$ Note here that (\[eq:dual\]) is non-degenerate since (\[eq:dualtwo\]) is non-degenerate and $T_P/(\hat{F}_P^*)^n$ corresponds by class field theory to the unique cyclic unramified extension of degree $n$ of $\hat{F}_P$.
This description of (\[eq:h2now\]) leads to (\[eq:angle1\]) by the compatibility of the Artin map with Hilbert pairings.
Analysis of $f_X^* c_2$. {#s:anotheranalysis}
========================
Our goal now is to compute the cup product in (\[eq:alright\]) using Lemma \[lem:cupcalc\]. We have a reasonable description of $ h(f_X^*(d_1)) \in H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star$ from Corollary \[cor:c1analysis\] in terms of a Kummer generator $\xi \in F$ for the ${\mu\!\!\!\mu_n}$-torsor $Y(f_X^*(d_1))$ produced by the generator $d_1 \in H^1(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ and the homomorphism $f:\pi_1(X) \to G$. Recall that we assumed $f$ surjective, and we know $K = F(\xi^{1/n})$ is a cyclic degree $n$ Kummer extension which is everywhere unramified over $F$. In this section we must develop an expression for $f_X^* c_2 \in H^2(X,\mu_n)$ when $c_2$ is a generator for $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$. This will then be used in Lemma \[lem:cupcalc\].
Consider the exact sequences of $G = \mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$-modules $$\label{eq:Kseq1}
1 \to \tilde{\mu}_n \to K^* \to (K^*)^n \to 1$$ and $$\label{eq:Kseq2}
1 \to (K^*)^n \to K^* \to K^*/(K^*)^n \to 1.$$
\[lem:boundary\] The composition of the boundary maps in the long exact $G$-cohomology sequences associated to (\[eq:Kseq1\]) and (\[eq:Kseq2\]) gives an exact sequence $$\label{eq:onto}
F^* \to (K^*/(K^*)^n)^G \to H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n) \to 0.$$ Here $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ is cyclic of order $n$. So there is a $\gamma \in K^*$ such that the coset $\gamma (K^*)^n$ is in $(K^*/(K^*)^n)^G$, and the image of this coset in $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ equals the generator $c_2$.
Since $G$ is cyclic, the map $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n) \to H^2(G,K^*)$ is the cup product with a generator of $H^2(G,\mathbb{Z})$ of the map $\hat{H}^0(G,\tilde{\mu}_n) \to \hat{H}^0(G,K^*)$ of Tate cohomology groups. Since $K/F$ is everywhere unramified, every element of $\tilde{\mu}_n$ is a local norm. Therefore every element of $\tilde{\mu}_n$ is a global norm from $K$ to $F$ because $K/F$ is cyclic. Therefore $\hat{H}^0(G,\tilde{\mu}_n) \to \hat{H}^0(G,K^*)$ is the trivial map, so $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n) \to H^2(G,K^*)$ is the trivial map. Because $H^1(G,K^*) = 0$, the $G$ cohomology of the exact sequences (\[eq:Kseq1\]) and (\[eq:Kseq2\]) gives (\[eq:onto\]).
\[lem:nicegamma\] With the above notations, the extension $K(\gamma^{1/n})$ is a cyclic degree $n^2$ extension of $F$ which contains $K$. There is an idele $j = (j_v)_v$ of $J(F)$ with the following properties. If $v$ is an infinite place of $F$, $j_v = 1$. Suppose $v$ is finite and that $v$ corresponds to the closed point $x$ of $X$. Then for all places $w$ of $K$ above $v$, the images of $j_v \in F_v^* = \hat{F}_x^*$ and $\gamma \in K^*$ in $$(\hat{F}_{x,sh}^*/(\hat{F}_{x,sh}^*)^n)^{G_x} = \hat{F}_x^*/T_x$$ agree for any embedding of $K_w$ into $\hat{F}_{x,sh}$ over $F_v$. Let $\mathrm{ord}_v:F_v^* \to \mathbb{Z}$ be the discrete valuation associated to $v$. Then $\mathrm{ord}_v(\mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(\gamma))$ lies in $n \mathbb{Z}$, and there is a congruence of integers $$\label{eq:wcongruence}
\frac{\mathrm{ord}_v(\mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(\gamma))}{n} \equiv \mathrm{ord}_v(j_v) \equiv \mathrm{ord}_w(\gamma) \quad \mathrm{mod} \quad n_v \mathbb{Z}$$ when $n_v$ is the order the decomposition group $G_{w} \subset G = \mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ of any place $w$ over $v$ in $K$ and $\mathrm{ord}_w:K_w^* \to \mathbb{Z}$ is the discrete valuation associated to $w$. Finally, in the notation of Lemma \[lem:cupcalc\], for all such $j$ the element $\omega(z(j)) \in H^2(X,\mu_n)$ equals $f_X^* c_2$.
Since $\gamma (K^*)^n$ lies in the invariants $(K^*/(K^*)^n)^G$, and $G = \mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ is cyclic, the extension $K(\gamma^{1/n})$ is abelian over $F$. Since $\gamma (K^*)^n$ has image of order $n$ in $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$, it must define an element of $K^*/(K^*)^n$ of order $n$. So $K(\gamma^{1/n})$ is a cyclic degree $n$ extension of $K$.
By Kummer theory, $$K^*/(K^*)^n = \mathrm{Hom}_{cont}(\mathrm{Gal}(K^{(n)}/K),\tilde{\mu}_n)$$ and $$F^*/(F^*)^n = \mathrm{Hom}_{cont}(\mathrm{Gal}(F^{(n)}/F),\tilde{\mu}_n)$$ when $K^{(n)}$ is the maximal abelian exponent $n$ extension of $K$ and $F^{(n)}$ is defined similarly for $F$. The natural homomorphism $F^*/(F^*)^n \to K^*/(K^*)^n$ corresponds to the map $$\mathrm{Hom}_{cont}(\mathrm{Gal}(F^{(n)}/F),\tilde{\mu}_n) \to \mathrm{Hom}_{cont}(\mathrm{Gal}(K^{(n)}/K),\tilde{\mu}_n)$$ which results from restricting homomorphisms from $\mathrm{Gal}(F^{(n)}/F)$ to $\mathrm{Gal}(F^{(n)}/K)$ and then inflating them to $\mathrm{Gal}(K^{(n)}/K)$. The image of $$F^*/(F^*)^n \to K^*/(K^*)^n$$ is thus contained in the set $\mathcal{H}$ of those elements of $\mathrm{Hom}_{cont}(\mathrm{Gal}(K^{(n)}/K),\tilde{\mu}_n)$ which are inflated from elements of the group $\mathrm{Hom}_{cont}(\mathrm{Gal}(F^{(n)}/K),\tilde{\mu}_n)$. Let us show that this image is precisely $\mathcal{H}$. It is enough to show that any continuous homomorphism $\mathrm{Gal}(F^{(n)}/K)\to \tilde{\mu}_n$ can be extended to a continuous homomorphism $\mathrm{Gal}(F^{(n)}/F)\to \tilde{\mu}_n$. This is so because the sequence $$1 \to \mathrm{Gal}(F^{(n)}/K) \to \mathrm{Gal}(F^{(n)}/F) \to \mathrm{Gal}(K/F) \to 1$$ splits owing to the fact that $\mathrm{Gal}(F^{(n)}/F)$ is an exponent $n$ abelian group and $\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}/n$.
In view of (\[eq:onto\]) and the above discussion of Kummer theory, $\gamma (K^*)^n$ corresponds to a homomorphism $h:\mathrm{Gal}(K^{(n)}/K) \to \tilde{\mu}_n$ such that the smallest power of $h$ which is in $\mathcal{H}$ is the $n^{th}$ power of $h$. This means that the compositum $F^{(n)} K(\gamma^{1/n})$ be a cyclic degree $n$ extension of $F^{(n)}$, where $K \subset F^{(n)}$. Now $K(\gamma^{1/n})$ is an abelian extension of $F$ of some exponent $m$ with $n| m | n^2$. If $m \ne n^2$, then $\Gamma = \mathrm{Gal}(K(\gamma^{1/n})/F)$ would have a subgroup $H$ such that $\Gamma/H$ has exponent $n$ and $H$ has exponent $m/n < n$. Now $K(\gamma^{1/n})^H$ is an exponent $n$ abelian extension of $F$, so $K(\gamma^{1/n})^H \subset F^{(n)}$. But then $$[F^{(n)}K(\gamma^{1/n}):F^{(n)}] \le [K(\gamma^{1/n}):K(\gamma^{1/n})^H] = H < n$$ contradicting the fact that $F^{(n)} K(\gamma^{1/n})$ is cyclic of degree $n$ over $F^{(n)}$. Thus $K(\gamma^{1/n})/F$ must be an exponent $n^2$ abelian extension of $F$, so in fact it is a cyclic extension of degree $n^2$ of $F$.
Suppose now that $x$ is a closed point of $X$ corresponding to a finite place $v$ of $F$. As in the proof of Lemma \[lem:r1comp\], let $O_{x,sh}$ be the strict Henselization of the local ring $O_x$ of $x$ on $X$. Define $F_{x,sh} = F\otimes_{O_F} O_{x,sh}$. We know that $Y$ is etale over $x$ so the local ring $O_y$ of each such $y$ lies inside $O_{x,sh}$. Thus the completion $K_w$ of $K$ at each place $w$ over $v$ lies inside the completion $\hat{F}_{x,sh}$ of $F_{x,sh}$. Fix a place $w(v)$ of $K$ over $v$ and choose any embedding of $K_{w(v)}$ into $\hat{F}_{x,sh}$ over $F_v = \hat{F}_x$. The fact that $G$ permutes the places $w$ of $K$ over $v$ leads to a sequence of homomorphisms $$\label{eq:semilocal}
\xymatrix @C=1.2pc{
(K^*/(K^*)^n)^G \ar[r]& (\oplus_{w|v } (K_w^*/(K_w^*)^n))^G \ar@{=}[d]\\
& (K_{w(v)}^*/(K_{w(v)}^*)^n)^{G_{w(v)}} \ar[r] & (\hat{F}_{x,sh}^*/(\hat{F}_{x,sh}^*)^n)^{G_x}
}$$ when $G_x = \mathrm{Gal}(F_{x,sh}/F_{x,h})$. However, in Lemma \[lem:r1comp\] we showed that the right hand side of (\[eq:semilocal\]) is just $\hat{F}_x^*/T_x = F_v^*/T_x$. So we can choose the local component $j_v$ associated to $v$ to come from $\gamma \in K$ in the way described in Lemma \[lem:nicegamma\]. At infinite $v$ we can certainly choose $j_v$ to be trivial. Now the fact that $\gamma (K^*)^n$ has image $f_X^* c_2$ in $H^2(X,\mu_n)$ together with the construction of Corollary \[cor:longer\] shows $\omega(z(j)) = f_X^* c_2$.
It remains to show the congruence (\[eq:wcongruence\]) for each finite place $v$ of $F$. A uniformizer of $F_v$ is one for $\hat{F}_{x,sh}$ and for $K_w$. Hence we have $$\label{eq:find}
\mathrm{ord}_v(j_v) \equiv \mathrm{ord}_w(\gamma)\quad \mathrm{mod} \quad n \mathbb{Z}$$ from the above construction of $j_v$ from $\gamma$.
We now fix a place $w(v)$ over $v$ in $K$. Since $\gamma (K^*)^n$ lies in $(K^*/(K^*)^n)^G $ we know that for each place $w$ over $v$ in $K$ there is an integer $t(w)$ such that $\mathrm{ord}_w(\gamma) = \mathrm{ord}_{w(v)}(\gamma) + n t(w)$. Since each $K_w$ is an unramified cyclic extension of $F_v$ of degree $n_v$, we have $$\mathrm{ord}_v(\mathrm{Norm}_{K_w/F_v}(\gamma)) =
n_v ( \mathrm{ord}_{w(v)}(\gamma) + n t(w)).$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:computit}
\mathrm{ord}_v(\mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(\gamma)) &=& \sum_{w | v} \mathrm{ord}_v(
\mathrm{Norm}_{K_w/F_v}(\gamma))\nonumber \\
& =& \sum_{w|v} n_v ( \mathrm{ord}_{w(v)}(\gamma) + n t(w))\nonumber \\
& = & (\sum_{w|v} n_v) \cdot \mathrm{ord}_{w(v)}(\gamma) + n \cdot n_v \sum_{w | v} t(w)\nonumber \\
&=& n \cdot \mathrm{ord}_{w(v)}(\gamma) + n \cdot n_v \sum_{w | v} t(w).\end{aligned}$$ Since $w(v)$ was an arbitrary place of $K$ over $v$, dividing (\[eq:computit\]) by $n$ and using (\[eq:find\]) completes the proof of the congruence (\[eq:wcongruence\]).
Proof of Theorem \[thm:fixed?\]. {#s:proofofmainthm}
=================================
We will adopt the notations of Theorem \[thm:fixed?\]. Thus $G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ and $c_1$ is a generator of $H^1(G,\mathbb{Z}/n) = \mathrm{Hom}(G,\mathbb{Z}/n)$ given by the identity map. The element $c_2$ generates $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ and $c = c_1 \cup c_2$. In Definition \[def:roots\] we picked a particular primitive $n^{th}$ root of unity $\zeta_n$. Let $\phi:\mathbb{Z}/n \to \tilde{\mu}_n$ be the isomorphism sending $1$ to $\zeta_n$. Then $d_1 = \phi \circ c_1$ is a generator of $H^1(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$. Write $K = F(\xi^{1/n})$ as in Corollary \[cor:c1analysis\] for an element $\xi \in F^*$ which is determined mod $(F^*)^n$ by $f_X^* d_1 \in H^1(X,\mu_n) = \mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{Pic}(X),\tilde{\mu}_n)$. We have an isomorphism $\mathrm{Gal}(K/F) \to G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ determined by $f^* c_1:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to \mathbb{Z}/n$. We will use this isomorphism to identify $\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ with $G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ in what follows. The element $\xi \in F$ is the Kummer generator for $K$ as an everywhere unramified cyclic extension of $F$ for which $$\label{eq:normalization}
\frac{\mathrm{Art}(a)(\xi^{1/n})}{\xi^{1/n}} = \phi(\mathrm{Art}(a)) = f_X^* d_1(a)$$ for $a \in Cl(O_F) = \mathrm{Pic}(X)$, where $\mathrm{Art}:Cl(O_F) \to \mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ is the Artin map for $K/F$.
The element of $H^2(G,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star = T/(F^*)^n$ associated to $d_1$ by Corollary \[cor:c1analysis\] is the coset $\xi (F^*)^n$. Let $j$ be an idele of $F$ associated to $c_2$ as in Lemma \[lem:nicegamma\]. Then $\omega(z(j)) = f_X^* c_2\in H^2(X,\mu_n)$.
By Lemma \[lem:cupcalc\], the value of the pairing $$\langle \ , \ \rangle: H^2(X,\mathbb{Z}/n)^\star \times H^2(X,\mu_n) \to \tilde{\mu}_n$$ in (\[eq:h2now\]) on the pair $\xi (F^*)^n$ and $\omega(z(j)) = f_X^* c_2$ is $$\label{eq:angle}
\langle \xi (F^*)^n,\omega(z(j)) \rangle = \mathrm{Art}(j)(\xi^{1/n})/\xi^{1/n} .$$ Here $j$ is the idele constructed in Lemma \[lem:cupcalc\], and we are also using $\mathrm{Art}$ to denote the Artin map from the ideles $J(F)$ of $F$ to $\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$. Since $d_1 = \phi \circ c_1$, this is $\phi( n \cdot (f_X^*c_1 \cup f_X^* c_2 ))$ when $$S(f,c) = f_X^*c_1 \cup f_X^* c_2 \in H^3(X,\mu_ n) = \mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z}$$ is Kim’s invariant for $f$ and $c$.
Combining this with the normalization of $\xi$ in Corollary \[cor:c1analysis\] and (\[eq:normalization\]) gives $$\phi( S(f,c)) = \phi(\mathrm{Art}(j)).$$ Thus $\mathrm{Art}(j) = S(f,c)$. Hence the proof of the formula (\[eq:calculation\]) is reduced to showing $$\label{eq:arteq}
\mathrm{Art}(j) = \mathrm{Art}([I])$$ for a fractional ideal $I$ of $O_F$ having the properties in Theorem \[thm:fixed?\], where $[I]$ is the ideal class of $I$ in $Cl(O_F)$.
The first property of $I$ is that it should be an $n^{th}$ root of $\mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(\gamma) O_F$ when $\gamma \in K$ is as in Theorem \[thm:fixed?\]. The fact that $I$ exists is shown by (\[eq:wcongruence\]) of Lemma \[lem:nicegamma\], which showed $\mathrm{ord}_v(\mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(\gamma))$ is divisible by $n$ for all finite places $v$ of $F$. Let $j_v$ be the component of $j$ at $v$. The congruence in (\[eq:wcongruence\]) also shows that $\mathrm{ord}_v(j_v)$ is congruent to $\mathrm{ord}_v(I)$ modulo the order $n_v$ of the decomposition group of a place $w$ over $v$ in $K$. Since $K/F$ is an unramified extension, this is enough to show the equality (\[eq:arteq\]), which completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:intrinsic\] and of Corollaries \[cor:easy\] and \[cor:almost\]. {#s:moreproofs}
======================================================================================
The first two parts of Theorem \[thm:intrinsic\] follow from the arguments used in Lemmas \[lem:boundary\] and \[lem:nicegamma\] together with Theorem \[thm:fixed?\].
To show the third part of Theorem \[thm:intrinsic\], it will suffice to show the following for each place $v$ of $F$. Let $j_v$ be the $v$ component of an idele $j$ of $F$ with the properties in Lemma \[lem:nicegamma\]. Let $n_v$ be the local degree of $v$ in $K/F$, i.e. the order of the decomposition group in $G = \mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ of a place over $v$ in $K$. In view of the equality (\[eq:arteq\]), Theorem \[thm:fixed?\] and the congruence (\[eq:wcongruence\]), it will suffice to show $n_v$ divides $\mathrm{ord}_v(j_v)$ if $L/K$ is unramified over $v$ or if $v$ splits in $K$. Here $L = K(\gamma^{1/n})$ for some $\gamma$ as in Lemma \[lem:nicegamma\]. If $L/K$ is not ramified over the place $w$ of $K$ over $v$, then $\mathrm{ord}_w(\gamma)$ must be divisible by $n$. But $\mathrm{ord}_v(j_v) \equiv \mathrm{ord}_w(\gamma)$ mod $n_v\mathbb{Z}$ by (\[eq:wcongruence\]), and $n_v | n$, so we get $n_v| \mathrm{ord}_v(j_v)$ in this case. If $v$ splits in $K$, then $n_v = 1$ so $n_v | \mathrm{ord}_v(j_v)$ is trivial. This finishes the proof of Theorem \[thm:intrinsic\].
Corollary \[cor:easy\] follows directly from Theorem \[thm:intrinsic\], since we can take $I'$ to be $O_F$ in this case.
Suppose now that the hypotheses of Corollary \[cor:almost\] hold. Let $v$ be the place of $F$ determined by the prime $\mathcal{P}$ in the statement of Corollary \[cor:almost\]. Then there is a unique place $w$ over $v$ in $K$, $w$ totally ramifies in $L$, and $v$ and $w$ have residue characteristic prime to $n$. Thus $L = K(\gamma^{1/n})$ implies $\mathrm{ord}_w(\gamma)$ is relatively prime to $n$, and $n_v = n$ since $v$ is undecomposed in $K$. Since $$\mathrm{ord}_{\mathcal{P}}(I) \equiv \mathrm{ord}_v(j_v) \equiv \mathrm{ord}_w(\gamma) \quad \mathrm{mod}\quad n_v \mathbb{Z}$$ as above, we conclude $\mathrm{ord}_{\mathcal{P}}(I)$ is relatively prime to $n_v = n$. By part (iii) of Theorem \[thm:intrinsic\], we can take $I' = \mathcal{P}^{\mathrm{ord}_{\mathcal{P}}(I)}$ since $v$ is the only place of $F$ over which $L/K$ ramifies. Hence $\mathrm{Art}([I'])$ is a generator of $\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ since $\mathrm{Art}([\mathcal{P}])$ is, so Corollary \[cor:almost\] follows from (\[eq:arteq\]).
Proof of Theorem \[thm:result\]. {#s:yetmoreproofs}
================================
By assumption, $n > 1$. It will suffice to construct infinitely many totally complex fields $F$ which have cyclic degree $n^2$ extensions $L_1/F$ and $L_2/F$ having the properties in Corollary \[cor:easy\] and \[cor:almost\], respectively. We use a base change argument to do this.
The field $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_{n^2})$ is totally complex. We start with an initial choice of a field $F_1$ containing $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_{n^2})$ together with a cyclic degree $n^2$ extension $N_1/F_1$ of $F_1$. Let $S_1$ be the set of places of $F_1$ which ramify in $N_1$. Let $F$ be a number field containing $F_1$ which is linearly disjoint from $N_1$ such that for each place $w$ of $F$ over a place $v$ in $S_1$, the completion $(F_1)_w$ contains the completions of $N_1$ at places over $v$. Then $L_1 = F N_1$ will be cyclic unramified degree $n^2$ extension of $F$ as required in Corollary \[cor:easy\]. For simplicity we now replace $F_1$ by $F$ to be able to assume that $N_1/F_1$ is a cyclic degree $n^2$ unramified extension. Any base change of $N_1/F_1$ by a field extension $F$ of $F_1$ which is disjoint from $N_1$ will preserve this property.
We now focus on finding an extension $F$ of $F_1$ which is disjoint from $N_1$ for which we can construct an extension $L_2/F$ with the properties in Corollary \[cor:almost\].
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be a sufficiently high power of the ideal $nO_{F_1}$ in $O_{F_1}$ such that if $\alpha \in O_{F_1}$ and $\alpha \equiv 1$ mod $\mathcal{M}$, then $\alpha$ is in $((F_1)^*_v)^{n^2}$ for all places $v$ of $F_1$ dividing $n$. Choose a prime $\mathcal{Q}$ of $O_{F_1}$ which splits in the ray class field over ${F_1}$ of conductor $\mathcal{M}$. Then by definition of the ray class group of ${F_1}$ mod $\mathcal{M}$, there is a generator $\alpha$ for $\mathcal{Q}$ such that $\alpha \equiv 1$ mod $\mathcal{M}$. Since ${F_1}$ contains a root of unity of order $n^2$, the extension $N_2 = {F_1}(\alpha^{1/n^2})$ is an abelian Kummer extension of ${F_1}$. It is cyclic of degree $n^2$ and totally ramified over $\mathcal{Q}$ since $\alpha$ has valuation $1$ at $\mathcal{Q}$. Now $N_2/{F_1}$ splits over all places of ${F_1}$ which divide $n$, since by construction $\alpha$ is an $n^2$ power at these places. Finally, at each place $v$ of ${F_1}$ which does not divide $n$ and which is not the place $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$ assocated to $\mathcal{Q}$, $\alpha$ has valuation $0$ at $v$, so $v$ is unramified in $N_2$. Thus $N_2/{F_1}$ is a cyclic degree $n^2$ extension unramified outside of $v_\mathcal{Q}$ and totally ramified over $v_\mathcal{Q}$.
Let $w_{\mathcal{Q}}$ be the unique place over $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$ in $N_2$. For simplicity, we define $E$ to be the completion of $F_1$ at $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$, and we let $Y$ be the completion of $N_2$ at $w_{\mathcal{Q}}$. Now $Y/E$ is a cyclic degree $n^2$ totally ramified extension of local fields. There is a unique cyclic unramified extension $E'$ of $E$ of degree $n$. Consider the compositum $E'Y$. We have $\mathrm{Gal}(E'Y/E) = \mathrm{Gal}(E'Y/E') \times \mathrm{Gal}(E'Y/Y) = J_1 \times J_2$ where $J_1 = \mathrm{Gal}(E'Y/E') \cong \mathbb{Z}/n^2$ is the inertia subgroup of $\mathrm{Gal}(E'Y/E)$ and $J_2 = \mathrm{Gal}(E'Y/Y) \cong \mathrm{Gal}(E'/E) = \mathbb{Z}/n$ is cyclic of order $n$. Let $j_1$ be a generator of $J_1$ and let $j_2$ be a generator of $J_2$. The element $(j_1 , j_2) \in J_1 \times J_2$ then generates a cyclic subgroup $\Gamma$ of order $n^2$ in $J_1 \times J_2$, and $\Gamma \cap (J_1 \times \{0\}) = \Gamma \cap \mathrm{Gal}(E'Y/E')$ has order $n$. Thus the subfield $E'' = (E'Y)^{\Gamma}$ of $E'Y$ has the property that $E'Y/E''$ is cyclic of order $n^2$, $\mathrm{Gal}(E'Y/E'') = \Gamma$ has inertia group $\Gamma \cap (J_1 \times \{0\})$ of order $n$, and $E''/E$ is cyclic and totally ramified of degree $n$. Thus $E''$ can be obtained from $E$ by adjoining the root of an Eisenstein polynomial of degree $n$ in $O_E[x]$. Note that $E'Y = E'' Y$ since $\Gamma = \mathrm{Gal}(E'Y/E'')$ and $J_2 = \mathrm{Gal}(E'Y/Y)$ intersect only in the identity element.
We now choose $F$ to be any degree $n$ extension of $F_1$ which is totally ramified over $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$ such that the completion $F_w$ of $F$ at the unique place $w$ over $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$ is isomorphic to $E''$ as an extension of $E = (F_1)_{v_{\mathcal{Q}}}$. Such an $F$ can be constructed by finding a monic polynomial of degree $n$ in $O_{F_1}[x]$ which is Eisenstein at $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$ and which locally at $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$ has a root in $E''$. Because $F/F_1$ is totally ramified over $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$, it is disjoint from the cyclic unramified degree $n^2$ extension $N_1/F_1$ we constructed at the beginning of the proof. Hence $FN_1$ is a cyclic degree $n^2$ unramified extension $L_1$ of $F$ of the kind required in Corollary \[cor:easy\].
Consider now the compositum $L_2 = N_2F$ over $F_1$. We know there are unique places $w$ and $w_{\mathcal{Q}}$ over $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$ in $F$ and $N_2$, respectively, and $F_w = E''$ while $(N_2)_{w_{\mathcal{Q}}} = Y$. Since $E''Y = E'Y$ has degree $n^3$ over $F_v = E$, and $[L_2:F_1] = [L_2:F] \cdot [F:F_1] \le n^2 \cdot n$, we see $[L_2:F] = n^2$ and there is a unique place $\tilde{w}$ over $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$ in $L_2 = N_2F$. Thus $L_2/F$ is a cyclic degree $n^2$ extension since it is the base change by $F_1 \subset F$ of $N_2/F_1$. The only place of $F$ which can ramify in $L_2$ is the unique place $w$ over $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$, since $N_2/F_1$ is unramified outside of $v_{\mathcal{Q}}$. Further, $\tilde{w}$ is the unique place of $L_2$ over $w$, and $(L_2)_{\tilde{w}}/F_w$ is the extension $E''Y/E''$. We showed that this local extension is cyclic of order $n^2$ with inertia group of order $n$. Thus if we let $\mathcal{P}$ be the prime of $F$ determined by $w$, the extension $L_2/F$ will now have all of the properties required in Corollary \[cor:almost\]. Theorem \[thm:result\] now follows from Corollaries \[cor:easy\] and \[cor:almost\]. Note that we can vary the above construction in many ways, e.g. by choosing different primes $\mathcal{Q}$, so we can construct infinitely many $F$ with the properties in Theorem \[thm:result\].
Proof of Theorems \[thm:elementary\] and \[thm:fixitup\] {#s:proofalmostlast}
========================================================
We will use the notations of Theorems \[thm:elementary\] and \[thm:fixed?\]. Since $\sigma(y)/y = x^n \in (K^*)^n$, the coset $y(K^*)^n$ lies in $(K^*/(K^*)^n)^G$. Recall that we have exact sequences $$1 \to \tilde{\mu}_n \to K^* \to (K^*)^n \to 1\quad \mathrm{and}\quad 1 \to (K^*)^n \to K^* \to K^*/(K^*)^n \to 1.$$ By the construction of the boundary map $$\delta_0:\hat{H}^0(G,K^*/(K^*)^n)) \to H^1(G,(K^*)^n)$$ the class $\delta_0(y(K^*)^n)$ is represented by the one cocycle which sends $\sigma^i$ to $\sigma^i(y)/y = (x^n) \sigma(x^n) \cdots \sigma^{i-1}(x^n)$ for $i \ge 0$. Thus $\delta_0(y(K^*)^n)$ is the cup product $[x^n] \cup t$, where $[x^n]$ is the class in $H^{-1}(G,(K^*)^n)$ represented by the element $x^n \in K^*$ of norm $1$ to $F$, and $t$ is an appropriate generator of $H^2(G,\mathbb{Z})$. The image of $[x^n]$ under the boundary map $H^{-1}(G,(K^*)^n) \to \hat{H}^0(G,\tilde{\mu}_n) = \tilde{\mu}_n$ is the class represented by $\zeta_n = \mathrm{Norm}_{K/F}(x)$. Since boundary maps respect cup products with $t$, we find that $\delta_0(y(K^*))$ maps to an element of order $n$ under the boundary map $H^1(G,(K^*)^n) \to H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$. This proves that $y(K^*)^n$ has image of order $n$ under the map $(K^*/(K^*)^n)^G \to H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ which was used in (\[eq:boundary\]) just prior to Theorem \[thm:fixed?\]. Hence (\[eq:boundary\]) shows that if we take $\gamma = y$ in Theorem \[thm:fixed?\], Theorem \[thm:elementary\] now follows from Theorem \[thm:fixed?\]. Theorem \[thm:fixitup\] is proved similarly.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:Ralph1\] {#s:proofstillnotlast}
===============================
The hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:Ralph1\] are that $n$ is a properly irregular prime, so that $n$ divides $\# Cl(\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_n])$ but not $\# Cl(\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_n + \zeta_n^{-1}])$, and $K$ is a cyclic unramified extension of $F = \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_n)$ of degree $n$. We are to show that $S(f,c) = 0$ for all surjections $f:\pi_1(X,\eta) \to \mathrm{Gal}(K/F) = G = \mathbb{Z}/n$ and all $c \in H^3(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$.
\[lem:into\] There is a $\mathbb{Z}_n$ extension of $F$ which contains $K$ and which is unramified outside $n$.
Before proving this lemma, we note how it implies Theorem \[thm:Ralph1\]. The lemma shows that there is a cyclic degree $n^2$ extension $L$ of $F$ which is unramified outside of $n$ and contains $K$. The unique prime $\mathcal{P}$ over $n$ in $F$ is principal, so it splits in $K$. Hence Corollary \[cor:easy\] shows the conclusion of Theorem \[thm:Ralph1\] *Proof of Lemma \[lem:into\]*. Let $E = \mathbb{Q}(\zeta_n + \zeta_n^{-1})$ be the real subfield of $F$. Write $\Gamma = \mathrm{Gal}(F/E) = \{e, \sigma\}$. Then $\sigma$ acts by inversion on the Sylow $n$-subgroup of $Cl(O_F)$ since $n$ does not divide $\# Cl(O_E)$. Therefore $K$ is contained in the maximal $n$-elementary extension $N$ of $F$ which is unramified outside of $p$, Galois over $E$ and for which $\sigma$ acts by inversion on $\mathrm{Gal}(N/F)$.
The Kummer pairing gives a $\Gamma$-equivariant isomorphism $\mathrm{Gal}(N/F) = \mathrm{Hom}(T/(F^*)^n,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ when $T = \{\xi \in F^*: \xi^{1/n} \in N\}$. Since $\sigma$ acts by inversion on both $\mathrm{Gal}(N/F)$ and $\tilde{\mu}_n$, we conclude that it acts trivially on $T/(F^*)^n$. Because $n$ is odd, this implies that the inclusion $E^* \to F^*$ induces a surjection $s:T' \to T/(F^*)^n$ when we let $T' = (E^*)^n \cdot \mathrm{Norm}_{F/E}(T)$.
Since $E$ has class number prime to $n$, and $N/F$ is unramified outside of $n$, we now see that $s(T'') = T/(F^*)^n$ when $T''$ is the subgroup of $n$-units in $T'$. The subgroup of $n$-units in $E$ has no $n$-torsion and rank $d = (n-1)/2$. We conclude that $\mathrm{Gal}(N/F)$ is an elementary abelian $n$-group of dimension at most $d$ over $\mathbb{Z}/n$.
By class field theory there is a $\mathbb{Z}_n^d$ extension $\tilde{F}$ of $F$ which is unramified outside of $n$ such that $\sigma \in\Gamma$ acts by inversion on $\mathrm{Gal}(\tilde{F}/F)$. The maximal $n$-elementary subextension $N'$ of $F$ in $\tilde{F}$ then has $\mathrm{Gal}(N/F) = (\mathbb{Z}/n)^d$, so in fact $N' = N$. This implies Lemma \[lem:into\] since $K \subset N = N'$.
Proof of Theorem \[thm:Ralph2\] {#s:proofalmostlast2}
===============================
The hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:Ralph2\] are that $n > 2$ is prime and $K/F$ is a cyclic unramified Kummer extension of degree $n$ such that both $K$ and $F$ are Galois over $\mathbb{Q}$. The action of $\Delta = \mathrm{Gal}(F/\mathbb{Q})$ on $G=\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ is then via a character $\chi:\Delta \to \mathrm{Aut}(G)$. If we fix an isomorphism $\iota:G \to \mathbb{Z}/n$ we get an isomorphism between $\mathrm{Aut}(G)$ and $(\mathbb{Z}/n)^*$ that is independent of the choice of $\iota$. In this way we can identify $\chi$ with a character $\chi:\Delta \to (\mathbb{Z}/n)^*$.
Theorem \[thm:fixed?\] gives a $\Delta$-equivariant homomorphism $$\label{eq:surprise}
H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n) = (K^*/(K^*)^n)^G/\mathrm{Image}(F^*) \to G=\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$$ sending the class of $\gamma (K^*)^n$ to $\mathrm{Art}([I])$ in the notation of Theorem \[thm:fixed?\]. The action of $\Delta$ on $G=\mathrm{Gal}(K/F)$ is given by the character $\chi$. To determine the action of $\Delta$ on $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$, we use the exact sequence $$0 \to \frac{1}{n} \mathbb{Z}/\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z} \xrightarrow{\cdot n} \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z} \to 0$$ of modules with trivial $G$-action produced by multiplication by $n$ on $\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$. The boundary map in the long exact cohomology sequence of this sequence produces $\Delta$-equivariant isomorphisms $$\label{eq:amazin}
H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n) = H^2(G,\mathbb{Z}/n) \otimes \tilde{\mu}_n =
H^1(G,\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})\otimes \tilde{\mu}_n.$$ Since $H^1(G,\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})$ is $\mathrm{Hom}(G,\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z})$, we see from (\[eq:amazin\]) that the action of $\Delta$ on $H^2(G,\tilde{\mu}_n)$ is via the character $\chi^{-1} \cdot \omega$ where $\omega: \Delta \to (\mathbb{Z}/n)^*$ is the Teichmüller character giving the action of $\Delta$ on $\tilde{\mu}_n$. If (\[eq:surprise\]) is not the trivial homomorphism, it must be an isomorphism between cyclic groups of order $n$, and since it is $\Delta$-equivariant we would have to have $\chi^{-1}\cdot \omega = \chi$. This would force $\omega = \chi^2$, which is impossible since $\omega$ has even order $n-1 = \# (\mathbb{Z}/n)^*$. Thus (\[eq:surprise\]) must be trivial under the hypotheses of Theorem \[thm:Ralph2\], which completes the proof.
[99]{}
Higher Chern classes in Iwasawa theory. ArXiv:1512.00273.
Abelian arithmetic Chern-Simons theory and arithmetic linking numbers. ArXiv:1706.03336.
Arithmetic Chern-Simons theory II. ArXiv:1609.03012.
Arithmetic Chern-Simons Theory I. ArXiv:1510.05818.
Notes on étale cohomology of number fields. [*Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4)*]{} [**6**]{} (1973), 521–552.
A cup product in the Galois cohomology of number fields. [*Duke Math. J.*]{} [**120**]{} (2003), no. 2, 269–310.
Étale cohomology. Princeton Mathematical Series, 33. [*Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.*]{}, 1980.
Reciprocity maps with restricted ramification. ArXiv:1609.03616, 2016.
Cup products in sheaf cohomology, pure injectives, and a substitute for projective resolutions. [*J. Pure Appl. Algebra*]{} [**144**]{} (1999), no. 2, 169–211.
[^1]: F. B. was partially supported by NSF FRG Grant No. DMS-1360621.
[^2]: T. C. was partially supported by NSF FRG Grant No. DMS-1360767, NSF FRG Grant No. DMS-1265290, NSF SaTC grant No. CNS-1513671, Simons Foundation grant 338379 and NSF Grant No. DMS 1107452, 1107263, 1107367 “RNMS: Geometric Structures and Representation Varieties” (the GEAR Network)
[^3]: R. G. was partially supported by NSF FRG Grant No. DMS-1360902
[^4]: G. P. was partially supported by NSF FRG Grant No. DMS-1360733.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Alexandru Tamasan[^1]\'
title: 'On the Scattering Method for the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation and Reconstruction of Convection Coefficients'
---
Introduction
============
The pioneering work of Nachman and Ablowitz [@nachmanAblowitz], Sylvester and Uhlmann [@sylvesterUhlmann87], Nachman [@nachman88]and Henkin and Novikov [@henkinNovikov] introduced inverse scattering methods to the parameter identification problems. In their work, the linear Schrödinger equation in the physical space is paired with a pseudo-analytic equation in the complex space of the parameter. Another method, due to Beals and Coifman [@bealsCoifman], pairs a first order ${\overline{\partial}}$ system in the physical space with a pseudo-analytic matrix equation in the parameter space. Sung analyzed lower regularity assumptions in [@sung1; @sung2; @sung3]. This method was ingeniously used by Brown and Uhlmann [@brownUhlmann] in unique identification of the conductivity $\sigma$ in $\nabla\cdot\sigma\nabla u=0$ and by Cheng and Yamamoto [@chengYamamoto98], [@chengYamamoto] in proving unique determination of the convection coefficients $b_1$ and $b_2$ in $\Delta u + b_1u_x +b_2 u_y=0$.
We consider here the scattering problem for ${\overline{\partial}}$- equations (theorems 1.1 and 1.2 below). Here ${\overline{\partial}}=({\partial}_x+i{\partial}_y)/2$ is the Cauchy-Riemann operator. This can be seen as a diagonal version of the formalism in Beals and Coifman, see lemma \[equivalence\]. Due to the symmetry between the scattered solutions in the physical space and the ones in the parameter space, we are able to present a non-linear analog of the Fourier inversion formula (compare and below).
As an application, we revisit the inverse problem proposed in [@chengYamamoto] and present a reconstruction procedure. The method is based on solving a singular boundary integral equation in the Hardy space of functions in the exterior of the disc. This method was first introduced by Knudsen and Tamasan in connection with the electrical impedance tomography problem in [@knudsenTamasan1]. The method presented here can be seen as its generalization.
I was informed recently about the reconstruction step being obtained independently by Tong, Cheng and Yamamoto [@tongCY]. I thank them for letting me know about their new result. The main difference of the method presented here from their method is the formalism of in inverse scattering.
For $k\in{\mathbb{C}}$ arbitrarily fixed, we say that $u$ behaves like $e^{izk}$ (written $u\sim e^{izk}$) in $L^r({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ for large $z$, if $u(z,k) e^{-izk}-1\in L^{r}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$. We use the notation $\langle k\rangle=(1+|k|^2)^{1/2}$. The scattering method is the content of the following two theorems.
\[forward\] Assume that $q\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$, ${{\tilde{p}}}>2$ has compact support. For each $k\in {\mathbb{C}}$, the equation $$\label{phys_eq}
\frac{{\partial}\Psi}{{\partial}{\overline}{z}}(z)+q(z){\overline}{\Psi}(z)=0,\,\,\, z\in
{\mathbb{C}},$$ has unique solutions $\Psi_r(z,k)\sim e^{izk}$ and $\Psi_i(z,k)\sim ie^{izk}$ in $L^{{\tilde{p}}}$ for large $z$, and the scattering transform $$\label{scatt_transf}
t(k)=-\frac{i}{\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e^{i{\overline}{zk}}{\overline}{q}(z)\left(
\Psi_r(z,k)-i\Psi_i(z,k)\right)d\mu(z)$$is well defined. Moreover, if $q\in W^{{\varepsilon},{{\tilde{p}}}}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ for some ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $k \in {\mathbb{C}}-\{0\}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{k_estimates}
\|\Psi_r(z,k)e^{-izk}-1\|_{L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}+\|\Psi_i(z,k)]e^{-izk}-i \|_{L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\leq C
\langle k\rangle^{-{\varepsilon}}\end{aligned}$$and $$\begin{aligned}
\|[\Psi_r(z,k)-i\Psi_i(z,k)]e^{-izk}-2 \|_{W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}} ({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\leq
C \langle k\rangle^{-{\varepsilon}},\label{extrasmooth}\end{aligned}$$ and then $t\in L^r({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$ for each $r>2/({\varepsilon}+1)$. In particular $t\in L^r({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)\cap L^{r'}({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)\cap
L^{{{\tilde{r}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$ for some $r<2$, where ${{\tilde{r}}}^{-1}=r^{-1}-1/2$ and $
r'^{-1}+r^{-1}=1$.
\[inverse\] Let $q$, $\Psi_r$, $\Psi_i$ and $t(k)$ and $r$, $r'$, ${{\tilde{r}}}$ be as given in the forward scattering. Then the equation $$\label{freq_eq}
\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}{\overline}{k}}(k)+t(k){\overline}{\Phi}(k)=0,\,\, k\in {\mathbb{C}},$$ has unique solutions $\Phi_r\sim e^{izk}$ and $\Phi_i\sim
ie^{izk}$ in $L^{{\tilde{r}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$ for large $k\in{\mathbb{C}}$. Moreover, $\Psi$’s and $\Phi$’s are related by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{identities}
\operatorname{Re}{\Phi_i}=-\operatorname{Im}{\Psi_r},\qquad& \operatorname{Re}{\Phi_r}=\operatorname{Re}{\Psi_r},\\
\operatorname{Im}{\Phi_i}=\operatorname{Im}{\Psi_i}, \qquad
&\operatorname{Im}{\Phi_r}=-\operatorname{Re}{\Psi_i},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$in particular $
\Phi_r-i\Phi_i=\Psi_r-i\Psi_i$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{fourierInv}
q(z)=-\frac{i}{\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e^{i{\overline}{zk}}{\overline}{t}(k)\left(
\Phi_r(z,k)-i\Phi_i(z,k)\right)d\mu(k).\end{aligned}$$
Let ${\Omega}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a bounded, simple connected domain with Lipschitz boundary and ${{\tilde{p}}}>2$. For $b_1,b_2\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\Omega})$ and $g\in W^{2-1/{{\tilde{p}}},{{\tilde{p}}}}({\partial}{\Omega})$, let $u\in W^{2,{{\tilde{p}}}}$ be the unique solution of the boundary value problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{conveq}
&\Delta u(x)+b_1(x)\frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}x_1}(x) + b_2(x)\frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}x_2}(x) =0, \qquad x\in {\Omega}\\
&u(x)= g(x),\qquad x\in{\partial}{\Omega}\nonumber.\end{aligned}$$ The Dirichlet to Neumann map ${\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}:W^{2-1/{{\tilde{p}}},{{\tilde{p}}}}({\partial}{\Omega})\to
W^{1-1/{{\tilde{p}}},{{\tilde{p}}}}({\partial}{\Omega})$ is given by $${\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}g(x)=
\nu_1(x)\frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}x_1}(x) + \nu_2(x)\frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}x_2}(x),\qquad x\in{\partial}{\Omega},$$where $(\nu_1(x),\nu_2(x))$ is the outer normal at $x$ on the boundary. Cheng and Yamamoto proved that ${\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}$ uniquely determines $b_1$ and $b_2$ in $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\Omega})$.
Working with the equation in the whole plane and using the inverse scattering for ${\overline{\partial}}$-equations allows us to go beyond uniqueness and present a method of reconstruction. We prove the following result.
Let ${\Omega}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ be bounded, simple connected domain with Lipschitz boundary, and $b_1,b_2\in W^{{\varepsilon},{{\tilde{p}}}}_c({\Omega})$, with support inside ${\Omega}$ for some ${\varepsilon}>0$ . Then $b_1,b_2$ can be reconstructed from ${\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}$.
The fact that they vanish on the boundary is not a severe restriction as one can always extended the coefficients across the boundary, preserving the regularity, and then have them vanish outside a ball. The Dirichlet-to-Neumann map can be pushed to an outside boundary as shown by Nachman in [@nachman88], see also [@knudsenTamasan]. While $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\Omega})$ is enough regularity to prove unique determination of $b_1,b_2$, we assume here $\epsilon$-extra regularity and provide a reconstruction method.
In the end we point out the connection with the first order ${\overline{\partial}}$ system and characterize its Cauchy data in terms of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map of a related second order elliptic equation, thus answering a question of Uhlmann in [@uhlmann].
Proof of the theorems \[forward\] and \[inverse\]
==================================================
We identify a point in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ with a point in the complex plane by $x_1+ix_2=z$. By ${{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}$ we denote the solid Cauchy transform $$\begin{aligned}
{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}f(z)=\frac{1}{\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}\frac{f(\zeta)}{z-\zeta}d\mu(\zeta),\end{aligned}$$where $d\mu(\zeta)$ is the Lebesgue area. We also denote by $e(z,k)=\exp(i(zk+{\overline}{zk}))$.
We look for solutions of of the form $\Psi_r=\psi_r e^{izk}$ and $\Psi_i=i\psi_i e^{izk}$ with $\psi_r,
\psi_i\in 1+L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$. The equations for $\psi_r$ respectively $\psi_i$ are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eqpsis}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\overline}{z}}\psi_r+qe(z,-k){\overline}{\psi_r}&=0,\\
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\overline}{z}}\psi_i-qe(z,-k){\overline}{\psi_i}&=0.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ A key ingredient is the Hardy-Littlewood Sobolev inequality which yields ${\overline{\partial}}^{-1}:L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2)\to L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ is bounded (see Stein [@stein]) for $p$ and ${{\tilde{p}}}$ related by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tilde}
\frac{1}{{{\tilde{p}}}}=\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Since $q\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)\subset L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2) \cdot
L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)\subset L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ we have ${{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}(q\cdot): L^pt({\mathbb{R}}^2)\to
L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ is a bounded operator. Since $q$ has compact support we can use Rellich imbedding to conclude that ${{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}(q\cdot):
L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2)\to L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ is compact. Then we can apply Fredholm’s alternative in $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ to the equivalent integral equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{integral}
\{I +{\overline{\partial}}^{-1} [q(\cdot)e(\cdot,-k){\overline}{(\cdot)}]\}(\psi_r(z)-1) &=
{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}[qe(\cdot,-k){\overline}{}],\\
\{I -{\overline{\partial}}^{-1} [q(\cdot)e(\cdot,-k){\overline}{(\cdot)}]\}(\psi_i(z)-1)
&=- {\overline{\partial}}^{-1}[qe(\cdot,-k){\overline}{}].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$The fact that the homogeneous equation has only the null solution comes from Liouville’s theorem for pseudo-analytic functions with coefficients in $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)\cap L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ shown by Vekua [@vekua]. Since we integrate in over the support of $q$, together with the imbedding $L^{{\tilde{p}}}_{loc} \subset
L^p_{loc}$, gives a pointwise well defined $t(k)$.
For $k\in{\mathbb{C}}-0$ let $({\overline{\partial}}-i{\overline}{k})^{-1}$ be defined by $e(z,k){{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}(e(z,-k)\cdot)$ and let the indexes ${{\tilde{p}}}$ and $p$ be related by . An interpolation (with $\epsilon$ being the interpolation parameter) between the estimates of Nachman [@nachman96] $||({\overline{\partial}}-i{\overline}{k})^{-1} f||_{L^{{\tilde{p}}}}\leq
C||f||_{L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2)}$ and $||({\overline{\partial}}-i{\overline}{k})^{-1} f||_{L^{{\tilde{p}}}}\leq
(C/|k|)||f||_{W^{1,p}({\mathbb{R}}^2)}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{estimate}
||({\overline{\partial}}-i{\overline}{k})^{-1}
f||_{L^{{\tilde{p}}}}\leq\frac{C}{|k|^{\epsilon}}||f||_{W^{\epsilon,p}({\mathbb{R}}^2)}.\end{aligned}$$ See Proposition 2.3 in [@knudsenTamasan] for details. Since $|e(z,k)|=1$ the last estimate implies that $$\begin{aligned}
||{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}(e(\cdot, -k)q)||_{L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\leq C\langle
k\rangle^{-\epsilon}||q||_{W^{{\varepsilon},p}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}.\end{aligned}$$The decay rate in follows from the (uniform in $k$) bounded-ness of the map $[I-{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}qe(\cdot,-k)\cdot]^{-1}$ from $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ to $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ as explained above. The further regularity property for the combination $\Psi_r+i\Psi_i$ in will be shown in Lemma \[equivalence\]. For now we assumed it holds.
Brown and Uhlmann [@brownUhlmann] showed that $q\in
L^{{\tilde{p}}}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ implies $t\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$. While this is good enough for existence, for reconstruction we need $t\in L^r$ for some index $r<2$. This is ensured by extra regularity imposed in $q$ as was shown by Knudsen and the author in [@knudsenTamasan]. For completeness we repeat the arguments. The main ingredient is an $L^2$ bounded-ness property for pseudo-differential operators with non smooth symbol (see Coifman and Meyer [@meyer] or Brown and Uhlmann [@brownUhlmann2]). If $Mq$ is defined by $$Mq(k)=\frac{i}{\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e(z,k){\overline}{q}(z)a(z,k)d\mu(z),$$ where $a$ has compact support in $z$ and $||a(\cdot,k)||_{H^1({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\leq
{C}\langle k\rangle^{-\epsilon}$, then $M: L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)\to
L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$ is bounded.
Rewrite now $$\begin{aligned}
t(k)&=-2i {\cal F}({\overline}{q})(-2k_1,2k_2)+T(k)\\
T(k)&=\frac{i}{\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e(z,k){\overline}{q}(z)\left[
\psi_r(z,k)+\psi_i(z,k)-2\right]d\mu(z),\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal F}$ is the Fourier transform. Since $q\in
L_c^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)\subset L^r({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ for $1\leq r\leq 2$ we get ${\cal F}({\overline}{q})\in L^s({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$ for $s>2/(1+\epsilon)$.
Let $M$ be the operator defined by $a(z,k)=\chi(z)[\psi_r(z,k)+\psi_i(z,k)-2]\in
W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)\subset H^1({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, where $\chi$ is a cut-off function equal to $1$ on the support of $q$. The following chain of inequalities for $0<\delta<\epsilon$ give the result $$\|T\|_{L^s({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)}=\|\langle k\rangle^{-\delta}M{\overline}{q}\|_{L^s({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)}
\leq C||\langle
k\rangle^{-\delta}||_{L^{(1/s-1/2)^{-1}}}\|q\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)},$$ for $\delta >2(1/s-1/2)$ or equivalently $s>2/(\delta+1)>2/(\epsilon+1)$.
In order to exhibit the relation with the old formalism, we prove theorem \[inverse\] by reducing it to the former. Let us define $m_1(z,k)$ and $m_2(z,k)$ in terms of the $\psi$’s by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tranzition}
m_1(z,k)&=\frac{1}{2}\left(\psi_r(z,k)+\psi_i(z,k)\right)\\
m_2(z,k)&=\frac{1}{2}e(z,-k)\left({\overline}{\psi_i}(z,k)-{\overline}{\psi_r}(z,k)\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The simple result below shows that $(m_1,m_2)^t$ is the first column of the Jost matrix in the complex geometrical optic solutions of Beals and Coifman.
\[equivalence\]Let $m_1$ and $m_2$ defined in . Then $m_1(\cdot,k) -1,m_2(\cdot,k)\in
L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}_z)$, and they satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Dsys}
{\overline{\partial}}m_1&= q m_2\\
({\partial}+ik)m_2&= {\overline}{q}m_1.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, the following estimates hold, $$\begin{aligned}
||m_1(\cdot,k)-1||_{W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\leq C\langle k\rangle^{-\epsilon}\\
||m_2(\cdot,k)||_{L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\leq C\langle
k\rangle^{-\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
From their definition $m_1(\cdot,k)-1, m_2(\cdot,k)\in
L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ since $\psi_r,\psi_i\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ and $|e(z,k)|=1$. The fact that they solve the system comes from a straightforward calculation and the equations . The $L^{{{\tilde{p}}}}$ estimates of decay in $k$ for noth $m_1$ and $m_a$ come from the estimates for $\psi_r$ and $\psi_i$ proven above. We are left to justify the extra smoothness gained by $m_1$. From the first equation we have that $m_1-1={{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}(qm_2)$. Since $q\in
L^{{\tilde{p}}}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)\subset L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and $L^2\cdot L^{{\tilde{p}}}\subset L^p$ we have ${{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}(qm_2)\in W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ with an imbedding constant which depends on the support of $q$ but it is independent of $k$. We have the following chain of inequalities. $$\begin{aligned}
||m_1(\cdot,k)-1||_{W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)} &= \|{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}(qm_2)\|_{W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\leq C\| q(\cdot)
m_2(\cdot,k)\|_{L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\\
&\leq C\| q\|_{L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)}\| m_2(\cdot,k)\|_{L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\leq
C<k>^{-\epsilon}.\end{aligned}$$
This also completes the proof the theorem \[forward\].
Formulate the inverse scattering formalism of Beals and Coifman only in terms of the first column of Jost matrix, see Knudsen and Tamasan [@knudsenTamasan] for details. For the analysis with $q\in L^1({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ see Sung [@sung1], or Brown and Uhlmann [@brownUhlmann] for $q\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$.
Let $q \in W^{\epsilon ,{{\tilde{p}}}}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, For any $z\in C$, the system has a unique solution $m_1(z,k)$, $m_2(z,k)$ with $ (m_1(\cdot,k) - 1, m_2(\cdot,k))\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$. Furthermore, the map $k\to m(\cdot ,k)$ is differentiable (in the norm topology) with values in $W^{\epsilon,{{\tilde{p}}}}(dx)$ and satisfies pointwise in $z\in {\mathbb{C}}$ the system $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dbar}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\overline}k}m_1(z,k) = t(k) e(z,-k) {\overline}{m_2(z,k)},\\
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\overline}k}m_2(z,k) = t(k) e(z,-k)
{\overline}{m_1(z,k)},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{S}
t(k)= -\frac{i}{\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e(z,k){\overline}q(z) m_{1}(z,k)d\mu(z).$$
Look for solutions of in the form $\Phi(z,k)=i
e^{izk}\phi_r(z,k)$ respectively $\Phi_i=e^{izk}\phi_r(z,k)$. As in the forward problem, they must satisfy an integral formulation analogous to where the rôle of $k$ and $z$ is reversed. Since $t(k)\in L^r({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)\cap L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$ we have existence and uniqueness for their solution in $L^{{\tilde{r}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$, where ${{\tilde{r}}}^{-1}=r^{-1}-1/2$. Using the equations it is easy to check that $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\overline}{k}}(m_1-m_2)(z,k)&=-t(k)e(z,-k){\overline}{m_1-m_2}(z,k)\\
\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\overline}{k}}(m_1+m_2)(z,k)&=
t(k)e(z,-k){\overline}{m_1+m_2}(z,k).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ By the uniqueness result we must have $$\begin{aligned}
\phi_i(z,k)&=m_1(z,k)+m_2(z,k)\\
\phi_r(z,k)&=m_1(z,k)-m_2(z,k).\nonumber\end{aligned}$$The following equalities show the relation between solutions of the forward and inverse equation. $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi_i&=ie^{izk}\phi_i=
ie^{izk}(m_1+m_2)=\frac{ie^{izk}}{2}(\psi_r+\psi_i)+
\frac{ie^{izk}}{2}e(z,-k)({\overline}{\psi_i}-{\overline}{\psi_r})\\
&=\frac{i}{2}\Psi_r +\frac{1}{2}\Psi_i
-\frac{1}{2}{\overline}{\Psi_i}-\frac{i}{2}{\overline}{\Psi_r}=-\operatorname{Im}{\Psi_r}+i\operatorname{Im}{\Psi_i}.\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, $\Phi_r=\operatorname{Re}{\Psi_r}-i\operatorname{Re}{\Psi_i}$. These prove the identities . Formula is due to a symmetry argument as follows. Starting with $q$ produce $\psi_r$ and $\psi_i$ by solving . Via produce $\phi_r$ and $\phi_i$ and then $t(k)$ as in . Take this $t(k)$ and do now forward scattering starting from the $k$-space, i.e. produce $\Phi_r$ and $\Phi_s$ by solving and via produce $\Psi_r$ and $\Psi_i$. Define a potential $q_1$ using for the $z$-space. In particular we know that for any $k\in{\mathbb{C}}$ we have ${\overline{\partial}}\Psi_r +q{\overline}{\Psi_r}=0$ since we started that way, but also now we have ${\overline{\partial}}\Psi_r
+q_1{\overline}{\Psi_r}=0$. In particular we have $(q(z)-q_1(z)){\overline}{\Psi_r}(z,k)=0$ for all $k\in{\mathbb{C}}$. Hence $q=q_1$.
Reconstructing convection coefficients
======================================
In this section we apply the above scattering method to reconstruction of the convection coefficients $b_1,b_2$ in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{elliptic}
\Delta u(x)+b_1\frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}x}(x)+ b_2(x)\frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}x}(x)=0, x\in {\Omega}\end{aligned}$$ from the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map ${\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}$. Here ${\Omega}\subset{\mathbb{R}}^2$ is a bounded, simply connected domain with Lipschitz boundary.
We assume here that $b_1,b_2\in W^{\epsilon,{{\tilde{p}}}}_c({\Omega})$, ${{\tilde{p}}}>2$ are real valued maps with compact support in ${\Omega}$ and set $b=(b_1+ib_2)/4$.
The following result from Vekua [@vekua] makes the reduction of to a ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation. If $u$ is a solution of then $w={\partial}u$ solves $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dbarlong}
{\overline{\partial}}w(z) + {\overline}{b}(z){\overline}{w}(z) +b(z)w(z) =0.\end{aligned}$$
\[reduction\] Let ${\Omega}$ be simply connected with Lipschitz boundary. If $u\in W^{2,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})$ is a solution of , then $w={\partial}u\in W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})$ is a solution of . Conversely, if $w\in W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})$ is a solution of then there exists an $u\in
W^{2,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})$ solution of and such that ${\partial}u=w$ in ${\Omega}$.
By Sobolev imbedding we have $u\in C^{1+\alpha}({\Omega})$ with $\alpha
=1-1/{{\tilde{p}}}$ and $w\in C^{\alpha}({\Omega})$. As a direct consequence of the Poincaré lemma, notice that if ${\bar{\partial}}w$ is real valued, then $w= {\partial}u$ for some real valued $u$. Indeed $2{\bar{\partial}}w
=({\partial}_x +i{\partial}_y)(f+ig)=({\partial}_x f-{\partial}_y g) +i({\partial}_x g+{\partial}_y
f).$ By assumption ${\partial}_x g = -{\partial}_y f$, from where the one-form $gdy-fdx$ is exact. Therefore, there exists a real valued $F$ such that $dF=(-f)dx +gdy$. We have $w= f +ig ={\partial}_x (-u)
-i{\partial}_y(-u)= {\partial}(-2F)$. The equivalence is now apparent.
Now we extend $b\in W^{{\varepsilon},{{\tilde{p}}}}_c({\Omega})$ by zero outside ${\Omega}$. Its extension denoted also by $b$ preserves regularity $b\in
W^{{\varepsilon},{{\tilde{p}}}}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)$. From now on we shall work with solutions of in the whole plane.
\[Ws\] The equation has unique solutions in the whole plane $W_r(z,k)\sim e^{izk}$ respectively $W_i(z,k)\sim ie^{izk}$ in $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ for large $z$. Moreover, $e^{-izk}W_r-1,e^{-izk}W_i-i\in W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ and $W_r(\cdot,k),W_i(\cdot,k)\in W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$.
As in the proof of theorem 1.1, we look for solutions $W(z,k)=e^{izk}w(z,k)$ with $w-1 \in L^{{\tilde{p}}}$. The equation for $w$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{\partial}}(w(z)-1) + b(z)(w(z)-1) + e(z,-k){\overline}{b}(z)({\overline}{w}(z)-1) =
-b(z)-e(z,-k){\overline}{b}.\end{aligned}$$Using the fact that ${{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}:f\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}_c({\mathbb{R}}^2)\mapsto W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ together with $b$ of compact support we get ${\overline{\partial}}^{-1}
(b\cdot):L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)\to L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ is a compact operator. We apply Fredholm’s alternative in $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ to the equivalent integral equation $$\{[I +{\overline{\partial}}^{-1} [b(\cdot)+e(\cdot,-k){\overline}{b}{\overline}{(\cdot)}]\}(w(z)-1) =
-{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}[b+e(\cdot,-k){\overline}{b}].$$ Uniqueness comes from Liouville’s theorem for the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation with coefficients in $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, see Vekua [@vekua]. By construction we already have that $g=w_r-1\in W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$. Then $W_r(z,k)=e^{izk}(g+1)\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$, ${\partial}W_r=ike^{izk}g(z,k)+ike^{izk} + e^{izk}{\partial}g\in
L^{{\tilde{p}}}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ and ${\overline{\partial}}W_r= e^{izk}{\overline{\partial}}g\in
L^{{\tilde{p}}}_{loc}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$. Similar relations hold for $W_i$.
To simplify notations, let $$\begin{aligned}
\label{new_q}
q(z)={\overline}{b}(z)e^{{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b (z) -{{{\partial}^{-1}}}{\overline}{b}(z)}\end{aligned}$$denote a new potential and notice that if $w$ is a solution of then $v=e^{{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b} w$ is a solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{dbareq}
{\overline{\partial}}v +q{\overline}{v}=0.\end{aligned}$$ Since $b\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ we have that ${{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b\in
L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap C^\frac{r-2}{2}$, see Vekua [@vekua]. Then $e^{-{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}\in L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ and so $q\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap
L^p({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ .
The next theorem relates scattering solutions of to scattering solutions of and gives the behavior in $k$ of $W_r(z,k)$ and $W_i(z,k)$.
\[relation\] Let $b\in W_c^{{\varepsilon},{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, for some ${\varepsilon}>0$. Let $W_r$ and $W_i$ be the scattering solutions for as given by the lemma above, and let $\Psi_r$ and $\Psi_i$ be the scattering solutions of as given by the theorem 1.1. Then $W_r= {e^{-{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}} \Psi_r$, $W_i=e^{-{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}
\Psi_i$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{longKestimate}
\|W_r(z,k)e^{-izk}- e^{-{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}\|_{L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}+
\|W_i(z,k)e^{-izk}-ie^{-{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}\|_{L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\leq C\langle k\rangle^{-{\varepsilon}},\\
\left\|[W_r(z,k)-iW_i(z,k)]e^{-izk}- 2e^{-{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}\right\|_{W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)}\leq C\langle
k\rangle^{-{\varepsilon}}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The fact that $W_r$ and $W_i$ solve is trivial. Uniqueness result of lemma \[Ws\] ensures that they are the scattering solutions of . The estimates follow directly from the estimates for $\psi_r$ and $\psi_i$ in and and from the fact that $e^{-{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}\in L^\infty({\mathbb{R}}^2_z)$ as noticed before. Again, the imbedding $W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2) \subset C^{1-2/{{\tilde{p}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ shows that the estimates hold pointwise in $z\in{\mathbb{C}}$.
We have now all the ingredients necessary for reconstruction. Since $q$ in has compact support in ${\Omega}$, the scattering transform depends only on the traces on ${\partial}{\Omega}$ of the scattering solutions $\Psi_r$ and $\Psi_i$. Let $\nu=\nu_1+i\nu_2$ be the complex-normal to the boundary. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{newScatT}
t(k)&=-\frac{i}{\pi}\int_{{\Omega}}e^{i{\overline}{zk}}{\overline}{q}(z)\left(
\Psi_r(z,k)-i\Psi_i(z,k)\right)d\mu(z)
=\frac{i}{\pi}\int_{{\Omega}}e^{i{\overline}{zk}}\left(
{\partial}{\overline}{\Psi_r}(z,k)-i{\partial}{\overline}{\Psi_i}(z,k)\right)d\mu(z)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{i}{2\pi}\int_{{\partial}{\Omega}}e^{i{\overline}{zk}}{\overline}{\nu}(z)
\left({\overline}{\Psi_r}(z,k)-i{\overline}{\Psi_i}(z,k)\right)d\sigma(z),\end{aligned}$$ The last equality uses the fact that ${\partial}(e^{i{\overline}{zk}})=0$ .
Next we show how to reconstruct traces of $\Psi_r$ and $\Psi_i$ to ${\partial}{\Omega}$ from the Dirichlet to Neumann map ${\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}$. First we reconstruct traces of $W_r$ and $W_i$ to ${\partial}{\Omega}$.
As in Knudsen and Tamasan [@knudsenTamasan], we consider the single layer potential operator ${{{\mathcal S}_k}}:C^\alpha({\partial}{\Omega})\to
C^\alpha({\partial}{\Omega})$, $\alpha=1-2/{{\tilde{p}}}$, defined by $${\overline}{{{{\mathcal S}_k}}} f(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}p.v.\int_{{\partial}{\Omega}}{f(\zeta)}{{\overline}{g_k}(\zeta-z)}d{\overline}{\zeta},\qquad z\in{\partial}{\Omega},$$ where $g_k(z)=e^{-izk}/(\pi z)$ is a Cauchy kernel for ${\overline{\partial}}$ which also takes into account the exponential behavior at infinity. For Lipschitz boundary ${{{\mathcal S}_k}}$ is a bounded operator (e.g. see Muskhelishvili [@musk]). Since $q$ has compact support we have that $W_r$ and $W_i$ are analytic outside ${\Omega}$ and behaves like $e^{izk}$ at infinity. Traces of such functions will satisfy a singular boundary equations involving ${{{\mathcal S}_k}}$. Inside ${\Omega}$ they satisfy a pseudo-analytic equation. This will impose constrains (in terms of ${\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}$) on their trace. We will prove that these two conditions are sufficient to determine the traces.
We notices already that $W_r(\cdot,k), W_i(\cdot,k)\in
C^\alpha({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ with $\alpha=1-2/{{\tilde{p}}}$, whence their traces on ${\partial}{\Omega}$ are in $C^\alpha({\partial}{\Omega})$. Let $$C^\alpha_0({\partial}{\Omega}):=\{h\in C^\alpha({\partial}{\Omega}):\,\,\int_{{\partial}{\Omega}}h(s)ds=0
\}.$$ Define now a right inverse of the tangential vector field ${\partial}_s$ (here $s$ is the arc length) on ${\partial}{\Omega}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial_{s}^{-1}}f(t)=\int_{0}^t f(s)ds,\end{aligned}$$ for $f\in C^\alpha({\partial}{\Omega})$. In the above integral we fixed an arbitrary point on ${\partial}{\Omega}$ from where we measure the arc length counter-clockwise. Notice that ${\partial_{s}^{-1}}: C^\alpha_0({\partial}{\Omega})\to
C^{1+\alpha}({\partial}{\Omega})$ is a well defined (independent of the reference point) bounded operator. The following result defines a Hilbert transform for the pseudo-analytic maps.
${{\cal H}}_b\equiv-{\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}{\partial_{s}^{-1}}:C^\alpha_0({\partial}{\Omega})\to
C^{\alpha}({\partial}{\Omega})$ is a bounded operator.
Let $g={\partial_{s}^{-1}}f\in C^{\alpha+1}({\partial}{\Omega})\subset W^{2-1/{{\tilde{p}}},{{\tilde{p}}}}$. Classical theory of PDE (e.g. see Gilbarg and Trudinger [@gilbarg]) gives that the boundary value problem $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta u(x)+b_1\frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}x}(x)+ b_2(x)\frac{{\partial}u}{{\partial}x}(x)=0,\,\,\, x\in {\Omega}\\
&u|_{{\partial}{\Omega}}(x)=g(x),\,\,\, x\in{\partial}{\Omega}\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ has a unique solution up to a constant in $W^{2,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})$ and $||u||_{W^{2,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})}\leq
C||g||_{W^{2-1/{{\tilde{p}}},{{\tilde{p}}}}({\partial}{\Omega})}$. Using the mapping properties of the Dirichlet to Neumann map we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|{{\cal H}}_b f\|_{C^\alpha({\partial}{\Omega})}&\leq\|{\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}g\|_{W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\partial}{\Omega})}\leq\|\nabla u\|_{W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})}\leq
||u||_{W^{2,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})}\\
&\leq C||g||_{W^{2-1/{{\tilde{p}}},{{\tilde{p}}}}({\partial}{\Omega})}\leq
C||g||_{C^{1+\alpha}({\partial}{\Omega})}\leq C\|f\|_{C^\alpha({\partial}{\Omega})}.\end{aligned}$$
Next we show that ${{\cal H}}_b$ reconstructs traces of the exponentially growing solutions on ${\partial}{\Omega}$.
Let $b\in W_c^{{\varepsilon},{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})$. Consider the class of functions $${\cal B}=\{h\in
C^\alpha({\partial}{\Omega}):\operatorname{Im}(\nu h)\in C^\alpha_0({\partial}{\Omega})\}.$$ Then, for each $k\in {\mathbb{C}}$ arbitrarily fixed, the traces $h_r=W_r(\cdot,k)|_{{\partial}{\Omega}}.$, respectively $h_i=W_i(\cdot,k)|_{{\partial}{\Omega}}$ are the unique solution in ${\cal
B}$ of the systems $$\begin{aligned}
&(I-i{{{{\mathcal S}_k}}})h_r(z)=2e^{izk},\qquad z\in{\partial}{\Omega},\label{outside}\\
&{\cal H}_b(\operatorname{Im}(\nu h_r))(z)=\operatorname{Re}(\nu h_r)(z),\qquad
z\in{\partial}{\Omega},\label{inside}\end{aligned}$$respectively, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&(I-i{{{{\mathcal S}_k}}})h_i(z)= 2ie^{izk},\qquad z\in{\partial}{\Omega},\\
&{\cal H}_b(\operatorname{Im}(\nu h_i))(z)=\operatorname{Re}(\nu h_i)(z),\qquad
z\in{\partial}{\Omega}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
We argue only for $W_r$, the arguments for $W_i$ are similar.
We prove first the necessity. The arguments for are identical to the ones in [@knudsenTamasan] reason for which we only sketch them here. Fix $k\in {\mathbb{C}}$ and suppress the $k$ dependence, we have $W_r(\cdot) = W_r(\cdot,k)$ is analytic outside ${\Omega}$ and $e^{-izk} W_r-1\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{C}}-{\Omega})$. The Green-Gauss formula for $z\in{\mathbb{C}}-{\Omega}$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
\label{outcont}
e^{-izk} W_r(z)-1=-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\partial}{\Omega}}\frac{e^{-i\zeta
k}W_r(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}d\zeta.\end{aligned}$$ Now let $z$ approach (from the exterior) a boundary point $z_0$ and use Plemelj formula (see Muskhelishvili [@musk]). $$\lim_{z\to z_0}\frac{1}{2\pi
i}\int_{{\partial}{\Omega}}\frac{f(\zeta)d\zeta}{\zeta-z}=-\frac{1}{2}f(z_0)+
\frac{1}{2\pi i}p.v.\int_{{\partial}{\Omega}}\frac{d\zeta}{\zeta-z_0}$$ to get .
Next we prove the necessity of . Recall from lemma \[Ws\] that $W_r(z)={\partial}u(z)$ for some $u\in W^{2,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})$ which solve the equation . Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
h_r=W_r|_{{\partial}{\Omega}}=\frac{1}{2}({\partial}_x +i{\partial}_y)u|_{{\partial}{\Omega}}.\end{aligned}$$ For $z\in{\partial}{\Omega}$ let $(\nu_1(z),\nu_2(z))$ be the unit outer normal, we also let $\nu(z)=\nu_1(z)+i\nu_2(z)$. Next we express the partial derivatives for points on the boundary in terms of the tangent ${\partial}_s$ and the normal ${\partial}_\nu$ derivatives $$\begin{aligned}
\nabla u(x)=
\begin{pmatrix}
-\nu_2&\nu_1\\
\nu_1&\nu_2
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
{\partial}_s u\\
{\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}u
\end{pmatrix},\end{aligned}$$ where we recall ${\partial}_\nu u={\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}u$. Therefore $2h_r=({\partial}_x -i{\partial}_y)u=-i{\overline}{\nu}{\partial}_s u
+{\overline}{\nu}{\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}u$, or, using $\nu{\overline}{\nu}=1$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{brelation}
2\nu h_r={\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}u -i{\partial}_s u.\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\operatorname{Im}(\nu h_r)=-{\partial}_su/2$ and thus $h_r\in {\cal B}$ and ${\partial_{s}^{-1}}(\operatorname{Im}(\nu h_r))$ makes perfect sense. Identifying the real part in gives . Notice not only that we proved necessity but also we provided existence of solutions for and .
Conversely, let $h\in{\cal B}$ be a solution of the system and . We extend $h$ inside ${\Omega}$ by the following procedure. Inspired by define $g=-{\partial_{s}^{-1}}\operatorname{Im}(2\nu h)\in C^{\alpha}({\partial}{\Omega})$ then uniquely solve the boundary value problem for $u\in
W^{2,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})$. Notice $g$ is real valued hence $u$ has also real values. Define $W_r(z) ={\partial}u(z)$ inside ${\Omega}$ and notice that ${\partial}u|_{{\partial}{\Omega}}\in C^\alpha({\partial}{\Omega})$. Now check that ${\partial}u|_{{\partial}{\Omega}} =h$. Indeed, as before,$ 2{\partial}u=-i{\overline}{\nu}{\partial}_s u
+{\overline}{\nu}{\Lambda_{b_1,b_2}}u= i{\overline}{\nu}\operatorname{Im}(2\nu h)+{\overline}{\nu}\operatorname{Re}(2\nu h)$. The last equality used the fact that $h$ is a solution of . Multiplication by $\nu$ gives ${\partial}u= h$.
Inspired by define $W_r$ analytically outside ${\Omega}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
W_r(z)=e^{izk}-\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{{\partial}{\Omega}}\frac{e^{-i(\zeta-z)
k}h(\zeta)d\zeta}{\zeta-z}\,\,\, z\in {\mathbb{C}}-{\Omega}.\end{aligned}$$ The fact that $h$ solves implies that $\lim_{z\to
z_0\in{\partial}{\Omega}} W_r(z)=h(z_0)$. Thus $W_r$ is an outside continuous extension of $h$. Moreover, $e^{-izk} W_r-1 = O(1/z)$ for $z$ large, hence $W_r\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{C}}-{\Omega})$.
We produced a continuous map in ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ which solves both inside and outside ${\Omega}$ and behaves like $e^{izk}$ for $z$ large. We need to check that it solves the equation across the boundary. Since $b$ has compact support inside ${\Omega}$ we have that $W_r$ is in fact analytic in both sides of the boundary and continuous across. Morera’s theorem asserts that $W_r$ must be in fact analytic across. Therefore $W_r$ solves in the whole plane and has the right behavior at infinity. Uniqueness in lemma \[Ws\] concludes the proof.
Immediate consequence to the proposition \[relation\] and to the pointwise estimates we can determine the traces on ${\partial}{\Omega}$ of $\Psi_r$ and $\Psi_i$. Moreover by formula we determine the scattering transform.
\[recon\_t\] Under the assumptions of the proposition \[relation\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{einvb}
e^{-{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}(z)= \lim_{k\to\infty}W_r(z,k),\qquad z\in{\partial}{\Omega}.\end{aligned}$$ and for any $k\in{\mathbb{C}}$ we recover $$\begin{aligned}
&\Psi_r(z,k)=e^{{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}(z)W_r(z,k),\qquad z\in{\partial}{\Omega},\\
&\Psi_i(z,k)=e^{{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}(z)W_i(z,k),\qquad z\in{\partial}{\Omega}.\end{aligned}$$Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
t(k)=\frac{i}{2\pi}\int_{{\partial}{\Omega}}e^{i{\overline}{zk}}{\overline}{\nu}(z)
\left({\overline}{\Psi_r}(z,k)-i{\overline}{\Psi_i}(z,k)\right)d\sigma(z),\end{aligned}$$is a function in $L^r({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap L^{{{\tilde{r}}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)\cap
L^{r'}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ for some $r<2$, ${{\tilde{r}}}^{-1}=r^{-1}-1/2$ and $r^{-1}+r'^{-1}=1$.
Now we use the inverse scattering method of theorem 1.2 to reconstruct $q$.
Let $\Phi_r\sim e^{izk}$ and $\Phi_i\sim
ie^{izk}$ in $L^{{\tilde{p}}}$ for large $k\in{\mathbb{C}}$ be the unique solutions $$\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}{\overline}{k}}(k)+t(k){\overline}{\Phi}(k)=0,\,\, k\in {\mathbb{C}}.$$Then $$\begin{aligned}
q(z)=-\frac{i}{\pi}\int_{{\mathbb{R}}^2}e^{i{\overline}{zk}}{\overline}{t}(k)\left(
\Phi_r(z,k)-i\Phi_i(z,k)\right)d\mu(k).\end{aligned}$$
Knowing $q$ we also know $|b|$ since from we have $|q|=|b|$. Next we show how to determine its argument by solving to recover $b$.
The following result is due to Cheng and Yamamoto [@chengYamamoto98]. For the sake of completeness we sketch its proof.
If $q\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\Omega})$ then there exist at most one solution $b\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\Omega})$ of the equation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{recon_q}
{\overline}{b}(z)e^{{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b (z) -{{{\partial}^{-1}}}{\overline}{b}(z)}=q(z),\,\, z\in {\Omega}.\end{aligned}$$
Assume there are two solutions $b_1,b_2\in L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\Omega})$ and let $d={{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}(b_2-b_1)\in W^{1,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})\subset H^1({\Omega})$.
From we have $d=0$ on ${\partial}{\Omega}$. Hence $d\in
H^{1}_0({\Omega})$. Since both solve we have ${\overline}{b_1}(z)={\overline}{b_2}(z)e^{d(z)-{\overline}{d}(z)}$, from where $$\begin{aligned}
|{\overline{\partial}}d|=|b_2|\cdot|e^{d(z)-{\overline}{d}(z)}-1|=|q|\cdot
|e^{d(z)-{\overline}{d}(z)}-1|\leq |q|\cdot|d-{\overline}{d}|\leq 2|q||d|.\end{aligned}$$
By Carleman estimates for $d\in H^1({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ of compact support (see Hörmander [@hormander], Prop. 17.2.3) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{{\Omega}}\Delta\varphi|d|^2e^{2\varphi}dx\leq 4\int_{{\Omega}}|{\overline{\partial}}d|^2e^{2\varphi}dx,\end{aligned}$$for some strictly convex function $\varphi\in
C^2({\Omega})$. Approximate a $\varphi\in H^{2,{{\tilde{p}}}}({\Omega})$ solution of $\Delta \varphi=17|q|^2$ in $L^2({\Omega})$ by a smooth sequence $\varphi_n\to\varphi$ uniformly on ${\overline}{{\Omega}}$. Then $$\int_{{\Omega}}\Delta\varphi_n|d|^2e^{2\varphi_n}dx\leq 16\int_{{\Omega}}|q|^2|d|^2e^{2\varphi_n}dx.$$ For $n$ sufficiently large the reverse inequality holds. Hence $d=0$ and $b_1=b_2$.
We are left to find the unique solution of .
Let $v\in 1+ L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ be the unique solution of $$\begin{aligned}
{\overline{\partial}}v ={\overline}{qv}\end{aligned}$$ then $v$ vanishes on a set of measure zero. Define $b={\overline}{q}{\overline}{v}/v$ on the set where $v$ does not vanish, else we can set $b=q$. Then $b$ is the unique solution of in $L^{{\tilde{p}}}({\Omega})$.
Existence and uniqueness of $v$ follows from the Fredholm alternative as before. It is known from Vekua [@vekua] that the set of zeroes of pseudo-analytic functions has measure zero . Since ${\overline}{bv}=qv$ we have that $v$ also solves ${\overline{\partial}}v= bv$ in the whole plane. Equivalently ${\overline{\partial}}(e^{-{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}v)=0$. Thus $e^{-{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}v$ is analytic and also goes to $1$ as $|z|\to\infty$. By Liouville’s theorem we have $v=e^{{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}$. From its definition we have $$b= {\overline}{q}e^{-{\partial}^{-1}{\overline}{b} +{{{\overline{\partial}}^{-1}}}b}.$$
Concluding Remarks
==================
In order to solve the inverse problem one finds first the traces of the exponentially behaving solutions. It is easy to show that any solution of outside a disk can be represented as a series $$W(z,k)=e^{izk}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{a_n}{z^n},$$ with $a_n$’s unknown coefficients. We determine them by solving the singular boundary integral equations . This step is severely ill posed and regularization techniques are necessary, truncation in the above series helps, see Knudsen [@kim] for further ideas of regularization. Moreover, there is only a logarithmic type stability, see Barcelo et. al. in [@bbr].
The second step consists in constructing the scattering transform $t(k)$ via the formulae of corollary \[recon\_t\]. Next we solve the weakly singular integral equations in the $k$-space. This part is stable. It is here that we need the $\epsilon$-extra regularity. One needs $t\in L^r({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$ for some $r<2$ in order to solve . If $q$ is only in $L^{{\tilde{p}}}_c$ then $t\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ (according to Sung [@sung2] as corrected by Brown and Uhlmann [@brownUhlmann]) and this suffices for uniqueness. This would recover the uniqueness result of Cheng and Yamamoto. It is not clear how to find solutions of when $t\in L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$.
Reconstruct $q$ from the formula . Notice that we have estimates of decay in $k$ for $t\in L^r ({\mathbb{R}}^2_k)$ as well as for $e^{-izk}(\Phi_r -i\Phi_i)-2$ as given in . These can lead to estimates of the truncation error in the integral in .
One of the questions in [@uhlmann] concerned the characterization of traces of exponentially behaving solutions in the first order system in ${\Omega}$: ${\overline{\partial}}v=q w$ and ${\partial}w={\overline}{q}v$. A partial answer was given by Knudsen and the author in [@knudsenTamasan] for $q$ of the special form $q={\partial}f$ with $f$ real valued. We can give now the answer for a general $q$. Note that $v\pm{\overline}{w}$ solves the ${\overline{\partial}}$-equation ${\overline{\partial}}u
+q{\overline}{u}=0$, and that we characterized the traces on the boundary of such solutions in terms of a Hilbert transform.
[**Acknowledgement**]{}
I would like to thank Professor A. Nachman for his generous sharing of ideas in the inverse scattering theory, and the organizers, Professors J. McLaughlin and H. Engl, for the invitation in the special semester on Inverse Problems at IPAM-UCLA.
[99]{} J. A. Barceló, T. Barceló and A. Ruiz 2001 [Stability for the conductivity equation in the plane for less regular conductivities]{}, *J. Differential Equations*, **173** 231 – 270
R. Beals and R. R. Coifman, 1988 [The spectral problem for the Davey-Stewartson and Ishimori hierarchies]{}, *Nonlinear evolution equations: Integrability and spectral methods*, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 15–23
R. M. Brown and G. Uhlmann, 1996 [Uniqueness in the inverse conductivity problem with less regular conductivities in two dimensions]{}, *Private notes*
R. M. Brown and G. Uhlmann, 1997 [Uniqueness in the inverse conductivity problem for nonsmooth conductivities in two dimensions]{}, *Comm. Partial Differential Equations* **22** 1009–1027
J. Cheng and M. Yamamoto 1998 Unique Determination of two convection coefficients from Dirichlet to Neumann map, University of Tokyo preprint UTMS 98-31, to appear in *SIAM J. Math. Anal.*
J. Cheng and M. Yamamoto 2000 [The global uniqueness for determining two convection coefficients from Dirichlet to Neumann map in two dimensions]{} *Inverse Problems* **16** L25–L35
C.Tong J. Cheng and M. Yamamoto 2004 [Reconstruction of convection coefficients of an elliptic equation in the plane by the Dirichlet to Neumann map]{}, electronic preprint *arxiv.org*
R. R. Coifman and Y. Meyer 1978 *Au delà des opérateurs pseudodifférentiels*, Astérisque **57**, Société Mathématique de France, Paris
D. Gilbarg and N. Trudinger 1983 *Elliptic partial differential equations of second order*, Springer-Verlag, Berlin
G. M. Henkin and R. G. Novikov 1987 [${\overline{\partial}}$-equation in the multidimensional inverse scattering problem]{}, *Russian Math. Surveys* **42** 109–180
L. Hörmander 1985 *The Analysis of Linear Partial Differential Operators*, vol 3, Springer
K. Knudsen and A. Tamasan 2001 [Reconstruction of less regular conductivities in the plane]{}, MSRI preprint 2001-035.
K. Knudsen and A. Tamasan 2003 [Reconstruction of less regular conductivities in the plane]{}, MaPhySto preprint 1398-2699, in print in *Comm. Partial Differential Equations* **29**
K. Knudsen 2003[A new direct method for reconstructing isotropic conductivities in the plane]{}, *Physiol. Meas.* **24** 391–401
M. I. Muskhelishvili 1953 *Singular integral equations. Boundary problems of function theory and their application to mathematical physics*, P. Noordhoff N. V., Groningen
A. I. Nachman, M. J. Ablowitz 1984 A multidimensional inverse-scattering method, *Stud. Appl. Math.* **71** 243–250 and 251–262.
A. I. Nachman 1988 Reconstructions from boundary measurements *Ann. of Math.* **128** 531–576
A. I. Nachman 1996 [Global uniqueness for a two-dimensional inverse boundary value problem]{}, *Ann. of Math.* **143** 71–96
L. Nirenberg and H. F. Walker 1973 The null spaces of elliptic partial differential operators in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$ *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **42** 271–301.
E. M. Stein 1970 *Singular integrals and differentiability properties of functions*, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
J. Sylvester and G. Uhlmann 1987 [A global uniqueness theorem for an inverse boundary value problem]{}, *Ann. of Math.* **125** 153–169
L. Sung 1994 An inverse scattering transform for the [D]{}avey-[S]{}tewartson [I]{}[I]{} equations. [I]{} *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **183** 121–154
L. Sung 1994 An inverse scattering transform for the [D]{}avey-[S]{}tewartson [I]{}[I]{} equations. [I]{}[I]{}, *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **183** 289–325
L. Sung 1994 An inverse scattering transform for the [D]{}avey-[S]{}tewartson [I]{}[I]{} equations. III *J. Math. Anal. Appl.* **183** 477–494
G. Uhlmann 2003 Inverse Boundary Problems in two Dimensions *Function Spaces, Differential Operators and Nonlinear Analysis- The Hans Triebel Anniversary Volume*, eds. D. Haroske et al. Birkhäuser, Basel-Boston-Berlin 183 – 203
I.N. Vekua 1962 *Generalized analytic functions*, Pergamon Press, London
[^1]: This work was done during the author’s visit at IPAM-UCLA in the Fall 2003
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Recently, Gauza et al. (2015) reported the discovery of a companion to the late M-dwarf, VHS J125601.92-125723.9 (VHS 1256-1257). The companion’s absolute photometry suggests its mass and atmosphere are similar to the HR 8799 planets. However, as a wide companion to a late-type star, it is more accessible to spectroscopic characterization. We discovered that the primary of this system is an equal-magnitude binary. For an age $\sim300$ Myr the A and B components each have a mass of $64.6^{+0.8}_{-2.0}~M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$, and the b component has a mass of $11.2^{+9.7}_{-1.8}$, making VHS 1256-1257 only the third brown dwarf triple system. There exists some tension between the spectrophotometric distance of $17.2\pm2.6$ pc and the parallax distance of $12.7\pm1.0$ pc. At 12.7 pc VHS 1256-1257 A and B would be the faintest known M7.5 objects, and are even faint outliers among M8 types. If the larger spectrophotmetric distance is more accurate than the parallax, then the mass of each component increases. In particular, the mass of the b component increases well above the deuterium burning limit to $\sim35~M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$ and the mass of each binary component increases to $73^{+20}_{-17}~M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$. At 17.1 pc, the UVW kinematics of the system are consistent with membership in the AB Dor moving group. The architecture of the system resembles a hierarchical stellar multiple suggesting it formed via an extension of the star-formation process to low masses. Continued astrometric monitoring will resolve this distance uncertainty and will provide dynamical masses for a new benchmark system.'
author:
- 'Jordan M. Stone'
- 'Andrew J. Skemer'
- 'Kaitlin M. Kratter'
- 'Trent J. Dupuy'
- 'Laird M. Close'
- 'Josh A. Eisner'
- 'Jonathan J. Fortney'
- 'Philip M. Hinz'
- 'Jared R. Males'
- 'Caroline V. Morley'
- 'Katie M. Morzinski'
- 'Kimberly Ward-Duong'
title: 'Adaptive Optics imaging of VHS 1256-1257: A Low Mass Companion to a Brown Dwarf Binary System'
---
Introduction
============
Brown dwarfs in the field follow a tight sequence in near-infrared color magnitude diagrams [e.g., @Dupuy12]. At the hottest and most massive end, M-type dwarfs transition to L-type dwarfs as they cool. L-dwarfs are characterized by red color and thick clouds with CO as the dominant carrier of atmospheric carbon. At $T_{\mathrm{eff}}\sim1300~\mathrm{K}$, the L-dwarfs undergo a dramatic transition to T-type, becoming relatively cloud free, bluer, and methane dominated.
In the last few years, a growing population of objects at effective temperatures where field brown dwarfs are seen to be T-type, are instead observed to be L-type, suggesting an extension of the L-dwarf sequence to low temperature (Figure \[cmd\]). These objects include the four directly imaged planets in the HR 8799 system [@Marois08; @Marois10], the planetary mass binary companion 2MASS 1207 b [@Chauvin04], and free floating brown dwarfs such as the planetary mass PSO J318.5-22 [@Liu13]. The common characteristic of these objects is low gravity due to low mass and young age.
A recently discovered companion, VHS J125601.92-125723.9 b [hereafter VHS 1256-1257 b, $d=12.7~\mathrm{pc}$, $M\sim11M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$, age 150–300 Myr; @Gauza15], is thought to be one of the most extreme members of the extension to the L-dwarf sequence (Figure \[cmd\]). It appears in many ways to be an analogue of HR 8799 b, the faintest and least massive planet in the HR 8799 system. This discovery is significant because VHS 1256-1257 b is substantially easier to observe than HR 8799 b as it orbits a fainter host at larger separation. This means that more precise measurements can be made with a wider array of instruments because issues with high contrast are alleviated.
The variety of objects that occupy the extended L-dwarf region in color-magnitude diagrams suggests that distinguishing planets, which form via accumulation of material in a circumstellar disk [e.g., @Sallum15], from brown dwarfs, which form as an extension of the star-formation process to low masses [e.g., @Chabrier14], requires some care; additional constraints such as compositional differences [e.g., @Skemer15], or system architecture [e.g., @Lodato05] must be incorporated into the analysis.
In this letter we present evidence that the host of VHS 1256-1257 b is actually a $0.1''$ equal-mass brown dwarf binary system and discuss the implications for the nature of this system[^1].
Observations and Results {#ObsSec}
=========================
MagAO/Clio2 L’
--------------
On 2015 June 4 UT, we imaged the VHS 1256-1257 system (all components simultaneously) with MagAO/Clio2 [@Sivanandam06; @Hinz10; @Close13] as part of a campaign to characterize the atmospheres of low-gravity cool companions to nearby stars. The PSF of the primary appeared extended compared to brighter point-sources observed the same night.
Our images were obtained as acquisition images for a spectroscopic observation, so they were not optimized for highest spatial resolution. We observed in coarse platescale mode [$27.477\pm0.085$ mas pixels$^{-1}$; @Morzinski15] through the L’ filter. We used 0.28 s integrations to keep the bright sky emission in the linear range of the detector. Files were written with five coadded frames each. We nodded the telescope in an AB pattern, saving ten files per position. From each of the ten images per nod, we subtracted the median of the ten frames from the opposite nod position. This corrects for the bright sky emission, dark current, and the detector bias.
We measured the flux ratio, separation, and position angle of the marginally-resolved binary components in each of our images by fitting a two-component model created using an image of HIP 57173 —an unresolved star— as a template PSF. Our fitting procedure optimized 6-parameters including an amplitude and an $(x,y)$ position for each source. The best-fit model gave a magnitude difference of $0.07\pm0.03$ a separation of $109\pm1.8$ milliarcseconds and a PA of $173\fdg3\pm0\fdg9$. Errorbars were derived by bootstrapping the final stack of background subtracted images. All of our deduced binary parameters are reported in Table \[table\]. Our final stacked image is shown in Figure \[binaryFig\].
Keck NIRC2 J, H, Ks
-------------------
To confirm the binary nature of VHS 1256-1257 AB we conducted follow-up imaging with a larger aperture and at shorter wavelengths to achieve better spatial resolution. We used natural-guidestar adaptive optics [@Wizinowich00] and the NIRC2 instrument on the Keck II telescope on 2015 November 29 UT. Data were collected through the J, H, and Ks filters, and the camera was set up in the 9 mas pixel$^{-1}$ mode. We used a three-point dither pattern in order to track variable sky background. Files were saved using three coadds of five second exposures. We obtained a total of 45 s of open shutter time per filter.
We reduced and analyzed our NIRC2 images in the same fashion as in previous work [e.g., see @Dupuy2009; @Dupuy2015c]. For each individual image, we applied standard calibrations (dark subtraction, flat fielding) and then fit an analytic, three-component Gaussian model to both objects simultaneously. To convert the raw $(x,y)$ coordinates from these fits to separation and position angle (PA) on the sky, we applied the nonlinear distortion solution of [@Yelda2010] and their corresponding pixel scale of $9.952\pm0.002$maspixel$^{-1}$ and NIRC2 header orientation correction of $+0\fdg252\pm0\fdg009$. In Table \[table\] we report the mean and rms of the binary parameters we derived from our individual images. The separation measurements across $JHK_S$ bands are in good agreement within the quoted uncertainties, but the PA values do not agree within their much smaller quoted uncertainties. Since the binary components have nearly identical fluxes and colors, this is unlikely to be due to a chromatic effect, but it could be caused by recent changes to the nonlinear distortion of NIRC2 (J. Lu, 2015 private communication). We therefore adopt the mean and rms of the separations and PAs determined across $JHK_S$ bands as the final values, $123.6\pm0.4$mas and $170\fdg2\pm0\fdg6$, respectively.
We also briefly observed the outer tertiary component, VHS 1256-1257 b. We obtained three frames in three separate nod positions— one of which contained all three components at the same time. An exposure of 60 seconds was collected for each nod. We reduced these images as explained above. The object appears single down to our sensitivity. We see no equal magnitude component down to $\sim70$ mas and no component 1 magnitude fainter down to $\sim100$ mas. We cannot rule out companions more than 2 magnitudes fainter than VHS 1256-1257 b.
Ruling Out the Background Hypothesis
------------------------------------
To confirm that the binary components are physically related and not the result of a chance alignment, we inspected 2MASS images from 1999 March 1 UT. We see no source at the present-day location of VHS 1256-1257 AB, and no sources with the correct magnitude within 2 arcminutes. Given the high proper motion of the system ($\sim300$ mas yr$^{-1}$) this strongly suggests the pair is a common proper motion binary and is physically bound.
[llllllll]{} 2015 Nov 29 & J & $0.05\pm0.04 $ & $123.1\pm1.0$ & $170.8\pm0.2$ & $11.76\pm0.05$ & $11.78\pm0.05$ & $16.8\pm2.4$\
2015 Nov 29 & H & $0.04\pm0.02$ & $123.8\pm0.4$ & $170.1\pm0.1$ & $11.21\pm0.05$ & $11.24\pm0.05$ & $17.4\pm2.6$\
2015 Nov 29 & Ks & $0.04\pm0.03$ & $123.9\pm0.5$ & $169.6\pm0.1$ & $10.79\pm0.04$ & $10.81\pm0.04$ & $17.2\pm2.6$\
2015 Jun 03 & L’ & $0.07\pm0.03 $ & $109.4 \pm 0.9$ & $173.3 \pm0.9$ &&&\
\[table\]
Discussion and Analysis {#DiscSec}
=======================
Distance and Luminosity
-----------------------
@Gauza15 report a parallax distance to VHS 1256-1257 of $12.7\pm1$ pc using $\sim9$ months of astrometric monitoring data —collected in a variety of filters— together with a 2MASS point. This distance was consistent with the spectrophotometric distance of the central source, given the spectroscopically determined type of M7.5$\pm$0.5 [@Gauza15], assuming that it was a single star with typical absolute magnitude [averages taken for field objects from @Dupuy12]. However, the fact that the source is an equal magnitude binary, not a single star, requires a reexamination of the spectrophotometric distance. An equal magnitude binary will be 0.75 magnitudes brighter and the derived spectrophotometric distance will scale by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$. In Table \[table\], we show the implied spectrophotometric distance of VHS 1256-1257 from the apparent magnitudes of the resolved components. We use the average and rms scatter for M7.5 spectral type objects with precise parallax measurements from @Dupuy12. The distances derived from each band are consistent with each other and suggest that the system is located at $\sim17.1\pm2.5$ pc, with the uncertainty dominated by the rms variation in absolute magnitude of the population.
In this case, the distance modulus to VHS 1256-1257 increases by 0.66 mags and components move up in color magnitude-diagrams. In particular, the planetary mass companion would appear more like the hotter, more-massive HR 8799 d than HR 8799 b (Figure \[cmd\]). Furthermore, a higher luminosity for VHS 1256-1257 b also implies a higher mass —up to $35~M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$ [for 300 Myr, $M_{Ks}=13.38$; @Baraffe15]— placing it above the deuterium burning limit.
The UVW kinematics of the system also change if it is located at 17.1 pc. While @Gauza15 show that the UVW velocities of VHS 1256-1257 are consistent with the $\beta$ Pic moving group, they argue that it cannot be a member due to the lack of lithium and the much older age. We made use of BANYAN II tool [@Malo2013; @Gagne2014] to determine the probability that the system is a member of nearby moving groups. We indicated that VHS 1256-1257 is less than 1 Gyr old based on the very-low gravity designation of the b component. At a distance of 17.1 pc the BANYAN II predicts membership in the older AB Dor moving group with 66.85% probability, membership in the young field population with a 32.52% probability, and membership in the $\beta$ Pic moving group of 0.48%.
This scenario requires the parallax for the system to be less precise than reported, possibly due to the inhomogeneous nature of the astrometric data and the small number of epochs used to disentangle the parallax motion from the proper motion. Alternatively, the parallax distance is correct and the absolute magnitude of the binary components are intrinsically quite low.
In Figure \[primarycmd\], we show the average and rms spread in absolute H-band magnitude and H-Ks color for late-M field brown dwarfs [data from @Dupuy12]. VHS 1256-1257 A and B lie well below the average M7.5 point by more than 2 $\sigma$. The uncertainty in the spectral type of the VHS 1256-1257 A and B does accommodate a fainter M8 spectral type. Even for this spectral type the binary components are less luminous than expected, yet are near the edge of the rms scatter in the well characterized field population. At Ks band, if the system is at 12.7 pc, VHS 1256-1257 A and B are the least luminous M7.5 objects known with M$_{\mathrm{Ks}}=10.26\pm0.18$. GRH 2208-20, an M7.5 object, has M$_{\mathrm{Ks}}=10.11\pm0.06$, all other M7.5 sources with precise parallax have M$_{\mathrm{Ks}}<10$ [@Dupuy12]. Even among M8 types, at 12.7 pc VHS 1256-1257 A and B are faint. The only other M8 with an absolute K-band luminosity greater than 10 is LHS 2397a A (M$_{\mathrm{Ks}}=10.13\pm0.07$).
Such low luminosities are odd given age constraints inferred from the INT-G and VL-G gravity designations given to the unresolved binary and the companion [age $<500$ Myr; @Gauza15]. Young low-gravity objects are expected to be more luminous than field objects based on theoretical evolution models and observations of young populations [e.g., @Casewell07; @Baraffe15]. However, the number of well characterized INT-G M7-8 objects with which to compare our measured absolute magnitudes is small, making it difficult to rule out the low-luminosity explanation.
Mass and Orbital Period
-----------------------
If the parallax distance is correct, then the mass of the binary components need to be updated. Using the evolutionary models of @Chabrier2000 we construct a plot of age versus mass at constant luminosity (Figure \[newMass\]). We assume a luminosity for each source of $log(\frac{L}{L_{\odot}})=-3.44\pm0.1$, half that reported by @Gauza15. Since the objects have no detectable lithium [@Gauza15], we indicate in Figure \[newMass\] those models which have less than 10% of the primordial lithium abundance by coloring them blue. The minimum mass for each of the binary components is $64.6^{+0.8}_{-2.0}~M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$ and the corresponding minimum age is $280^{+40}_{-50}$ Myr.
Using our new mass estimate, we can calculate an orbital period for VHS 1256-1257 A and B. To do this, we take the projected separation measured in our discovery image and correct it using the projected separation–semi-major axis correction factor for a moderate discovery bias (due to the close separation of the binary) taken from @Dupuy11. We find an orbital period of $5.87\pm2.7$ yr. If the system is located at 17.1 pc, as suggested by the photometry of the components, then the period changes because the projected separation increases as does the mass of each component. In this case, the orbital period is $8.7\pm4.3$ yr. Given these orbital periods and our observation of $\lesssim3^{\circ}$ of change in the PA of the binary components, the binary orbit cannot be face-on and circular.
Formation and Dynamical Evolution
---------------------------------
We have shown that VHS 1256-1257 consists of three brown dwarf objects organized into a hierarchical triple system, the A and B components being orbited by the more distant b component. Only two other brown dwarf triples appear in the literature, 2MASS J08381155+1511155 [composed of three T-dwarfs; @Radigan2013], and DENIS-P J020529.0-115925 [marginally resolved late-L and early T components; @Bouy2005]. Neither includes M-type objects nor a planetary mass component. 2M0441+2301 AabBab [@Todorov2010; @Bowler2015] includes three substellar components including one below the deuterium burning limit, yet the system also includes a stellar component and the hierarchical quadruple architecture is much different from VHS 1256-1257. VHS 1256-1257 shares many characteristics with 2MASS J01033563-5515561(AB)b, a hierarchical triple with a planetary mass companion orbiting a binary composed of M6-type stars [@Delorme13]. However, VHS 1256-1257 is closer, older, and less massive.
The hierarchical-triple orbital configuration of VHS 1256-1257 suggests that the system is more akin to a low mass analog of a stellar multiple, rather than a planetary system with a planet on a wide orbit. Models for turbulent fragmentation suggest that isolated objects may form at masses more than a factor of two below VHS 1256-1257 b [@Hennebelle:2008]. The separation of VHS 1256-1257 AB is consistent with the sample of brown dwarf binaries observed by @Close03 and @Dupuy:2011, who showed that low mass binaries typically have smaller semi-major axes than their stellar counterparts. These scaled down separations are expected if brown dwarfs form as a low mass tail of the turbulent core fragmentation process [@Jumper:2013]. The presence of a high mass ratio ($\sim$10%) tertiary at relatively wide separations is similarly consistent with low mass star formation [@Reipurth:2001; @OKMKK10; @Bate:2012]. If the three objects formed from the same filament, the objects could have undergone early dynamical interactions which naturally tighten one orbit in exchange for softening the outer most orbit [@Heggie:1975; @Reipurth15]. We suggest early dynamical interactions are the most likely origin for the orbital configuration due to low stellar densities in the solar neighborhood. Although mutual inclination between the two orbits could induce Kozai-Lidov oscillation on Myr timescales, the inner orbit is too wide to undergo significant tidal evolution over the lifetime of the system [@Fabrycky:2007].
Conclusion
==========
We have revealed that the host of VHS 1256-1257 b is actually an equal-mass brown dwarf binary, making VHS 1156-1257 the third triple system known with exclusively substellar components. There is some tension between the parallax distance and the spectrophotometric distance to the system. This implies that either the system is more distant than reported, and the planetary mass companion more massive ($\sim35~M_{\mathrm{Jup}}$ for an age of 300 Myr) or the components are less luminous than expected based on their age and spectral type. The architecture of this system is consistent with outcomes from normal low-mass star formation. Continued astrometric monitoring of this system will resolve the tension between the luminosity and parallax distances, and enable dynamical mass measurements for the components, providing important benchmarks for these low-gravity objects.
[41]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, I., [Homeier]{}, D., [Allard]{}, F., & [Chabrier]{}, G. 2015, , 577, A42
, M. R. 2012, , 419, 3115
, H., [Mart[í]{}n]{}, E. L., [Brandner]{}, W., & [Bouvier]{}, J. 2005, , 129, 511
, B. P. & [Hillenbrand]{}, L. A. 2015, , 811, L30
, S. L., [Dobbie]{}, P. D., [Hodgkin]{}, S. T., [Moraux]{}, E., [Jameson]{}, R. F., [Hambly]{}, N. C., [Irwin]{}, J., & [Lodieu]{}, N. 2007, , 378, 1131
, G., [Baraffe]{}, I., [Allard]{}, F., & [Hauschildt]{}, P. 2000, , 542, 464
, G., [Johansen]{}, A., [Janson]{}, M., & [Rafikov]{}, R. 2014, Protostars and Planets VI, 619
, G., [Lagrange]{}, A.-M., [Dumas]{}, C., [Zuckerman]{}, B., [Mouillet]{}, D., [Song]{}, I., [Beuzit]{}, J.-L., & [Lowrance]{}, P. 2004, , 425, L29
, L. M., [Males]{}, J. R., [Morzinski]{}, K., [Kopon]{}, D., [Follette]{}, K., [Rodigas]{}, T. J., [Hinz]{}, P., [Wu]{}, Y.-L., [Puglisi]{}, A., [Esposito]{}, S., [Riccardi]{}, A., [Pinna]{}, E., [Xompero]{}, M., [Briguglio]{}, R., [Uomoto]{}, A., & [Hare]{}, T. 2013, , 774, 94
, L. M., [Siegler]{}, N., [Freed]{}, M., & [Biller]{}, B. 2003, , 587, 407
, P., [Gagn[é]{}]{}, J., [Girard]{}, J. H., [Lagrange]{}, A. M., [Chauvin]{}, G., [Naud]{}, M.-E., [Lafreni[è]{}re]{}, D., [Doyon]{}, R., [Riedel]{}, A., [Bonnefoy]{}, M., & [Malo]{}, L. 2013, , 553, L5
, T. J., [Kratter]{}, K. M., [Kraus]{}, A. L., [Isaacson]{}, H., [Mann]{}, A. W., [Ireland]{}, M. J., [Howard]{}, A. W., & [Huber]{}, D. 2015, ArXiv e-prints
, T. J. & [Liu]{}, M. C. 2011, , 733, 122
—. 2011, , 733, 122
—. 2012, , 201, 19
, T. J., [Liu]{}, M. C., & [Bowler]{}, B. P. 2009, , 706, 328
, D. & [Tremaine]{}, S. 2007, , 669, 1298
, J., [Lafreni[è]{}re]{}, D., [Doyon]{}, R., [Malo]{}, L., & [Artigau]{}, [É]{}. 2014, , 783, 121
, B., [B[é]{}jar]{}, V. J. S., [P[é]{}rez-Garrido]{}, A., [Rosa Zapatero Osorio]{}, M., [Lodieu]{}, N., [Rebolo]{}, R., [Pall[é]{}]{}, E., & [Nowak]{}, G. 2015, , 804, 96
, D. C. 1975, , 173, 729
, P. & [Chabrier]{}, G. 2008, , 684, 395
, P. M., [Rodigas]{}, T. J., [Kenworthy]{}, M. A., [Sivanandam]{}, S., [Heinze]{}, A. N., [Mamajek]{}, E. E., & [Meyer]{}, M. R. 2010, , 716, 417
, P. H. & [Fisher]{}, R. T. 2013, , 769, 9
, M. C., [Magnier]{}, E. A., [Deacon]{}, N. R., [Allers]{}, K. N., [Dupuy]{}, T. J., [Kotson]{}, M. C., [Aller]{}, K. M., [Burgett]{}, W. S., [Chambers]{}, K. C., [Draper]{}, P. W., [Hodapp]{}, K. W., [Jedicke]{}, R., [Kaiser]{}, N., [Kudritzki]{}, R.-P., [Metcalfe]{}, N., [Morgan]{}, J. S., [Price]{}, P. A., [Tonry]{}, J. L., & [Wainscoat]{}, R. J. 2013, , 777, L20
, G., [Delgado-Donate]{}, E., & [Clarke]{}, C. J. 2005, , 364, L91
, L., [Doyon]{}, R., [Lafreni[è]{}re]{}, D., [Artigau]{}, [É]{}., [Gagn[é]{}]{}, J., [Baron]{}, F., & [Riedel]{}, A. 2013, , 762, 88
, C., [Macintosh]{}, B., [Barman]{}, T., [Zuckerman]{}, B., [Song]{}, I., [Patience]{}, J., [Lafreni[è]{}re]{}, D., & [Doyon]{}, R. 2008, Science, 322, 1348
, C., [Zuckerman]{}, B., [Konopacky]{}, Q. M., [Macintosh]{}, B., & [Barman]{}, T. 2010, , 468, 1080
, S., [Marois]{}, C., & [Zuckerman]{}, B. 2009, , 705, L204
, K. M., [Males]{}, J. R., [Skemer]{}, A. J., [Close]{}, L. M., [Hinz]{}, P. M., [Rodigas]{}, T. J., [Puglisi]{}, A., [Esposito]{}, S., [Riccardi]{}, A., [Pinna]{}, E., [Xompero]{}, M., [Briguglio]{}, R., [Bailey]{}, V. P., [Follette]{}, K. B., [Kopon]{}, D., [Weinberger]{}, A. J., & [Wu]{}, Y.-L. 2015, ArXiv e-prints
, S. S. R., [Kratter]{}, K. M., [Matzner]{}, C. D., [Krumholz]{}, M. R., & [Klein]{}, R. I. 2010, , 725, 1485
, J., [Jayawardhana]{}, R., [Lafreni[è]{}re]{}, D., [Dupuy]{}, T. J., [Liu]{}, M. C., & [Scholz]{}, A. 2013, , 778, 36
, B. & [Clarke]{}, C. 2001, , 122, 432
, B. & [Mikkola]{}, S. 2015, , 149, 145
, S., [Follette]{}, K. B., [Eisner]{}, J. A., [Close]{}, L. M., [Hinz]{}, P., [Kratter]{}, K., [Males]{}, J., [Skemer]{}, A., [Macintosh]{}, B., [Tuthill]{}, P., [Bailey]{}, V., [Defr[è]{}re]{}, D., [Morzinski]{}, K., [Rodigas]{}, T., [Spalding]{}, E., [Vaz]{}, A., & [Weinberger]{}, A. J. 2015, , 527, 342
, S., [Hinz]{}, P. M., [Heinze]{}, A. N., [Freed]{}, M., & [Breuninger]{}, A. H. 2006, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 6269, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, 0
, A. J., [Hinz]{}, P. M., [Esposito]{}, S., [Burrows]{}, A., [Leisenring]{}, J., [Skrutskie]{}, M., [Desidera]{}, S., [Mesa]{}, D., [Arcidiacono]{}, C., [Mannucci]{}, F., [Rodigas]{}, T. J., [Close]{}, L., [McCarthy]{}, D., [Kulesa]{}, C., [Agapito]{}, G., [Apai]{}, D., [Argomedo]{}, J., [Bailey]{}, V., [Boutsia]{}, K., [Briguglio]{}, R., [Brusa]{}, G., [Busoni]{}, L., [Claudi]{}, R., [Eisner]{}, J., [Fini]{}, L., [Follette]{}, K. B., [Garnavich]{}, P., [Gratton]{}, R., [Guerra]{}, J. C., [Hill]{}, J. M., [Hoffmann]{}, W. F., [Jones]{}, T., [Krejny]{}, M., [Males]{}, J., [Masciadri]{}, E., [Meyer]{}, M. R., [Miller]{}, D. L., [Morzinski]{}, K., [Nelson]{}, M., [Pinna]{}, E., [Puglisi]{}, A., [Quanz]{}, S. P., [Quiros-Pacheco]{}, F., [Riccardi]{}, A., [Stefanini]{}, P., [Vaitheeswaran]{}, V., [Wilson]{}, J. C., & [Xompero]{}, M. 2012, , 753, 14
, A. J., [Morley]{}, C. V., [Zimmerman]{}, N. T., [Skrutskie]{}, M. F., [Leisenring]{}, J., [Buenzli]{}, E., [Bonnefoy]{}, M., [Bailey]{}, V., [Hinz]{}, P., [Defr[é]{}re]{}, D., [Esposito]{}, S., [Apai]{}, D., [Biller]{}, B., [Brandner]{}, W., [Close]{}, L., [Crepp]{}, J. R., [De Rosa]{}, R. J., [Desidera]{}, S., [Eisner]{}, J., [Fortney]{}, J., [Freedman]{}, R., [Henning]{}, T., [Hofmann]{}, K.-H., [Kopytova]{}, T., [Lupu]{}, R., [Maire]{}, A.-L., [Males]{}, J. R., [Marley]{}, M., [Morzinski]{}, K., [Oza]{}, A., [Patience]{}, J., [Rajan]{}, A., [Rieke]{}, G., [Schertl]{}, D., [Schlieder]{}, J., [Stone]{}, J., [Su]{}, K., [Vaz]{}, A., [Visscher]{}, C., [Ward-Duong]{}, K., [Weigelt]{}, G., & [Woodward]{}, C. E. 2015, ArXiv e-prints
, K., [Luhman]{}, K. L., & [McLeod]{}, K. K. 2010, , 714, L84
, P., [Acton]{}, D. S., [Shelton]{}, C., [Stomski]{}, P., [Gathright]{}, J., [Ho]{}, K., [Lupton]{}, W., [Tsubota]{}, K., [Lai]{}, O., [Max]{}, C., [Brase]{}, J., [An]{}, J., [Avicola]{}, K., [Olivier]{}, S., [Gavel]{}, D., [Macintosh]{}, B., [Ghez]{}, A., & [Larkin]{}, J. 2000, , 112, 315
, S., [Lu]{}, J. R., [Ghez]{}, A. M., [Clarkson]{}, W., [Anderson]{}, J., [Do]{}, T., & [Matthews]{}, K. 2010, , 725, 331
[^1]: Note added in proof: independant ao-images presented by Rich et al., in prep
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Scattering on the energy shell is viewed here as the relation between the bound states of the Hamiltonian, restricted to sections on leads that are asymptotically independent, far away from the interaction region. The decomposition is achieved by sectioning this region and adding new leads, thus generating two new scatterers. So a resonant scatterer, whose ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$-matrix has sharp energy peaks, can be resolved into a pair of scatterers with smooth energy dependence. The resonant behaviour is concentrated in a spectral determinant obtained from a dissipative section map. The semiclassical limit of this theory coincides with the orbit resummation previously proposed by Georgeot and Prange. A numerical example for a semiseparable scatterer is investigated, revealing the accurate portrayal of the Wigner time delay by the spectral determinant.'
address: |
[$^1$]{}Instituto de Física, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro,\
Rua São Francisco Xavier 524, CEP 20559-900 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil\
[e-mail: [email protected]]{}\
$^2$Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas,\
Rua Xavier Sigaud 150, CEP 22290-180 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil\
[e-mail: [email protected]]{}
author:
- 'Raúl O. Vallejos$^1$ and Alfredo M. Ozorio de Almeida$^2$'
title: Decomposition of Resonant Scatterers by Surfaces of Section
---
Introduction
============
Surfaces of section were conceived by Poincaré as a means to decompose bounded classical motion into discrete maps of the section onto itself. Even if the longterm motion is chaotic in some sense, there are many important cases where the single return map is well behaved, so that the complex intermingling of trajectories results from repeated iterations. If a section is badly chosen, the first return map may well be singular and discontinuous with fractal boundaries between continuous regions. Evidently, such a Poincaré map will not be a useful tool for the study of the classical motion. There are many systems for which no single surface exists that leads to a well behaved Poincaré map, though these have not been much studied for obvious reasons.
It is only with the work of Bogomolny [@bogomolny92] that surfaces of section where brought into quantum mechanics. At first this was viewed as an essentially semiclassical extrapolation of Poincaré’s method, while limiting the section to position space instead of the classical phase space. However, the approach of Rouvinez and Smilansky [@rouvinez95] and Prosen [@prosen95], allows us to define the transformation, undergone by the finite Hilbert space corresponding to the section, as the product of two unitary scattering matrices. These describe the two alternative unbounded motions, obtained by substituting either side of the system by a semi-infinite tube. Defining the scattering operators as ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_L(E)$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_R(E)$, where $E$ is the energy of the open system, the condition for a bound state to exist at a certain energy is just that ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_L {\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_R$, or ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_R {\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_L$ has a unit eigenvalue.
The observation that a “bad” choice of section results in a maze of contributing orbits has a parallel in quantum mechanics that the correponding scattering exhibits multiple resonances. For example, consider the system in Fig. \[fig1\](a). For the good choice of section, the classical orbits return to $\Sigma_A$ after a short time on the right side, whereas the return map for $\Sigma_B$ will be very complex. This corresponds to a smooth energy dependence of all the elements of the scattering matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_{LA}$ (for the open system obtained by joining an open tube to the left of $\Sigma_A$), as opposed to a spiky energy dependence of ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_{LB}$ due to many resonances. Let us now consider the case where the system under study is actually the open system depicted in Fig. \[fig1\](b), obtained by joining a narrow open tube to the left of $\Sigma_B$ in system (a). The “natural section” that describes this new scattering problem would then be $\Sigma_B$, but having seen that this is a “bad choice” for the closed system, we would also like to bypass it in the description of the new open system (b). It may then be advantageous to decompose this open resonant system using a “good” section $\Sigma_A$, just as in the case of the closed system. Indeed, we may consider the latter as the limit of a family of open systems in which the “bad” section is pushed evermore to the left until the opening at $\Sigma_B$ has zero width. The system (b) will then be decomposed into the auxiliary systems of Fig. \[fig1\](c) and (d). The novelty with respect to the closed problem is that now there are modes entering the scattering region between $\Sigma_A$ and $\Sigma_B$ from the tubes both to the left and to the right of Fig. \[fig1\](c). The important point is that the classical orbits remain only a short time in the scattering region, leading to simple mappings among the surfaces $\Sigma_A$ and $\Sigma_B$ and nonresonant energy dependence of the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$-matrices.
The purpose of this paper is to present the general method for the decomposition of a resonant scatterer into two less resonant scatterers by means of a surface of section. If the optimal decomposition renders both the resulting scatterers nonresonant, the objective is reached and the resonances will result from multiple scattering across the surface, as will be explicitly shown in Sec. \[sec:resonance\]. If there is no choice of section for which one of the components is not resonant, we can clearly decompose it in the same manner and so on until all the components are nonresonant. A similar sequence of decompositions may be required for a bound system. There may not be any surface that avoids resonances in ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_L$ or ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_R$. The further decomposition of either scatterer proceeds exactly as for initially open systems.
First we review multichannel scattering theory on the energy shell, establishing the notation. In Sec. \[sec:decomposition\], we decompose the scatterer through a surface of section. The way that the resonant structure emerges from the decomposed scatterers is described in the following section. Particular attention is given to the time delay, as an overall indicator of resonance. Semiclassical approximations are discussed in Sec. \[sec:semiclassical\]. These are not valid across a discontinuity, so that the local treatment for its traversal follows in Sec. \[sec:discontinuities\]. We conclude with a numerical calculation for a semiseparable scatterer which allows us to evaluate the discontinuous approximation advanced in the previous section. We also verify that the localization of resonance peaks of the time delay is accurately determined by the determinant of a quantum Poincaré map for the open system.
Multichannel scattering {#sec:multichannel}
=======================
We here review the theory of scattering on the energy shell so as to define the notation. Careful definition of the context determines the scope of the following theory in its present form. A general scatterer connects regions where asymptotic states, modes or channels, propagate independently. Without loss of generality, we may model the scatterer as a cavity connecting entrance leads[@lewenkopf91]. In many important cases, such as in mesoscopic devices, this structure is immediately evident, but even the scattering of waves from a localized object may be considered as radial backscattering along a tube of angular width $2\pi$. Defining $x_J$ as the longitudinal coordinate along the $J$-th lead and letting $y_J$ represent the transverse coordinates, the asymptotic region is specified by the requirement that, as $x_J \to \infty$, the Hamiltonian $H(x_J,y_J,p_{xJ},p_{yJ})$ becomes independent of $x_J$: $$H(x_J,y_J,p_{xJ},p_{yJ})
\stackrel{x_J \to \infty}{\longrightarrow}
\frac{p_{xJ}^2}{2m} + H_J(y_J,p_{yJ}) \; .
\label{hamiltonian}$$ Here we assume that the scattering region lies near the origin of $x_J$ and that $x_J$ is always positive in the asymptotic region. We also assume bounded motion in the transverse directions, implying that $H_J(y_J,p_{yJ})$ has a discrete infinite spectrum of states $|n_J \}$ with energies $\epsilon_{nJ}$.
The Hilbert space for the stationary solutions of the Schrödinger equation are decomposed into orthogonal subspaces in the asymptotic region of each lead. The $J$-th subspace is a superposition of states $$\langle x_J,y_J | n_J \rangle ^\pm =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{nJ}}} \exp(\pm i k_{nJ} x_J)\{y_J|n_J \} \equiv
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{nJ}}} \{y_J|n(x_J) \}^\pm \; ,
\label{waves}$$ where $$k_{nJ} = \sqrt{\frac{2m(E-\epsilon_{nJ})}{\hbar^2}} \; .
\label{wavenumbers}$$ In other words, the interaction between the transverse states $| n_J \}$ is switched off as $x_J$ enters the asymptotic region. There remains only a trivial exponential dependence of the full state $| n_J \rangle$ on the longitudinal coordinate. (We partially adopt the notation of Prosen in [@prosen95].) The states for which $k_{nJ}$ is real are referred to as [*open*]{} channels, otherwise they are [*closed*]{}. For any given energy $E$, there will be a finite number, $\Lambda_J$, of open channels. The closed channels with $n_J > \Lambda_J$ take the form of [*evanescent modes*]{}, $$\langle x_J,y_J | n_J \rangle^e =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{i|k_{nJ}|}} \exp(-| k_{nJ} | x_J)\{y_J|n_J \} \; ,
\label{evanescent}$$ for the wave to be bounded as $x_J \to \infty$. However, we shall usually keep to (\[waves\]) for both open and closed channels.
A general solution $|\psi \rangle$ of the stationary Schrödinger equation is decomposed in the $J$’th tube in terms of transverse amplitudes $\{n_J|\psi_J\}$ $$\langle x_J,y_J | \psi \rangle = \sum_{n=0}^\infty
\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_{nJ}}}
\left[ \{y_J|n(x_J)\}^{+ \; +}\{n_J|\psi_J \} +
\{y_J|n(x_J)\}^{- \; -}\{n_J|\psi_J \} \right] \; .
\label{general}$$ Here we could also have decomposed $|\psi\rangle$ with the coefficients $^\pm\{n(x_J)|\psi\}$ to maintain the symmetry of the bracket notation, but it is easier to use a basis that is independent of $x_J$. The [*incoming wave*]{} $|\psi(x_J)\}^-$ and the [*outgoing wave*]{} $|\psi(x_J)\}^+$ at $x_J$ are thus defined as $$|\psi(x_J)\}^\pm \equiv \sum_{n=0}^\infty
|n(x_J)\}^{\pm \; \pm}\{n_J|\psi_J\} \; ,
\label{asymptotic}$$ for the open channels. The generalized ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix is now defined by the equation $$ \left( |\psi(x_1)\}^+,|\psi(x_2)\}^+,\ldots \right) =
{\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}\left( |\psi(x_1)\}^-,|\psi(x_2)\}^-,\ldots \right) \; .
\label{scatdef}$$ Conservation of current among all the leads determines that the restriction of ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ to the finite block that includes all the open channels is a unitary matrix; time reversal symmetry implies that the full ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix must be symmetric, [*i.e.*]{}, ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_{ij}$=${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_{ji}$[@rouvinez95]. Evidently, ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ depends on the choice of $x_J$, but only up to a translation within the asymptotic region, implemented by a diagonal matrix in the $|n(x_J)\}$ representation. The nontrivial energy dependence of ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ will be our main concern.
Decomposition {#sec:decomposition}
=============
Let us consider an arbitrary scatterer, with $J$ ($\ge 1$) leads such as sketched in Fig. \[fig2\](b). Cutting the scatterer by an arbitrary plane $\Sigma_0$, so as to avoid the leads, divides these into $R$-leads to the right of $\Sigma_0$ and $L$-leads to the left (either of these sets may be empty). Likewise, we divide all the channels (open and closed) into $R$-channels and $L$-channels. Henceforth it will be immaterial how the independent $R$-channels ($L$-channels) are subdivided among the various $R$-leads ($L$-leads).
Define the coordinate $x_0$ growing in the direction normal to $\Sigma_0$ and positive on the $R$-side and define the Hamiltonian $H_0=H(x_0=0)$. Substituting $H$ by $H_0$ for all points to the right of $\Sigma_0$, we generate a semi-infinite lead. This can be joined onto $H$, to the left of $\Sigma_0$ so as to form the $L0$ scatterer sketched in Fig \[fig2\](a). This procedure is reflected across $\Sigma_0$ to form the $0R$ scatterer, as shown in Fig. \[fig2\](c). The $L0$ scatterer has only one $0$-lead on the right and the states $|n_0\}$ are the eigenstates of $H_0 -p_{x_0}^2/2m$. These coincide with the states to the left of the $0R$ scatterer.
We now derive the relation of the $L0$ and the $0R$ scattering to the original problem, [*i.e.*]{}, the $LR$ scattering decomposed by $\Sigma_0$. The constant profile of the $H_0$ allows us to choose $x_0 \to 0$ in both the auxiliary scattering problems, which shall be assumed henceforth. The first step is to divide the scattering matrix for each of the scatterers into reflection and transmision blocks, generated by the subdivision of the the channels of each scatterer by $\Sigma_0$: $${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}=
\left( \matrix{ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL} & {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{LR} \cr {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL} & {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{RR} } \right) ,~
{\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_L=
\left( \matrix{ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}^0 & {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{L0} \cr {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L} & {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L } \right) ,~
{\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_R=
\left( \matrix{ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{RR}^0 & {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{R0} \cr {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0R} & {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R } \right) \;.
\label{matdef}$$ To avoid confusion, we define the states related by each of these matrices $$\begin{aligned}
\left( |\psi_L(x_L)\}^+ , |\psi_{R }(x_R)\}^+\right) & = &
{\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}\left( |\psi_L(x_L)\}^- , |\psi_{R }(x_R)\}^-\right) \; ,
\label{confusion1} \\
\left( |\psi_L(x_L)\}^+ , |\psi_{L0}(x_0)\}^+\right) & = &
{\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_L \left( |\psi_L(x_L)\}^- , |\psi_{L0}(x_0)\}^-\right) \; ,
\label{confusion2} \\
\left( |\psi_R(x_R)\}^+ , |\psi_{0R}(x_0)\}^+\right) & = &
{\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_R \left( |\psi_R(x_R)\}^- , |\psi_{0R}(x_0)\}^-\right) \; ,
\label{confusion3}
$$ where $R$, $L$, $0R$, and $L0$ should be taken as specific instances of the index $J$ in the definition (\[asymptotic\]) and in preceeding formulae. The matrices ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$, ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_L$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_R$ account for the full scattering of three different systems. Our immediate task is to derive the elements of ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ from those of ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_L$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_R$.
We have already identified the states on the right of the scatterer in Fig. \[fig2\](a) with those on the left of Fig. \[fig2\](c), as well as those on the left of Fig. \[fig2\](a) and (b). Now we match smoothly the wavefunctions of Fig. \[fig2\](a) and (c) at $x_0=0$. Defining the operators $${\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_J^\alpha = \sum_n |n\} k_{nJ}^\alpha \{n| \; ,
\label{kalpha}$$ for any arbitrary power $\alpha$, we have the matching conditions $${\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_0^{-1/2} | \psi_{L0}(x_0) \}^+ +
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_0^{-1/2} | \psi_{L0}(x_0) \}^- =
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_0^{-1/2} | \psi_{0R}(x_0) \}^+ +
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_0^{-1/2} | \psi_{0R}(x_0) \}^-
\label{matchk1}$$ and $$ i {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_0^{1/2} | \psi_{L0}(x_0) \}^+ -
i {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_0^{1/2} | \psi_{L0}(x_0) \}^- =
-i {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_0^{1/2} | \psi_{0R}(x_0) \}^+ +
i {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_0^{1/2} | \psi_{0R}(x_0) \}^- \; ,
\label{matchk2}$$ which determine uniquely $$ |\psi_{0R}(x_0) \}^+ = |\psi_{L0}(x_0) \}^-
$$ and $$| \psi_{L0}(x_0) \}^+ = | \psi_{0R}(x_0) \}^- \; .
$$ Inserting these equalities into equations (\[confusion2\]) and (\[confusion3\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L} | \psi_{L }(x_L) \}^- +
{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L | \psi_{L0}(x_0) \}^- & = & | \psi_{0R}(x_0) \}^- \; , \\
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0R} | \psi_{R }(x_R) \}^- +
{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R | \psi_{0R}(x_0) \}^- & = & | \psi_{L0}(x_0) \}^- \; .
$$ This system of equations for $| \psi_{0R}(x_0) \}^-$ and $| \psi_{L0}(x_0) \}^-$ is easily solved: $$\begin{aligned}
| \psi_{L0}(x_0) \}^- & = & \left[ {\mbox{$\openone$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L \right]^{-1}
\left[ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L} |\psi_L(x_L)\}^-
+ {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0R} |\psi_R(x_R)\}^-
\right] \; , \\
| \psi_{0R}(x_0) \}^- & = & \left[ {\mbox{$\openone$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R \right]^{-1}
\left[ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0R} |\psi_R(x_R)\}^-
+ {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L} |\psi_L(x_L)\}^-
\right] \; ,
$$ where ${\mbox{$\openone$}}$ is the unit matrix. Combining this result with (\[confusion2\]) and (\[confusion3\]) again, leads to $$\begin{aligned}
& & {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}^0 | \psi_{L}(x_L) \}^- + \nonumber \\
& & {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{L0} \left[ {\mbox{$\openone$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L \right]^{-1}
\left[ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L} |\psi_L(x_L)\}^-
+ {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0R} |\psi_R(x_R)\}^- \right] = | \psi_L (x_L) \}^+ \; , \\
& & {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{RR}^0 | \psi_{R}(x_R) \}^- + \nonumber \\
& & {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{R0} \left[ {\mbox{$\openone$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R \right]^{-1}
\left[ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0R} |\psi_R(x_R)\}^-
+ {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L} |\psi_L(x_L)\}^- \right] = | \psi_R (x_R) \}^+ \; .
$$ But this is just the required linear relation between the incoming waves $| \psi_L (x_L) \}^-$, $| \psi_R (x_R) \}^-$ and the outgoing waves $| \psi_L (x_L) \}^+$, $| \psi_R (x_R) \}^+$, so that finally we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL} & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}^0 + {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{L0}
\left[ {\mbox{$\openone$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L \right]^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L} \; ,
\label{transref1} \\
{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{RR} & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{RR}^0 + {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{R0}
\left[ {\mbox{$\openone$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R \right]^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0R} \; ,
\label{transref2} \\
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{LR} & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{L0}
\left[ {\mbox{$\openone$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L \right]^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0R} \; ,
\label{transref3} \\
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL} & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{R0}
\left[ {\mbox{$\openone$}}-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^L {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}^R \right]^{-1} {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L} \; .
\label{transref4}
$$ In this way, the elements of the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix for the general scatterer are completely determined by those of the scatterers decomposed by $\Sigma_0$.
We now discuss some elementary examples to illustrate the foregoing theory. The most trivial example of a scatterer is an arbitrary section of an open tube. Fixing the surfaces $\Sigma_R$ and $\Sigma_L$ as in Fig. \[fig3\](a), we can “decompose” it with a surface $\Sigma_0$ between these. The matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{00}=0$, whereas the transmission coefficients are diagonal: $$\begin{aligned}
\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{L0} \right)_{nn} & = & \exp(ik_n d_{L0}) =
\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L} \right)_{nn}^* \; ,
\label{diagonal1} \\
\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0R} \right)_{nn} & = & \exp(ik_n d_{0R}) =
\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{R0} \right)_{nn}^* \; .
\label{diagonal2}
$$ A major simplification results in the class of decompositions where there are no tubes on one side of $\Sigma_0$, as shown in Fig. \[fig2\](b). Then ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ reduces to $${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}={\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}= {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}^0 +
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{L0} \left[ {\mbox{$\openone$}}- {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00} \right]^{-1}
{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L} \;.
\label{scatback}$$ This will be the matrix studied in this Sec. \[sec:semiseparable\], since it already exhibits all the resonant structure of the general case. In the trivial case of a semi-infinite tube, Fig. \[fig2\](c), again ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00}=0$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L}$ is given by (\[diagonal1\]), whereas $$\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00} \right)_{nn} = -\exp(2i k_n d_R) \; ,
\label{reflection}$$ assuming Dirichlet boundary conditions at the end of the tube.
It is important to remember that the generalized ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$-matrices defined in this section have infinite dimension. Only the blocks made up of all the open channels will be unitary. For this reason, the identification of the open channels for reflection with a unitary ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$-matrix in (\[scatback\]) is only valid because there are no open transmission channels. All projections of a unitary matrix into a subspace define a dissipative matrix with eigenvalues having moduli smaller than one, unless there is no interaction with the subspace that has been projected away[@ozorio99]. The addition of closed modes does not alter the dissipative nature of the reflection matrices in the general case where transmission is present.
Resonance structure: multiple scattering {#sec:resonance}
========================================
Let us assume that neither matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_R$ or ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_L$ exhibits a sensitive energy dependence. As previously discussed, such a situation can always be reached in a sequence of decompositions. (Even if the scatterer has a fractal structure, the wavelength settles the smallest scale of the fractal that can be resolved, and thus the number of auxiliary sections will be finite.) The sensitive energy dependence characteristic of a resonant scatterer then emerges from the possibility that one of the eigenvalues of ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00}$ or ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00}$ approaches the value one. In both cases the [*spectral determinant*]{} $$\det ({\mbox{$\openone$}}- {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00})=
\det ({\mbox{$\openone$}}- {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00}) \to 0 \; .
\label{determinant}$$ As we show in [@ozorio99], any block with a smaller dimension than that of a full unitary matrix will generally have eigenvalues with moduli smaller than one. If the channels on the right are closed, ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00}$ will be unitary, for the channels with real $k_0$, but the product with ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00}$ will still be dissipative. So we never have exactly zero in (\[determinant\]) for scattering situations; indeed these singularities characterize bound states. We may consider the bound states of closed systems as the limit of scattering systems in which the channels both to the right and to the left are closed. The condition (\[determinant\]) is then precisely the well established condition for the existence of an eigenstate [@bogomolny92; @rouvinez95; @prosen95]. Clearly, the order of the matrices ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00}$ makes no difference to the bound state theory, though it does affect the full scattering problem. For the rest of this section this effect will be unimportant, so we shall abreviate both products ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00}$ as simply ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0$.
The fact that ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0$ is a dissipative matrix allows us to expand $$\left( {\mbox{$\openone$}}- {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0 \right)^{-1}=\sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0^\nu \; .
\label{geometric}$$ We can thus interpret the formulae for each of the various scattering submatrices as the result of multiple reflections within the resonant region, each one contributing a term to the total scattering matrix. Note that (\[geometric\]) only converges for a scattering system. For a bound system, this is only a formal equality. Therefore, we can regularize the Bogomolny theory for a closed system by considering it as the limit of a scattering system.
The fact that ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0$ is a well behaved operator with finite trace leads to the Fredholm expansion $$\left( {\mbox{$\openone$}}- {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0 \right)^{-1}=\frac{1}{D}
\sum_{m=0}^{\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{m} D_k {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0^{m-k} \; ,
\label{fredholmexpansion}$$ where the spectral determinant $$D \equiv \det \left( {\mbox{$\openone$}}- {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0 \right) = \sum_{m=0}^{\infty} D_m \;
\label{fredholm}$$ and $$D_m = -\frac{1}{m} \sum_{k=1}^{m} D_{m-k} \mbox{Tr} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0^k \; .
$$ This is a similar expansion to that used by Georgeot and Prange [@georgeot95], but their theory is a reworking of the semiclassical theory, as compared to the exact result. In practice, one must work predominantly with the open channels contemplated by the semiclassical theory (see next section), but this finite matrix can be supplemented by as many closed channels as necessary to obtain convergence.
The main point of the present theory is that we can define a [*resonant envelope*]{} for the energy dependence of all the matrix elements of ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ as the graph of $D^{-1}(E)$. Certainly, there is a complex coupling among the different transverse states that varies smoothly with energy, so that this graph is not strictly an envelope. Even so, it is only at the peaks of $D^{-1}(E)$ that we will find sharp resonant amplitudes of any element of the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix. Not all the peaks of $D^{-1}(E)$ will manifest themselves for a single matrix element, but it is not surprising that collective properties of the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$-matrix can be much more sensitive to this function of the surface of section. Indeed, the [*Wigner delay time*]{}, $$\tau(E)= -\frac{i\hbar}{\Lambda} \frac{d}{dE}
\log \det {\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_{\mbox{\scriptsize{open}}} \; ,
$$ where $\Lambda$ is the number of open channels in ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$, measures the globally resonant nature of the scatterer, [*i.e.*]{}, the peaks in $\tau(E)$ correspond to the energies of longest permanence in the scattering region for some channel. Near such a peak, we may factor the rapidly varying part of ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ in (\[scatback\]), or in the more general cases, as $${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}_L \approx D^{-1}(E) \, {\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}_L \; ,
$$ where ${\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}_L$ has no peaks. It follows that near the resonant peaks $$\tau(E) \approx -\frac{i \hbar}{\Lambda} \frac{d}{dE}
\log ( D^{-\Lambda} \det {\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}})
\approx i\frac{d}{dE}
\log D \; .
$$ Thus, we obtain the peaks of $\tau(E) \approx \tau_0(E)$, where we define the [*section time delay*]{} $$\tau_0(E) = -i \hbar \frac{d}{dE} \log \det (1-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_0)^{-1} \; .
\label{sectiontime}$$ We shall verify the validity of this approximate form of the time delay for a numerical example in Sec. \[sec:semiseparable\].
Semiclassical approximations {#sec:semiclassical}
============================
The first step towards a semiclassical approximation of the preceeding theory is the truncation of the generalized ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$-matrices, which are restricted to the open channels. The reflections are then described by square sub-matrices, whereas the blocks accounting for transmission will be generally rectangular. Even though all the elements of (\[transref1\]-\[transref4\]) are then well defined, this approximation introduces spurious discontinuities in their energy dependence as each new channel is opened. The semiclassical theory can only avoid these by some form of complex continuation of the classical motion. It should be noted that, even so, the discontinuities in energy do reflect some of the qualitative features of the full quantum theory, so that energy integrals may be quite reasonable. In any case, we expect that truncation will be a good approximation in an energy range with a constant number of open channels, in the limit when this number is large.
We now associate the transverse eigenstates $|n_J\}$ singled out by EBK-quantization (see e.g., [@ozorio89]) on a given section $\Sigma_J$ to the invariant tori for the classical Hamiltonian $H_J(y_J,p_{y_J})$ defined by (\[hamiltonian\]). In other words, we consider the canonical transformation $(y_J,p_{y_J})$ $\to$ $(I_J,\theta_J)$, such that $H_J=H_J(I_J)$, obtained from the multivalued generating function $F_\nu(I_J,y_J)$: $$\frac{\partial F_\nu}{\partial y_J}=p_{y_J} \; , ~~
\frac{\partial F_\nu}{\partial I_J}=\theta_J \;
$$ (where the index $\nu$ distinguishes the different branches). Then we approximate [@ozorio89] $$\{y_J|n_J\} \approx \sum_\nu
\left| \frac{\partial^2 F_\nu}{\partial I_J \partial y_J} \right|
\exp \left[ i F_\nu (I_J,y_J)/\hbar \right] \; ,
$$ with $$I_J(n)=\hbar (n+\mu/4) \; ,
$$ where $\mu$ is the Maslov index for the torus. (The phase differences on passing to a different branch are additive, having been included in $F_\nu$.) The number of open channels $\Lambda_J(E)$ is the largest integer $n$ satisfying the condition $$H_J(I_J(n)) \le E \; .
\label{restriction}$$ Let us first study scattering where all the points in $\Sigma_J$, subject to (\[restriction\]), return to the same region. Semiclassically we have a reflection, ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}={\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}$, corresponding to a conservative classical map. Each quantized torus determines a tube of trajectories that re-intersect $\Sigma_J$, i.e., it “evolves” while preserving its area as shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. The overlap of the evolved torus state with the basis of the quantized tori is just $$\{n'_J|{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}|n_J\} \approx \sum_\nu
\left| \frac{\partial^2 F_\nu}{\partial I_J \partial I'_J} \right|
\exp \left[ i F_\nu (I_J,I_J')/\hbar \right] \; ,
\label{miller}$$ where the canonical transformation is generated by $$\frac{\partial F_\nu}{\partial I'_J} = -\theta'_J \; , ~~
\frac{\partial F_\nu}{\partial I_J} = \theta_J \; .
$$ This general formalism for semiclassical maps was originally developed by Miller [@miller74]. The branches, indexed by $\nu$, correspond to each transverse intersection of the new torus with the basis torus $I_J=\hbar (n+\mu/4)$. Both the new torus and the basis tori are closed curves (for nonresonant scattering) so there will be an even number of branches. Caustics, leading to spurious singularities in (\[miller\]), occur when the intersection of the tori is non-transverse, i.e., where two intersections coalesce. In this region the matrix element should be expressed in terms of Airy functions instead of (\[miller\]) (see e.g., [@ozorio89]). As we shall discuss below, this simple picture of a returning torus that overlaps with the basis of tori is fragmented into a fractal mosaic for a very resonant system. However, we can now keep to a simple description for each nonresonant scatterer into which the section decomposes the original resonant system.
It is important to note that we need not worry about the problem of quantizing a compact phase space. Our torus basis is infinite, though we are concerned with the projection within a classically invariant region (which grows with $E$). The matrix elements among the open channels in the semiclassical approximation depend only on the classical dynamics within this region. The discrete action variables form a very privileged basis. We cannot transform ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}$ to the (semiclassical) $|\theta_J\}$ basis without doing a Fourier sum over elements $\{n'_J|{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}|n_J\}$ that lie outside the open region, not defined semiclassically. The same difficulty involves passing to the $|y_J\}$ representation of ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}$. However, the semiclassical evaluation of unitary transformations relies entirely on the stationary phase approximation. We can thus make ordinary semiclassical changes of bases within the allowed region by assuming that there are no stationary phase points outside it.
For scattering where the open channels are not restricted to a single lead, we must consider the conservative classical map defined on the union of several surfaces of section, as shown in Fig. \[fig5\]. Again, the classical motion takes place on the region (\[restriction\]) for each section, so that the allowed region will vary from section to section. The basis of eigenstates for each section corresponds to a set of quantized invariant tori of that particular section.
To determine the semiclassical approximation to the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$-matrix when there is more than one lead, we again consider the tube of trajectories defined by one of the quantized tori in one of the sections. But now this tube will generally split, reintersecting the various sections along open segments. Semiclassically, there will be nonzero matrix elements with all the quantized tori with which the segments intersect. The elements of the reflection block are still given by (\[miller\]), whereas the transmission elements from the $J$-lead to the $K$-lead depend of the generating functions $F_\nu(I_J,I_K)$ for the canonical transformation $(I_J,\theta_J) \to (I_J,\theta_J)$ in the form $$\{n'_K|{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}|n_J\} \approx \sum_\nu
\left| \frac{\partial^2 F_\nu}{\partial I_J \partial I_K'} \right|^{1/2}
\exp \left[ i F_\nu (I_J,I_K')/\hbar \right] \; .
\label{tmiller}$$ By adopting fixed action-angle variables along $\Sigma_J$, with the normal coordinate $x_J$, the action for orbits returning to the same lead, $$F_\nu (I_J,I_J')= \int_{I_J}^{I_J'} \theta_J dI_J +
\oint p_{x_J}dx_J \; ,
$$ except for Maslov indices, is evaluated along the classical orbit joining the torus $I_J$ to $I_J'$. This can also be obtained by taking $$F_\nu (y_J,y_J')= \int p_{y_J}dy_J +
\oint p_{x_J}dx_J
$$ and then evaluating the change of basis by stationary phase. To evaluate the transmission actions, we first note that the difference between (\[miller\]) and (\[tmiller\]) is only that $I_J$ and $I_K'$ belong to different torus bases, rather than they belong to different sections. Defining $F^0$ as the generating function for the canonical transformation corresponding to this change of basis we obtain $$F_\nu (I_J,I_K')=
F_\nu^0 (I_J,I_K') + \int_{I_K(I_J)}^{I_K'} \theta_K dI_K +
\int_{\Sigma_J}^{\Sigma_K} p_{x}dx \; ,
$$ where $$\frac{\partial F_\nu^0}{\partial I_K'} = -\theta'_K
$$ describes the original torus with action variable $I_J$ in the $(I_K,\theta_K)$ coordinates; $I_K(I_J)$ is the action variable of the orbit on this torus that will arrive at $I_K'$ and the variable $x$ in the last integral is assumed normal to both sections.
So far, this review of semiclassical scattering theory applies to an arbitrary scatterer. The problem arises, for a very resonant scatterer that the classical map fragments into arbitrarily small regions which cannot be quantized when their area is smaller that Planck’s constant [@ozorio99]. However, we have seen that it is always possible to decompose a resonant scatterer by appropriate surfaces of section. It is then possible to adopt semiclassical approximations for each of the components and then to evaluate the blocks of the full ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix given by (\[transref1\]-\[transref4\]) in the stationary phase approximation.
For a typical resonant scatterer, cut by a “good” section, $\Sigma_0$, the classically allowed area in $\Sigma_0$ will be considerably larger than the union of the $R$-leads and of the $L$-leads projected onto $\Sigma_0$. The classical map corresponding to the various ${\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}$ blocks of the component scatterers will be a simple injection of orbits into $\Sigma_0$, or its time reverse. If we decouple this part of the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix, there results the view of semiclassical scattering as essentially that of the $\Sigma_0$ surface onto itself with projections onto entrance and exit regions, as previously proposed [@ozorio99]. The semiclassical neglect of any backscattering in the $L0$ or $R0$ scattering depends on the smoothness of the Hamiltonian. It is certainly inadequate for a discontinuity in the Hamiltonian within the range of the longitudinal wavelength. This case will be treated in Sec. \[sec:discontinuities\].
If we apply the Fredholm theory in Sec. \[sec:decomposition\] to $[1-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00}]^{-1}$ and to $[1-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00}]^{-1}$ and then use the semiclassical expressions for each of the reflection matrices, we succeed in rederiving the scattering theory of Georgeot and Prange [@georgeot95] from first principles. This is especially valuable, because it was originally obtained by the rearrangement of the semiclassical contributions to the scattering matrix, which is not valid in the resonant context. The spectral determinant (\[fredholm\]) will be described by the classical periodic orbits that cross the surface $\Sigma_0$ rearranged into composite orbits or pseudo-orbits. As we have seen, the spectral determinant is never zero, because the ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}$ matrices are dissipative. No matter how long lived the typical classical orbits may be, as counted by the number of traversals of $\Sigma_0$, there will be a cuttoff for the period of the periodic orbits included in the Fredholm theory. This is limited to the dimension of the ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}$ matrices.
To conclude this section, we note that in the important case of systems with hard walls, i.e., open billiards connected by leads as in Fig. \[fig6\], the quantized tori for any section, central to the foregoing theory, will be defined as the level curves of $p_y^2$. The phase change between the two branches of $\{y|n\}$ will depend upon the choice of Dirichlet or Neumann boundary conditions. It may well be advantageous to use the perimeter of the closed billiard ($\Sigma_B$ in Fig. \[fig6\]), corresponding to the classical Birkhoff map (or bounce map) instead of a section such as $\Sigma_0$. This was the point of view adopted in [@ozorio99]. In this case, all scattering will be considered as a reflection across $\Sigma_B$. However, in this case, it is essential to take into account the discontinuity on entering the billiard, which is the subject of the next section.
Discontinuities {#sec:discontinuities}
===============
If the Hamiltonian is discontinuous across a given plane $\Sigma$, we should construct two sections $\Sigma_L$ and $\Sigma_R$ immediately on either side of $\Sigma$, as shown in Fig. \[fig7\]. This is an important example of a scattering system which is clarified by the use of extra surfaces of section. In the following theory we only address the local problem of scattering from $\Sigma_L$ to $\Sigma_R$. With respect to Fig. \[fig7\], we may consider the $l \to R$ scattering as decomposed by $\Sigma_L$, or that $\Sigma_R$ decomposes the $L \to r$ scattering. Thus the full $l \to r$ scatterer will be decomposed in two stages. In the simple semiseparable example discussed in Sec. \[sec:semiseparable\], both the $l \leftrightarrow L$ and $R \leftrightarrow r$ propagators are trivial.
To solve the scattering problem across the discontinuity between the sections $\Sigma_L$ and $\Sigma_R$ involves the same smoothness conditions as (\[matchk1\]) and (\[matchk2\]), except that now the wave vectors ${\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R \ne {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L$ and we have different basis states $|n_R\}$ and $|n_L\}$ to match on either side. Recalling the definiton of the operators ${\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_J^\alpha$ in (\[kalpha\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{-1/2} \left[ | \psi_L \}^+ + | \psi_L \}^- \right] & = &
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{-1/2} \left[ | \psi_R \}^+ + | \psi_R \}^- \right] \; , \\
i {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{1/2} \left[ | \psi_L \}^+ - | \psi_L \}^- \right] & = &
i {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{1/2} \left[ -| \psi_R \}^+ + | \psi_R \}^- \right] \; .
$$ Decomposing the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix into reflexion and transmission blocks (\[matdef\]), then yields $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{-1/2} \left[ ({\mbox{$\openone$}}+ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}) |\psi_L \}^- +
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{LR} |\psi_R \}^-
\right] & = &
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{-1/2} \left[ ({\mbox{$\openone$}}+ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{RR}) |\psi_R \}^- +
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL} |\psi_L \}^-
\right] \; ,
\label{discon1} \\
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{1/2} \left[ ({\mbox{$\openone$}}- {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}) |\psi_L \}^- -
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{LR} |\psi_R \}^-
\right] & = &
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{1/2} \left[(-{\mbox{$\openone$}}+ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{RR}) |\psi_R\}^- +
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL} |\psi_L\}^-
\right] \; .
\label{discon2}
$$ The fact that these equations are valid for any $|\psi_R\}^-$ or $|\psi_L\}^-$ allows us to equate separately the operators acting on either of these functions. However, to derive matrix equations, we must transform between the natural bases on either side. Thus, defining the orthogonal matrix $${\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}_{n'n}= \{ n'_L | n_R \} = \int dy \{ n'_L|y \} \{ y|n_R \} \; ,
\label{overlap}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{-1/2} ({\mbox{$\openone$}}+ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}) & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{-1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL} \; ,
\label{matchdisc1} \\
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{ 1/2} ({\mbox{$\openone$}}- {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}) & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{ 1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL} \; ;
\label{matchdisc2}
$$ where the matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}$ is in the $L$-representation, whereas $({\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL})_{nn'}=\{ n_R |{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL} | n_L' \} $. Alternatively, we obtain from (\[discon2\]) and the transpose of (\[overlap\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{-1/2} ({\mbox{$\openone$}}+ {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{RR}) & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{-1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{LR} \; ,
\label{matchdisc3} \\
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{ 1/2} ({\mbox{$\openone$}}- {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{RR}) & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{ 1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{LR} \; ,
\label{matchdisc4}
$$ where, again, the indices $L$,$R$ specify the bases. Notice that the set of equations (\[matchdisc3\],\[matchdisc4\]) (and its solution) is related to the set (\[matchdisc1\],\[matchdisc2\]) by interchanging $L,{\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}\leftrightarrow R,{\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T$(time reversal). So we restrict ourselves to (\[matchdisc3\],\[matchdisc4\]), which can be solved for $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{LR} & = & 2 \left( {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{ 1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{-1/2} +
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{-1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{ 1/2}
\right)^{-1} \; ,
\label{discT} \\
{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{RR} & = & {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}
\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{ 1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{-1/2} -
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{-1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{ 1/2}
\right) {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{LR} \; ;
$$ with ${\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL}$ given by time-reversal as we previously noted: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL} & = & 2 \left( {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{ 1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{-1/2} +
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{-1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{ 1/2}
\right)^{-1} \; , \\
{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}_{LL} & = & {\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}
\left( {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{ 1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{-1/2} -
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{-1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{ 1/2}
\right) {\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{RL} \; .
$$ It is straightforward to verify that the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix for the discontinuity is symmetric. The verification of unitarity is also simple, but lengthy[@weidenmuller64].
The matrix inversions in the preceding formulae will be calculated by truncating the bases on the right and on the left of the discontinuity. A possible choice is to limit ${\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}$ to the open channels on either side, but their numbers may not be the same. A better alternative is to notice that the matrix elements ${\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}_{n'n}$ decay exponentially when there is no intersection between the quantized tori corresponding to $|n_L\}$ and to $|n'_R\}$. Therefore, the open channels should be supplemented with states which intersect with them on either side of the discontinuity.
It is interesting that the preceeding argument relies on a semiclassical criterion of torus overlap to calculate ${\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}_{n'n}=\{n'_L|n_R\}$, even though we use this to calculate classically forbidden reflections. We shall use a similar semiclassical approach to estimate the channels exhibiting resonances in Sec. \[sec:semiseparable\]. This semiclassical inspiration will now be pushed further to suggest an approximation that avoids the matrix inversions in ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$. To this end, we notice that the semiclassical evaluation of the nondecaying ${\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}_{n'n}$ depends on the points of intersection for the corresponding tori (such as shown in Fig. \[fig10\]). We could then view each intersection as the projection of an orbit transmitted or reflected at the discontinuity. Thus each orbit contributing to a given matrix element faces the same discontinuity in the longitudinal Hamiltonian, as depicted in Fig. \[fig8\]. What is the probability amplitude for a wave $|n_R\}$ incident on the right to propagate to the left channel $|n'_L\}$? Separating out the longitudinal motion, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|x,y_R \rangle & = & \left[ k_{nR}^{-1/2} \exp(-ik_{nR}x) +
({\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}_{RR})_{n'n} k_{nR}^{-1/2} \exp(ik_{nR}x)
\right]
\{y|n_R \} \; , x \ge 0 \; , \nonumber \\
|x,y_L \rangle & = & \left[ ({\mbox{\boldmath $t$}}_{LR})_{n'n} k_{n'L}^{-1/2} \exp(-ik_{n'L}x)
\right]
\{y|n'_L\} \; , x \le 0 \; .
\label{unimatch}\end{aligned}$$ Here, ${\mbox{\boldmath $t$}}_{LR}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}_{RR}$ are the “longitudinal” transmission and reflection matrices. By requiring that both waves match at the discontinuity at $x=0$ we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
({\mbox{\boldmath $t$}}_{LR})_{n'n} & = & 2 \left( \sqrt{\frac{k_{nR }}{k_{n'L}}} +
\sqrt{\frac{k_{n'L}}{k_{nR }}}
\right)^{-1} \; , \\
({\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}_{RR})_{n'n} & = & \left( \sqrt{\frac{k_{nR }}{k_{n'L}}} -
\sqrt{\frac{k_{n'L}}{k_{nR }}}
\right)
\left( \sqrt{\frac{k_{nR }}{k_{n'L}}} +
\sqrt{\frac{k_{n'L}}{k_{nR }}}
\right)^{-1}\; ,
\label{uniscat}\end{aligned}$$ which are the well known results for the one-dimensional step potential. In the case of a two-dimensional discontinuity we still have to take into account the coupling $U_{n'n}$ between transverse modes at each side of the discontinuity. The expression for the approximate transmission matrix $\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}}$ is thus $$(\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}}_{LR})_{n'n} = ({\mbox{\boldmath $t$}}_{LR})_{n'n} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}_{n'n} \equiv
\left[ {\mbox{\boldmath $t$}}_{LR} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}\right]_{n'n} \; .
\label{apptrans}$$ Similarly $({\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}_{RR})_{n'n} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}_{n'n}$ gives the probability amplitude for [*not being transmitted*]{} to channel $n'$. As this probability is distributed over the $L$ basis we must switch back to the $R$ representation. Our approximate result for the reflection matrix reads $$\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}}_{RR} = {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T \left[ {\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}_{RR} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}\right] \; .$$ The corresponding approximation for the transmission and reflection matrices for waves inciding from the left are obtained by the time reversal operation: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}}_{RL} & = & \left[ {\mbox{\boldmath $t$}}_{RL} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T \right] \; , \\
\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}}_{LL} & = & {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}\left[ {\mbox{\boldmath $r$}}_{LL} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T \right] \; .\end{aligned}$$ We can clarify the nature of this two dimensional version of a “sudden approximation” (\[apptrans\]) by noting that $${\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{-1/2} \widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}} {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{ 1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T +
{\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_L^{ 1/2} \widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}} {\mbox{\boldmath $k$}}_R^{-1/2} {\mbox{\boldmath $U$}}^T = 2 \;$$ as compared to (\[discT\]), so that $\widetilde{{\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}}$ amounts to a reordering of the operators that define ${\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}$. This allows the simplification of not having to invert the matrices in the exact formula (\[discT\]).
A semiseparable numerical example {#sec:semiseparable}
=================================
We now study a simple though nontrivial example of the decomposition of a resonant scatterer. This is chosen as the semiseparable system sketched in Fig.\[fig9\], [*i.e.*]{}, the potential $V(x,y)$ is separable for $x>0$ and for $x<0$, but discontinuous at $x=0$: $$V(x,y) =
\left\{ \matrix{ {\mbox{${\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}$}}\omega_L^2 y^2 & x<0 \cr
{\mbox{${\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}$}}\omega_R^2 y^2 & 0<x<a \cr
\infty & x=a }
\right. \; .~
\label{potential}$$ We choose $\omega_L > \omega_R$, so that the classical motion is broader on the right than on the left: the outline in Fig. \[fig9\] represents an equipotential curve. (The main difference with respect to the system studied by Prosen[@prosen95] is that it is open in the left.) Computations were carried out with the values $\omega_L$=1, $\omega_R$=0.71423, $a$=30, $\hbar$=1, and mass $m$=1 (in appropriate units).
Separability on the left allows us to bring the entrance section $\Sigma_L$ to $x=0^-$. The position of the Poincaré section is also arbitrary, because of separability, so we bring $\Sigma_0$ to $x=0^+$. There being a single open lead, the decomposition of the scattering matrix is given by (\[scatback\]), where the reflection matrix on the right of $\Sigma_0$ is diagonal, with elements $$ \left\{n_R | {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00} | n_R \right\} = -\exp( 2ik_{Rn} a) \; .
$$ The transmission matrices ${\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{L0}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $T$}}_{0L}$ are just those for the passage through a discontinuity of the potential discussed in the last section. This permits us to evaluate the accuracy of the approximation proposed there within the resonant theory. The reflection ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00}$ may also be calculated in this approximation. In spite of its motivation in terms of classical orbits, one should notice that this “sudden approximation” mixes the motion that fails to escape before it is propagated diagonally by ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00}$. Thus, the full Poincaré reflection matrix ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00} {\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00}$ is not diagonal, in contrast to the classical motion which is integrable until it escapes.
The ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix was calculated in an energy range corresponding to 15 open channels, but excluding an interval of 0.2 near the thresholds of the 15th and 16th channels. Evidently each channel threshold is given by $$ E_n = \hbar \omega_L (n-{\mbox{${\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}$}}) \; .
$$ The number of transverse states on the right corresponding to open channels grows from 21 to 22 in the energy window, with our choice of the frequency $\omega_R$.
We can predict which entrance channels may exhibit resonance behaviour by reverting to the qualitative semiclassical picture of Sec. \[sec:semiclassical\], even though the discontinuity prevents an accurate semiclassical calculation. The modes in the open lead correspond to the concentric circles of in Fig. \[fig10\] with area $2\pi (n_L-{\mbox{${\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}$}})$, whereas the states in the cavity correspond to the ellipses with area $2\pi (n_R-{\mbox{${\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}$}})$ and semiaxes with the ratio $\omega_R$. Semiclassically, an incoming mode only excites the inner states corresponding to ellipses that intersects its circle. If these ellipses, in their turn, only intersect circles with $n_L \le 15$, there should be straight nonresonant backscattering for this mode. It is easy to see that, by this criterion, it is only for $n_L>15\omega_R^2 \approx 7$ that the resonant structures should arise.
In Fig.\[fig11\] we compose $D=\det[1-{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00}{\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00}]$ and the section time delay with Wigner’s time delay. It is impressive how the overall structure of this global imprint of the resonances is re-composed from both nonresonant matrices ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^R_{00}$ and ${\mbox{\boldmath $R$}}^L_{00}$. It is important to note that the peaks in the time delay are only poorly correlated to the bound states of the separable system obtained by closing the lead at $x=0$, also shown in Fig. \[fig10\]. \[A comment about this plot is in order. Recalling that in (\[sectiontime\]) we had discarded the slowly varying part of the time delay, we shifted $\tau_0(E)$ by a fixed amount so that both average times $\langle \tau_0 \rangle $ and $\langle \tau \rangle $ coincide. Then logarithms were taken and, finally, the curves corresponding to $\tau_0(E)$ and $D(E)$ were shifted downwards to make comparisons easier.\]
In Fig.\[fig12\] we show the resonance structure of individual ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix elements. Evidently, each one of these does not exhibit all the resonance peaks in the time delay, but the determinant $D$ does limit the positions allowed for these peaks in all cases. We find that the positions of the resonances are reasonably obtained, except for very fine structures, but the amplitudes of the individual matrix elements are not predicted by the spectral determinant. In these figures we also compare the sudden approximation with the exact calculation. This approximation works remarkably well for both nonresonant and resonant channels up to $i$=13.
Concluding remarks {#sec:concluding}
==================
The spiky energy dependence of the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix characteristic of resonant scattering in quantum mechanics corresponds to complex orbital structure of the classical limit. In both theories these complications can be explained in terms of the multiple iterations of a relatively simple mapping defined on an appropriate surface of section. The quantum theory for such an open system is based on the pioneering developments of Bogomolny, Prosen and several papers by Smilansky and coworkers on bound systems, but here we have the advantage that the map is dissipative. Thus, our formula (\[fredholmexpansion\]) converges and we could, in principle, regularize the section theory for bound systems by considering them as the limit of a family of open systems.
By focusing the scattering problem on a section map, there emerges the central role of the spectral determinant. As the openings of the scatterer are closed, the complex zeroes of $D(E)$ converge onto the real eigenergies of the resulting bound system. We have shown that even for the open system the full profile of this energy function is found to portray the qualitative features of the scattering time-delay. Our numerical example reveals that, even for individual elements of the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix, the possible resonance peaks are restricted to those of the spectral determinant.
The picture of the on-the-shell scattering as relating sections on various leads, which may be decomposed by splicing the scatterer and adding more leads, has a clear semiclassical interpretation. For a scattering system with two degrees of freedom, there is only one freedon left transverse to the leads. The corresponding classical Hamiltonian is therefore integrable and this allows us to associate an invariant torus (closed curve) of the asymptotic Hamiltonian to each scattering channel. The classical propagation of each torus through the scatterer generally breaks up these tori and the elements of the ${\mbox{\boldmath $S$}}$ matrix result from the intersection of their fragments with the exit channels. This theory goes back to Miller, but its resummation based on a section was achieved by Georgeot and Prange. The advantage our new derivation of this theory is that it proceeds from first principles, rather than as a rearrangement of Miller’s orbit sum. Only in this way can we show that the approximate semiclassical spectral determinant is based on a dissipative rather than a unitary matrix.
The authors have benefited from discussions with C. H. Lewenkopf and M. Saraceno. This work was supported by Brazilian agencies PRONEX, CNPq and FAPERJ.
[99]{}
E. Bogomolny, Nonlinearity [**5**]{}, 805 (1992).
C. Rouvinez and U. Smilansky, J. Phys. A [**28**]{}, 77 (1995).
T. Prosen, J. Phys. A [**28**]{}, 4133 (1995); Physica D [**91**]{}, 244 (1996); and references therein.
C. H. Lewenkopf and H. A. Weidenmüller, Ann. Phys. [**212**]{}, 53 (1991).
W. H. Miller, Adv. Chem. Phys. [**25**]{}, 69 (1974).
A. M. Ozorio de Almeida and R. O. Vallejos, Chaos, Solitons & Fractals (to appear); also chao-dyn/9905010.
B. Georgeot and R. E. Prange, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 4110 (1995).
A. M. Ozorio de Almeida, [*Hamiltonian systems: Chaos and Quantization*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988).
H. A. Weidenmüller, Ann. Phys. [**28**]{}, 60 (1964).
=10.0cm
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by understanding Majorana zero modes in topological superfluids in particle-number conserving framework beyond the present framework, we study the effect of particle number conservation on the Berry phase resulting from transport of a bound quasiparticle around a superfluid vortex. We find that particle-number non-conserving calculations based on Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) equations are unable to capture the correct physics when the quasiparticle is within the penetration depth of the vortex core where the superfluid velocity is non-zero. Particle number conservation is crucial for deriving the correct Berry phase in this context, and the Berry phase takes non-universal values depending on the system parameters and the external trap imposed to bind the quasiparticle. Of particular relevance to Majorana physics are the findings that superfluid condensate affects the part of the Berry phase not accounted for in the standard BdG framework, and that the superfluid many-body ground state of odd number of fermions involves superfluid condensate deformation due to the presence of the bound quasiparticle - an effect which is beyond the description of the BdG equations.'
author:
- 'Yiruo Lin [^1]'
- 'Anthony J. Leggett [^2]'
title: Effect of Particle Number Conservation on the Berry Phase Resulting from Transport of a Bound Quasiparticle around a Superfluid Vortex
---
Introduction
============
In this paper, we address the following basic question: What is the Berry phase of transporting a bound quasiparticle around a superfluid vortex? Surprisingly, this basic question has not been systematically considered in the literature to the best of our knowledge. It is of particular interest to us to understand possible many-body effects, in particular the role played by the superfluid condensate in determining the Berry phase, thereby examining the validity of Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) equations [@BdG] for calculating the Berry phase.\
This work is motivated by our recent study [@Lin_Leggett_1] on effect of particle number conservation on the Berry phase in braiding Majorana zero modes (for a review on Majorana zero modes, see e.g., [@Alicea_rev]). The currently established framework for studying Majorana zero modes in superfluids relies on the BdG equations which break particle number conservation. On the other hand, relevant physical quantities such as Berry phase are determined by many-body quantum states that conserve fermion number. Furthermore, the effect of the superfluid condensate may not be neglected when it has interesting structure (see for example, the NMR of superfluid Helium-3[@Leggett_1] and of surface of B phase superfluid Helium-3 hosting Majorana zero modes [@Silaev]). The superfluid condensate needs to have nontrivial topology for the existence of Majorana zero modes. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the validity of the present framework by studying effect of particle number conservation and condensate contribution to Majorana physics. We are particularly interested in understanding braiding statistics of Majorana zero modes, for which a basic physical quantity involved is Berry phase of transporting a bound quasiparticle around a superfluid vortex, the subject of in this work. To simplify physics, we restrict ourselves to simple s-wave superfluids and suppose that the bound quasiparticle is localized by an external Zeeman potential. Furthermore, we adopt an annular geometry for confining the superfluid to make the problem effectively one-dimensional. The vortex is then simulated by quantized winding number of Cooper pairs in the superfluid around the annulus.\
The paper is organized as follows. In section \[list\], we define the problem and state the main results. In section \[BdG\], we calculate the Berry phase in the framework based on the BdG equations in particle-number non-conserving approximation. In section \[exact\], we relate the Berry phase to the system angular momentum. In section \[sum rules and continuity condition\], we discuss the effect of particle number conservation on the Berry phase in terms of the system angular momentum in linear response theory. In particular, we propose a many-body ground state ansatz beyond the BdG description in order to satisfy the continuity condition which is necessary for compatibility with the f-sum rule. In section \[lower bound\], we estimate lower bound on the Berry phase at non-zero superfluid velocities to show the contribution from the superfluid condensate when the superfluid is moving. In section \[square\], we carry out explicit calculations of the Berry phase for a particular form of the Zeeman potential and obtain analytical expression at general superfluid velocities. Finally in section \[summary\], we summarize our results and draw our conclusions on the effect of particle number conservation on the Berry phase.\
Annulus model and main results {#list}
==============================
The system we consider is described in ref.\[6\]: a BCS s-wave superfluid of fermions (which we now equip with charge e to permit interaction with an external magnetic flux) with total fermion number 2N+1, confined in the annular geometry shown in figure \[annulus\]. The system doesn’t exchange particles with its environment, hence the total fermion number is fixed. Due to the odd particle-number parity, there is an unpaired fermion in the ground state. In the framework of the BdG equations, the system ground state can be approximated by the first excited eigenstate obtained in the particle-number non-conserving approximation followed by a projection onto fixed (odd) particle-number sector. In this physical picture, there is a quasiparticle in its lowest excited state in the superfluid condensate. We shall adopt such a picture and consider the effect of particle number conservation on it. To bound the quasiparticle, a weak Zeeman field is imposed on a segment of annulus whose characteristic size along the annulus is much larger than the superfluid coherent length. The Zeeman field has no variation in radial direction so we can treat the bound quasiparticle in an effective one dimensional potential. The Zeeman field is weak enough so that corresponding even particle-number parity ground state can be approximated by the homogeneous BCS s-wave ground state. The justification of the aforementioned approximations can be found in [@Lin_Leggett]. To study the effect of a non-zero superfluid velocity on the Berry phase, a magnetic flux is inserted so that the superfluid velocity can be tuned continuously by the flux while keeping the condensate winding number fixed. To realize adiabatic evolution, we need to move the Zeeman trap slowly enough so that the system stays in the ground state of the instantaneous Hamiltonian at any moment. This can be achieved as long as the timescale of transporting the Zeeman trap is much larger than other system timescales related to system excitations. In particular, for a neutral Fermi superfluid, the timescales associated with low-energy phonons increase with system size and scale as $R/c\sim R/v_F$ ($v_F$ is Fermi velocity). For such a system, the time scale for moving the Zeeman trap should be much larger than $R/v_F$. So the linear speed of dragging the trap decreases as system size. Nevertheless, we can always realize adiabatic evolution and observe the Berry phase.\
Results: We found that the Berry phase at vanishing superfluid velocity is equal to Aharonov-Bohm (AB) phase. For a vortex of unit winding number, the Berry phase is equal to $\pi$, consistent with the standard result. However when the superfluid velocity is non-zero (which can occur when for instance, the quasiparticle is within the penetration depth from the vortex core in a superconductor), the Berry phase receives contributions from the superfluid condensate and becomes non-universal. Particle number conservation needs to be respected for calculating the Berry phase at non-zero superfluid velocities. In the annulus model, we found evidence for the modification necessary for obtaining the correct Berry phase of the system many-body ground state beyond the description given by the BdG equations. The modification involves entanglement between the quasiparticle wave function and the condensate wave function. Such a modification goes beyond the single-particle picture described in the BdG framework and implies the important role played by the many-body effect due to the superfluid condensate. The proposed modification can shed light on properties of Majorana zero modes beyond the description given by the BdG equations.
![A bound quasiparticle with spin pointed along the direction of Zeeman field is formed in a s-wave superfluid with odd number of particles confined in an annular geometry. $d$ is spatial extension of Zeeman field, $V_0$ is its characteristic strength and the superfluid velocity is given by $v_s=(n+2\Phi)\hbar/2mR$, where $n$ is the condensate winding number, $\Phi$ is the magnetic flux through the annulus in units of $h/|e|$, $R$ is radius of the annulus. []{data-label="annulus"}](annulus){width="35.00000%"}
Berry phase calculated in BdG formalism in particle-number non-conserving approximation {#BdG}
=======================================================================================
In the standard mean-field approximation, particle number conservation is broken down to $Z_2$ symmetry. In the BdG framework, we may view the condensate as vacuum and regard the system in consideration as an effective single particle with pseudo-spin degree of freedom representing particle and hole component of the quasiparticle. Taking the analogy of the BdG equations for the quasiparticle to the Schrodinger equation for a spin-1/2 degree of freedom in a magnetic field illustrated in figure \[fig\_spin\], we can map the kinetic energy of the particle and the hole to the z-component of the effective magnetic field and superfluid gap plays the role of the magnetic field in the x-y plane. Namely, the BdG equation for the quasiparticle $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}H_{\uparrow} & \bigtriangleup(r) \\ \bigtriangleup^*(r) & -H_{\downarrow} \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{\uparrow}(r) \\v_{\downarrow}(r)\end{array}\right) =E\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{\uparrow}(r) \\v_{\downarrow}(r)\end{array}\right), \label{BdG_eq}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bigtriangleup(r)=|\bigtriangleup|\mathrm{e}^{in\theta}$ with $\theta$ azimuthal coordinate along the annulus, can be identified with the Schrodinger equation of a spin in a rotating magnetic field $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\begin{array}{cc}B_z & B(r) \\ B^*(r) & -B_z \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}s_\uparrow \\ s_\downarrow\end{array}\right) =E\left(\begin{array}{c}s_\uparrow \\s_\downarrow\end{array}\right). \label{spin_Schrodinger}\end{aligned}$$\
It is worth noting that equation (\[BdG\_eq\]) is not the exact analog of equation (\[spin\_Schrodinger\]), since $H_{\uparrow}$ is not equal to $H_\downarrow$ (cf.equation (\[BdG\_1/2\_B\]) and (\[BdG\_0\_transf\])). However, the difference is proportional to the unit matrix in Nambu space and hence should not affect the argument.
As the quasiparticle is moved around the annulus and returned to its starting point, the local superconducting gap phase seen by the quasiparticle is wound by $2n\pi$ where $n$ is the winding number of the vortex and so the effective magnetic field is rotated about the $z$ axis by $2n\pi$. For a bound state, the particle and the hole component have the same weight (this can be seen as follows: the particle component gets reflected back at the trap edge and becomes the hole which subsequently gets reflected back as the particle; since the quasiparticle is trapped, the particle and the hole must have the same weight: if we “observe” the quasiparticle, there is equal probability of finding it in the particle and in the hole state), so the effective spin lies in the x-y plane. From the well-known result of the Berry phase of the spin-1/2 particle in the magnetic field, we immediately get the Berry phase to be $n\pi$ [@Leggett_Lin]. This result appears to be insensitive to whether there is magnetic flux through the annulus. We will now turn to an alternative approach which gives a different answer.
![A bound quasiparticle as an effective spin in a magnetic field. For the bound quasiparticle, effective $\chi=\pi/2$, and Berry phase is $\phi= 2n\pi\mathrm{cos}^2(\chi/2)=n\pi$. []{data-label="fig_spin"}](fig_spin){width="30.00000%"}
As will be shown in the next section, the Berry phase can be found from the difference in the total angular momentum between $2N+1$-particle and $2N$-particle ground states. Making use of continuity condition, we know that in a one-dimensional system, the current is uniform throughout the annulus for any energy eigenstate. Writing the $2N+1$-particle ground state as the BdG quasiparticle operator $\alpha^\dagger$ acting on the $2N$-particle ground state, we can write the Berry phase in terms of commutator between current density operator and $\alpha^\dagger$ at any arbitrary position $\theta'$ $$\begin{aligned}
\phi/2\pi&=&L(\langle\alpha \tilde{J}(\theta')\alpha^\dagger\rangle-\langle \tilde{J}(\theta')\rangle)-\Phi \nonumber \\
&=&L(\langle\alpha[\tilde{J}(\theta'),\alpha^\dagger]\rangle)-\Phi, \label{commut}\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is annulus circumference, $\Phi$ is the magnetic flux through the annulus (see figure \[annulus\]) which appears in the above expression due to converting the angular momentum density $J(\theta')$ to current $\tilde{J}(\theta')$ at $\theta'$ by $\tilde{J}(\theta')=J(\theta')+\Phi\rho(\theta')/L$ (throughout the paper, “angular momentum” refers to canonical angular momentum and “current” refers to kinetic current which is proportional to particle velocity). In the particle number non-conserving form, $\alpha^\dagger=\int d\theta u(\theta)\Psi^\dagger(\theta)+v(\theta)\Psi(\theta)$ where $u(\theta)$ and $v(\theta)$ are the particle and the hole wave functions localized at the Zeeman trap around $\theta_0$ ($\theta$ is azimuthal angle along the annulus). We can always choose $\theta'$ to be sufficiently far away from $\theta_0$ such that $[\tilde{J}(\theta'),\alpha^\dagger]=0$. So the Berry phase is just given by AB phase at any magnetic flux. This result is in conflict with the previous result obtained using the spin analogy in which the Berry phase is found to be independent of the magnetic flux. In deriving equation (\[commut\]), the key step is to make use of the continuity condition to replace the total angular momentum by the local current. Although the continuity condition is satisfied in the BdG formalism for any energy eigenstate or at thermal equilibrium, its validity in those situations is justified only under the particle-number non-conserving approximation. On the other hand, we know that the system in consideration has fixed particle number, which is necessary for a physically meaningful quantum phase associated with the adiabatic evolution. So the Berry phase $-\Phi$ obtained from (\[commut\]) doesn’t correspond to a quantum state with fixed particle number and may not correspond to a physical result. The unphysical result will be modified already at a naive level of restoring particle number conservation. Once we add a Cooper pair creation operator associated with the hole part of the BdG quasiparticle creation operator (cf. equation (\[alpha\_BdG\])), the commutator $[\tilde{J}(\theta'),\alpha^\dagger]$ becomes finite throughout the annulus as the Cooper pair wave function is spread out along the annulus.\
Berry phase in terms of angular momentum {#exact}
========================================
In this section, we develop a formalism in which the Berry phase is related to the system angular momentum. We prove that the exact value of the Berry phase can be obtained at vanishing superfluid velocity. In linear response approximation, we evaluate the Berry phase at non-zero superfluid velocities in terms that depend only on the ground state wave function and the system energy spectrum at zero superfluid velocity. The formula for non-zero superfluid velocities derived in this section will be studied in the following two sections.\
In an effective one-dimensional system, the Berry phase is related to the total angular momentum of the system. This is because we can write the system many-body ground state in the form $\Psi(\{\theta_i-\theta_0\})$, where only azimuthal coordinate is explicitly considered, $\theta_i$ is the coordinate of particle $i$ which runs from 1 to $2N+1$ and $\theta_0$ parameterizes the position of the Zeeman trap. The Berry phase can then be shown to be equal to the total angular momentum of the system as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\phi&=&-\mathrm{Im}\{\int_0^{2\pi}\langle\Psi|\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial\theta_0}\rangle\} \nonumber \\
&=&\mathrm{Im}\{\sum^{2N+1}_{i=1}\int_0^{2\pi}\langle\Psi|\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial\theta_i}\rangle\} \nonumber \\
&=& 2\pi\sum_{i=1}^{2N+1}L_i, \label{Berry}\end{aligned}$$ where $L_i$ denotes the expectation value of the angular momentum of particle $i$.\
It is worth noting that the total quantum phase of interest accumulated in the adiabatic evolution is the sum of the explicit phase (which is usually called monodromy phase) of the instantaneous ground state and the Berry phase. In the above derivation, the monodromy phase is zero since the instantaneous ground state can be chosen to take the form $\Psi(\{\theta_i-\theta_0\})$ which explicitly returns to its initial state after the adiabatic evolution when $\theta_0$ winds by $2\pi$. This is due to one-dimensional nature of the problem: changing $\theta_0$ by $2\pi$ is completely equivalent to changing $\theta_i$ by $2\pi$, the effect of which on the ground state must be to return it to its initial state by single-valued condition. Therefore, for our system, the total quantum phase is just equal to the Berry phase. Note that this is not true in general situations where we need to calculate both the monodromy phase and the Berry phase. For example, in the case of Majorana zero modes in vortices of p+ip superfluids, the relative monodromy phase of interchanging two Majorana zero modes is non-zero for degenerate ground states [@Ivanov].\
It turns out that at integer or half-integer magnetic fluxes (measured in unit of $h/|e|$), we can find the angular momentum exactly based on general arguments from gauge invariance and time reversal symmetry. Away from the integer or half-integer fluxes, the angular momentum can’t be found exactly and we need to resort to first-order perturbation theory.
Integer or Half-integer Flux {#Integer Flux}
----------------------------
We write down the system Hamiltonian in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
H&=&\sum_{j=1}^{2N+1}(-i\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_j}+\Phi)^2+V_{\mathrm{int}}+H_z, \label{H}\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{\mathrm{int}}$ refers to particle-particle interaction, $\Phi$ is the external magnetic flux in units of $h/|e|$ and $H_z$ is the Zeeman term. Making a gauge transformation to the $2N+1$-particle wave function $\Psi$ $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\Psi}=\mathrm{exp}(i\sum^{2N+1}_{j=1}\Phi\theta_i)\Psi \label{Gauge_Psi}\end{aligned}$$ and substituting into the Schrodinger equation, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{H}\tilde{\Psi}=E\tilde{\Psi}, \label{Gauge_Schrodinger}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{H}=-\sum_{j=1}^{2N+1}\partial^2/\partial\theta_j^2+V_{\mathrm{int}}+H_z $. The transformed many-body function satisfies the boundary condition $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\Psi}(\theta_i+2\pi,...)=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi\Phi)\tilde{\Psi}(\theta_i,...). \label{BC_Gauge}\end{aligned}$$ When $2\Phi=n$, the boundary condition (\[BC\_Gauge\]) after the gauge transformation is invariant under time reversal. Since the transformed Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}$ also has time reversal symmetry (note that the Zeeman term is unchanged since the time reversal considered here is with respect to orbital degrees of freedom only), the ground state wave function $\tilde{\Psi}$ must be real if there is no degeneracy. So its angular momentum is zero. Thus, the angular momentum of the original wave function is $$\begin{aligned}
L=-\sum_{i=1}^{2N+1}\Phi=-(2N+1)\Phi. \label{L}\end{aligned}$$
Similarly for even number of particles, the angular momentum is $-2N\Phi$. Note that the above result (\[L\]) is very general and exact. Furthermore, it doesn’t depend on details of the system such as whether it’s superconducting or not. It is also different from general theorem of Byers and Yang [@BY] in that it is a stronger statement on non-degenerate eigenstates at integer fluxes of $h/2|e|$, instead of $h/|e|$. It is rather interesting to see that the fluxes quantized at integer values of $h/2|e|$ are special in that the Berry phase of transporting any local potential (in the case of current interest, it is the Zeeman field) becomes just the sum of AB phase of each individual particle moving around the annulus. Usually, $h/2|e|$ is related to Cooper pairing. However, here it enters in quite general situations.\
Equation (\[L\]) can be applied to our toy model when the superfluid velocity vanishes. Since at zero superfluid velocity, we have $$\begin{aligned}
l_0+2\Phi=0, \label{zero_v}\end{aligned}$$ where $l_0$ is the superfluid winding number. For vortex winding number $l_0=1$, $\Phi=-1/2$ which is at half-integer value of $h/|e|$. Furthermore, we know the ground state is unique for our system with a single bound quasiparticle in potential well (the energy from spin degree of freedom is split due to Zeeman field). According to (\[L\]) and (\[Berry\]), the Berry phase is equal to $\pi$. Thus the calculations in Section \[BdG\] in the BdG approximations are correct at zero superfluid velocity. We shall see in the following that they cease to be correct when the superfluid is moving.\
Linear Response Theory - away from Integer or Half-integer Fluxes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Away from the integer or half-integer fluxes, the boundary condition (\[BC\_Gauge\]) is no longer invariant under time reversal and the above argument ceases to be valid. In order to proceed, we can regard the deviation of magnetic flux from integer or half-integer values as perturbation and apply first-order perturbation theory to the problem. This is valid if the annulus is large enough so that $O(1)$ flux change is a small perturbation to the system compared to total energy of the system.\
To obtain the Berry phase that characterizes the quasiparticle statistics, we should compare the difference in the Berry phase for system with $2N+1$ and $2N$ particles. Taking this into account and writing the Berry phase in terms of deviation from the value from integer or half-integer magnetic flux, we get the following expression for the Berry phase at magnetic flux $\Phi=-1/2+\delta\Phi$ (from now on, we fix the superfluid winding number to be 1) $$\begin{aligned}
\phi/2\pi&=&(\langle J_{2N+1}\rangle_{\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}+\delta\Phi}-\langle J_{2N+1}\rangle_{\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}})-(\langle J_{2N}\rangle_{\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}+\delta\Phi}-\langle J_{2N}\rangle_{\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}}) +\frac{1}{2}, \label{phi_J}\end{aligned}$$ where $J\equiv\sum_j-i\partial/\partial\theta_j$. Note that we use notation $J$ here to emphasize relation between the Berry phase and current response to transverse vector field acting on the superfluid due to the magnetic flux $\Phi$ threading the annulus. $J$ is just the total angular momentum of the system (it is the same quantity as the $L$ appearing in equation (\[L\])).\
Now applying standard first-order perturbation theory, the angular momentum $J$ difference at flux $\Phi$ and at flux $-1/2$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\tilde{0}|J|\tilde{0}\rangle-\langle0|J|0\rangle&=&(\sum_na_n\langle0|J|n\rangle+c.c.) \nonumber \\
&=&2\sum_n\frac{|\langle0|J|n\rangle|^2}{E_0-E_n}\delta\Phi, \label{LR}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\tilde{0}\rangle$ refers to the ground state at flux $\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}+\delta \Phi$, $|0\rangle$ and $|n\rangle$ refer to ground state and excited eigenstates at flux $\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}$ with energies $E_0$ and $E_n$, respectively, $|\tilde{0}\rangle=|0\rangle+\sum_na_n|n\rangle$. We omit the subscript of the angular momentum $J$, which will be added for discussing cases with $2N$ and $2N+1$ particles separately (Section \[sum rules\]). The RHS of the above equation gives the modification to the Berry phase away from the integer or half-integer fluxes, corresponding to non-zero superfluid velocities.\
Sum rules and continuity condition {#sum rules and continuity condition}
==================================
Sum rules {#sum rules}
---------
Let’s now evaluate the sum in equation (\[LR\]). Let’s first discuss the $2N$-particle ground state. If we assume the $2N$-particle ground state at flux $\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}+\delta\Phi$ has rotation symmetry, which is true to the first order of the Zeeman field strength, then the matrix element $\langle0|J|n\rangle$ vanishes identically and hence the correction due to $\delta\Phi$ in equation (\[LR\]). So we have $\langle J_{2N}\rangle_{\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}+\delta\Phi}-\langle J_{2N}\rangle_{\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}}=0$ (recall that $J$ is the canonical angular momentum). This result is simply the Meissner effect which implies that the current-current correlation here is the transverse one and the superfluid condensate doesn’t contribute to it. This is intuitively reasonable since the current is responding to magnetic vector potential as in the usual Meissner effect, which is analogous to the behavior of a superfluid in a rotating container[@AJL].\
What about the ground state with $2N+1$ particles? In this case, the ground state no longer has rotation symmetry, so the matrix element in equation (\[LR\]) is finite. The sum rule of the current-current correlation here is rather tricky since we are considering ground state with odd total number of particles and it’s unclear what accounts for normal fluid which is responsible for transverse current-current correlation. It is tempting to rewrite the sum in equation (\[LR\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
2\sum_n\frac{|\langle0|J_{2N+1}|n\rangle|^2}{E_0-E_n}&=&-i\frac{\langle0|[X, H]+\frac{i}{2}|n\rangle \langle n|J_{2N+1}|0\rangle}{E_0-E_n}-i\frac{\langle0|J_{2N+1}|n\rangle\langle n|[X, H]+\frac{i}{2}|0\rangle}{E_0-E_n}, \nonumber \\
\label{LR_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is the Hamiltonian at flux $\Phi=-1/2$, $X=\sum_{i=1}^{2N+1}\theta_i$. The constant $i/2$ in the matrix element in equation (\[LR\_1\]) comes from the fact that the kinetic term for each particle $i$ in $H$ takes the form $(-i\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta_i}-\frac{1}{2})^2$. The first sum in equation (\[LR\_1\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
e
-i\frac{\langle0|[X, H]+\frac{i}{2}|n\rangle \langle n|J_{2N+1}|0\rangle}{E_0-E_n}=i\langle0|X|n\rangle\langle n|J_{2N+1}|0\rangle. \label{LR_1-1}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the second sum in equation (\[LR\_1\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
-i\frac{\langle 0|J_{2N+1}|n\rangle\langle n|[X, H]+\frac{i}{2}|0\rangle}{E_0-E_n}=-i\langle 0|J_{2N+1}|n\rangle \langle n|X|0\rangle. \label{LR_1-2}\end{aligned}$$ Now, adding equation (\[LR\_1-1\]) and (\[LR\_1-2\]), together with a term $i\langle0|X|0\rangle\langle0|J_{2N+1}|0\rangle-i\langle0|J_{2N+1}|0\rangle\langle0|X|0\rangle$ (which is zero), we get $$\begin{aligned}
2\sum_n\frac{|\langle0|J_{2N+1}|n\rangle|^2}{E_0-E_n}&=&i\langle0|[X,J_{2N+1}]|0\rangle \nonumber \\
&=&-(2N+1). \label{LR_f}\end{aligned}$$ So the Berry phase is, combing equation (\[phi\_J\]) with equation (\[LR\_f\]) and (\[LR\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\phi/2\pi=-(2N+1)\delta \Phi+\frac{1}{2}. \label{Berry_f}\end{aligned}$$
However, the result (\[Berry\_f\]) is suspect, since if were to apply the same derivation to the $2N$-particle ground state, we would arrive at Berry phase change away from $\Phi=-1/2$ proportional to $2N$ which conflicts with the earlier argument based on properties of the many-body ground state. This is clearly the analog, in our geometry, of the well-known failure, in a bulk system, of the longitudinal and transverse current-current correlations to coincide in the static $q\rightarrow0$ limit [@Baym]. Mathematically, we can’t simply take the commutation relation in (\[LR\_f\]) to be that of $[x,p]$ as here $X$ is compact so that it is defined modulo $2(2N+1)\pi$. Nevertheless, we may regard the (magnitude of ) right hand side of equation (\[LR\_f\]) as an upper bound of (the magnitude of) the sum on the left hand side. In the following, we’ll make various attempts to estimate the sum. We’ll see that the standard BdG framework results in violation of the upper bound and it’s necessary to modify the corresponding many-body wave functions beyond the BdG construction to restore particle number conservation and to comply with the sum rule given by equation (\[LR\_f\]).\
Continuity condition {#continuity condition}
--------------------
So far we have not considered the microscopic of the system and our analysis until now is quite general. To proceed to evaluate (\[LR\]), we need to make some specific reference to the microscopic Hamiltonian and study properties such as the energy spectrum of the quasiparticle. We first notice that all terms in the sum in (\[LR\]) are negative and so they all contribute to the sum constructively. Let’s start by looking into the contribution of the lowest energy eigenstates to the sum which corresponds to bound quasiparticle states. For this, we need to explicitly consider the wave functions and energy spectrum of the bound states. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to the simplest case with zero superfluid winding number in the absence of any magnetic flux. Generalizations to other cases will not change the qualitative result.\
We are considering a $2N+1$-particle superfluid system whose condensate forms BCS s-wave Cooper pairs. In the absence of any external potential field, the low-energy eigenstates in the BCS mean-field framework are approximated by the $2N$-particle BCS ground state (particle-number conserving BCS ground state) with a particle-number conserving BdG quasiparticle added: $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathrm{GS}\rangle_{2N+1}=\alpha^\dagger_{k,\sigma}|\mathrm{GS}\rangle_{2N} \label{GS_odd_uniform}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^\dagger_{k\sigma}=u_ka^\dagger_{k\sigma}+\sigma v_ka_{-k,-\sigma}C^\dagger \label{alpha_BdG}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathrm{GS}\rangle_{2N}=\mathcal{N}C^{\dagger N}|\mathrm{vac}\rangle, C^\dagger=\sum_k c_ka^\dagger_{k\uparrow}a^\dagger_{-k\downarrow}, \label{GS_even}\end{aligned}$$ where $|\mathrm{vac}\rangle$ denotes the particle vacuum state, $\mathcal{N}$ is the normalization factor, $C^\dagger$ creates Cooper pairs in the BCS ground state, and the coefficients $c_k$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
c_k=v_k/u_k, \hspace{5pt} u_k, v_k=\sqrt{1/2}(1\pm\epsilon_k/E_k), \label{coef_BCS}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_k=\hbar^2(k^2-k_F^2)/2m$, $E_k=\sqrt{\epsilon_k^2+|\bigtriangleup|^2}$, $k_F$ is Fermi wave vector and $\bigtriangleup$ is the BCS energy gap. A value of $k$ near the Fermi wave vector corresponds to near gap low-energy excitations.\
Adding a weak Zeeman field $B(z)$ as a function only of $z$ (longitudinal direction along annulus), we get a Zeeman term in the Hamiltonian as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_i\sigma_iV(z_i), \hspace{5pt} V(z)=-\mu B(z), \label{Hamiltonian_Zeeman}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu$ is the magnetic moment of the particles and $\sigma_i$ is projection of spin along axis of $B$.\
We consider a regime of the Zeeman field such that a BdG quasiparticle is trapped well within the Zeeman potential and at the same time the condensate can be considered as unaffected. So we require the extension of the Zeeman field $d$ to be much larger than the coherence length $\xi$ and its strength $V_0$ much smaller than $\bigtriangleup$. To trap a quasiparticle within its extension, we require the kinetic energy cost inside the trap be smaller than binding energy, $\hbar v_F/d<V_0$, which is consistently satisfied by the previous requirement of $d\gg \xi$. Finally, the Zeeman field extension should be much smaller than the circumference of the annulus $L=2\pi R$.\
Let’s choose the direction of the Zeeman field to be pointing up, so that the localized quasiparticle has spin up in the lowest two energy eigenstates (doublet). [@Leggett_Lin] Due to the Zeeman term, the plane-wave states of the BdG quasiparticle with different momenta will scatter into each other and we expect a bound quasiparticle to be formed out of linear combination of $\alpha^\dagger_{k\uparrow}$ with $k$ around Fermi wave vector $\pm k_F$. Ignoring normal reflection, we can consider wave packet around either $k_F$ or $-k_F$ and the resulting wave functions are described by Andreev bound states [@Lin_Leggett]. As bound quasiparticle states with wave vectors in $+z$ and $-z$ directions are degenerate, we can’t use them to evaluate the sum in (\[LR\]) which would result in divergence. So we have to take into full account of the normal reflection which is usually ignored in discussions of Andreev problems. Although the normal reflection splits the lowest two energy levels and avoids divergence, there’s something wrong with the energy splitting as described by the BdG equations. For a smooth Zeeman trap varying at length scale much larger than the coherence length, the coupling due to the normal reflection is exponentially small determined by the ratio of Zeeman length scale to the inverse of the Fermi wave number, i.e., it scales as $\mathrm{exp}(-k_Fd)$. On the other hand, we can show that the numerator $|\langle0|J|1\rangle|^2$ remains finite in the limit $d/\xi \rightarrow \infty$, yielding divergent contribution to the sum. This violation of the sum rule (\[LR\_f\]) is closely related to violation of continuity condition and corresponding particle number conservation in the mean-field approach. This can be seen as follows. If the energy splitting of the doublet is exponentially small and suppose the quasiparticle is in the quasi-ground state with wave vector centered around Fermi wave vector $k_F$, then the state is quasi-stationary with lifetime of order the inverse of the exponentially small energy splitting. Now by the continuity condition of particle flow, the divergence of the particle number current should be exponentially small everywhere in the annulus. But this is in contradiction to the corresponding many-body state. As the quasiparticle is localized inside the Zeeman trap, the current outside the trap is zero (remember that the many-body state we are considering has vanishing superfluid velocity) and the current inside is of order $v_F/d$. So the divergence of current is much larger than required by the continuity condition [@continuity]. This suggests necessity of going beyond the BdG equations to enforce particle number conservation in order to satisfy the f-sum rule.\
The reason the BdG approach fails in the above analysis is due to neglecting the superfluid condensate and treating the system as an effective single particle problem associated with the quasiparticle that doesn’t preserve particle number conservation. Hence we’ll make a variational ansatz to the particle-number conserving many-body ground state in order to recover the continuity condition, though systematic constructions of ’post-BdG’ formalism are lacking. To avoid finite current divergence at the edges of the Zeeman trap for the bound quasiparticle approximate energy eigenstate with wave vector around $k_F$, it’s natural to imagine some counterflow from the superfluid condensate inside the trap to cancel the current flow induced by the bound quasiparticle. Although neither the condensate nor the quasiparticle satisfies the continuity condition alone, the combination of the two as a whole does. Energetically, the most economical way to generate superfluid flow is to twist the superfluid phase. Hence, it suffices to multiply the 2N-particle ground state wave function (the $2N+1$-particle wave function is obtained by applying the particle-number conserving quasiparticle operator to the $2N$-particle state) by a phase factor $\mathrm{exp}(-i\sum_jf(z_j))$ to yield zero current flow throughout the annulus, where [@Lin_Leggett] $$\begin{aligned}
f(z)=\frac{k_FL}{2N}\int|\Psi_{\mathrm{Sch}}(z)|^2dz, \label{f_z}\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is the circumference of the annulus, $\Psi_{\mathrm{Sch}}(z)$ is the solution to a Schrodinger equation derived from the BdG equation for the quasiparticle and is related to the particle and hole component $u(z)$ and $v(z)$ via $u(z)\approx v(z)=\mathrm{exp}(ik_Fz)\Psi_{\mathrm{Sch}}(z)$ (z is the coordinate along the annulus).\
We see that in the modified state, the superfluid condensate is deformed in the region where the quasiparticle is localized. For the true energy ground state doublet, the quasiparticle wave function is linear combination of two approximate quasiparticle energy eigenstates with wave vectors centered around $\pm k_F$. Once the superfluid condensate deformation is taken into account, the quasiparticle wave function is entangled with the condensate in the energy eigenstate doublet, a new feature absent in the standard BdG approach.\
Lower bound on Berry phase at non-zero superfluid velocities {#lower bound}
============================================================
In this section, we estimate a lower bound on the Berry phase change away from integer or half-integer magnetic fluxes, i.e., the sum in equation (\[LR\]). We will do this by two different approaches and show that they give the same form of the lower bound, one which is independent of the Zeeman trap strength. In the first approach, we apply a Cauchy-Schwartz (CS) inequality. As we notice in evaluating the sum in equations (\[LR\_1\])-(\[LR\_f\]) that we want to avoid evaluating the angular momentum in terms of the azimuthal coordinates, as their definition is subtle in the annular geometry, we need to apply the CS inequality consecutively to obtain the following inequality (Appendix \[CS\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_n\frac{|\langle0|J|n\rangle|^2}{E_n-E_0} > -\frac{\langle[J,[J,H]]\rangle^3}{\langle[J,H]^2\rangle^2}. \label{CS_lower}\end{aligned}$$
Evaluating $[J,H]$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
[J,H]=-iR\int_0^L ds \rho_{\sigma_z}(s)\partial/\partial_sV_z(s)ds, \label{L_H_commut}\end{aligned}$$ where $R$ is the radius of the annulus , $L=2\pi R$ is its circumference, $V_z(s)$ is the Zeeman field, $\rho_{\sigma_z}(s)$ is spin density in the direction in which the Zeeman field is oriented.\
For a wide and weak Zeeman field, we expect a net spin localized in the trap. If we model the bottom of the trap by a harmonic oscillator, $[J,H]$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
[J,H]=-iRk\int dr rS_z(r), \label{J_H_commut}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used $S_z(r)$ to represent the localized spin density (note it is just $|u(r)|^2+|v(r)|^2$ with $u(r)$ and $v(r)$ particle and hole wave functions of the bound quasiparticle, see also [@Lin_Leggett]), $k$ is the strength of the oscillator, and $[J,[J,H]]$ is evaluated from (\[J\_H\_commut\]) to be $$\begin{aligned}
[J,[J,H]]=-R^2k\int dr S_z(r)=-R^2k, \label{JJ_H_commut}\end{aligned}$$ where the normalization condition $\int dr S_z(r)=1$ has been used.\
The denominator of the rhs of equation (\[CS\_lower\]) can be easily evaluated for a particle in a harmonic oscillator trap to be $$\begin{aligned}
\langle[J,H]^2\rangle^2=\frac{k^3R^4}{4m^*}, \label{J_H_2}\end{aligned}$$ where $m^*$ is the effective mass. To obtain the effective mass, we need to explicitly write down the BdG equation for the localized quasiparticle, which will be done shortly in the second approach. For now, we just quote the value $m^*=\frac{\bigtriangleup}{2\epsilon_F}m$ with $m$ the bare particle mass, $\bigtriangleup$ the superconducting gap and $\epsilon_F$ the Fermi energy.\
Substituting (\[J\_H\_commut\]) and (\[JJ\_H\_commut\]) into (\[CS\_lower\]) we obtain the lower bound $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_n\frac{|\langle0|J|n\rangle|^2}{E_n-E_0} >4R^2m^*. \label{CS_f}\end{aligned}$$ Taking into account the units (we want to get a dimensionless quantity, and note that the dimension of the above expression is angular momentum$^2$/energy which has units $mR^2$), the rhs of (\[CS\_f\]) becomes $4m^*/m=2\bigtriangleup/\epsilon_F$. Hence, we see that the deviation of the Berry phase away from the integer or half-integer magnetic fluxes has lower bound $-(4\bigtriangleup/\epsilon_F)\delta\Phi$ in the sense that its magnitude is bounded below by $(4\bigtriangleup/\epsilon_F)|\delta\Phi|$ but the deviation has the opposite sign to $\delta\Phi$ (keep in mind the extra factor of two in the sum (\[LR\])).\
Now, let’s evaluate the lower bound directly from the BdG equation for the bound quasiparticle. Assuming the $2N$-particle ground state wave function is unchanged by the Zeeman trap, we can write down the effective equation obeyed by the bound quasiparticle $$\begin{aligned}
E_kC_k-\sum_{k'}V_{k-k'}C_{k'}=EC_k, \label{qp_momentum}\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{k-k'}$ is the Fourier component of the Zeeman trap and the bound quasiparticle state is given by a linear superposition of plane wave quasiparticle states as $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^\dagger=\sum_kC_k\alpha^\dagger_{k\uparrow}. \label{alpha_dagger}\end{aligned}$$
Expanding the excitation energy $E_k=\sqrt{\epsilon_k^2+\bigtriangleup^2}$ to the lowest order in $\bigtriangleup/\epsilon_F$ and taking into account only wave numbers around $\pm k_F$ as they are dominant in the bound quasiparticle state, we get an effective time-independent Schrodinger equation obeyed by the bound quasiparticle with wave numbers in either direction $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{2m^*}\frac{d^2}{dz^2}g(z)-V(z)g(z)=Eg(z), \label{TISE}\end{aligned}$$ where the effective mass is $m^*=(\bigtriangleup/2\epsilon_F)m$, $e^{i\pm k_Fz}g(z)=\sum_{k,\pm k_F}C_k\mathrm{exp}{ikz}$ (the sum over k is near either $k_F$ or $-k_F$).\
When the superfluid has non-zero winding number around the annulus and is also put in the presence of finite magnetic flux, the effective equation given by (\[qp\_momentum\]) can be generalized by replacing the momentum quantum number by an angular momentum quantum number, and the corresponding excitation energy becomes $$\begin{aligned}
E_l=\sqrt{\epsilon_l^2+\bigtriangleup^2}+(l_0+2\Phi)(l-\frac{l_0}{2}), \label{E_l}\end{aligned}$$ where $l_0$ is the condensate winding number, $\Phi$ is the magnetic flux and $\epsilon_l=(l-\frac{l_0}{2})^2-\mu$ with $\mu$ chemical potential.\
If we ignore mixing of the wave numbers from around $k_F$ and around $-k_F$, the effective equation is again given by (\[TISE\]) but in the presence of an effective vector potential. Expanding the energy $E_l$ in terms of $\epsilon_l/\bigtriangleup$, the kinetic terms read $$\begin{aligned}
E_l&=&\sqrt{\epsilon_l^2+\bigtriangleup^2}+(l_0+2\Phi)(l-\frac{l_0}{2}) \nonumber \\
&\approx&\frac{\epsilon^2_l}{2\bigtriangleup}+(l_0+2\Phi)(l-\frac{l_0}{2})+\bigtriangleup \nonumber \\
&=&\frac{l_{F\pm}^2}{2\bigtriangleup mR^2}(l-l_{F\pm})^2+l(l_0+2\Phi)-l_0(l_0+2\Phi)+\bigtriangleup. \label{kinetic}\end{aligned}$$ From the above equation, we obtain the average angular momentum (which is equal to the angular momentum which minimizes the kinetic energy) $$\begin{aligned}
\langle l\rangle= l_{F\pm}-(l_0+2\Phi)\frac{\bigtriangleup}{2\epsilon_F}, \label{l_ave}\end{aligned}$$ where $l_0+2\Phi$ equals the superfluid velocity, $l_{F+}+l_{F-}=l_0$ ($l_{F\pm}$ refer to positive and negative angular momentum at the Fermi level respectively).\
The Berry phase can be straightforwardly shown (by an argument similar to that for the general case leading to equation (\[Berry\]), i.e., the bound quasiparticle wave function depends on the Zeeman trap location parametrized by $\theta_0$, so the Berry phase is related to its angular momentum) to be equal to the average angular momentum of the bound quasiparticle $$\begin{aligned}
\phi/2\pi=\langle l\rangle. \label{phi_qp}\end{aligned}$$
Ignoring the redistribution of the magnitudes of $C_l$ around $l_{F+}$ relative to those around $l_{F-}$ due to the magnetic flux change $\delta\Phi$, we get by combining equation (\[phi\_qp\]) and equation (\[l\_ave\]) a lower bound for the Berry phase change due to $\delta\Phi=\frac{1}{2}+\Phi$ (coming from the term linear in $\Phi$ in equation (\[l\_ave\])) $$\begin{aligned}
|\delta\phi/2\pi|>(\bigtriangleup/\epsilon_F)|\delta\Phi| \label{delta_phi}\end{aligned}$$ where again $\delta\phi$ has the opposite sign to $\delta\Phi$ as discussed below equation (\[CS\_f\]).\
Hence, we see that the two approaches give a similar lower bound and the former approach gives a stronger bound (four times that of the latter bound).\
In the latter approach, we further see that the redistribution of the $C_l$ around positive and negative Fermi momentum due to finite superfluid velocity (i.e. finite $l_0+2\Phi$) is dependent on the potential energy saving by scattering between opposite Fermi momenta through the Zeeman trap (without the trap, all coefficients will be around either positive or negative Fermi momentum depending on the direction of the superfluid velocity). So for the many-body wave functions constructed by the BdG solutions, the Berry phase at general magnetic fluxes is non-universal and depends on parameters of the system such as the Zeeman trap strength.\
In this section, we have shown that the modification of the Berry phase at non-zero superfluid velocities is non-zero. Therefore the Berry phase is affected by the motion of the superfluid, the effect is bounded from below by an amount dependent on quantities such as the superfluid gap and the Fermi energy. Furthermore, the Berry phase is non-universal and is dependent on both the superfluid properties such as the superfluid gap and the Zeeman trap. We shall now verify the non-universality of the Berry phase by focusing on a specific form of the Zeeman potential.\
Berry phase evaluated for a square-well Zeeman potential {#square}
========================================================
In this section, we evaluate the Berry phase quantitatively for a specific shape of Zeeman trap, a square-well trap. (Note that the considerations of ref.\[6\] concerning the exponentially small splitting of the lowest two states do not apply to this case). We develop a different approach for calculating the Berry phase based on a work-energy relationship. The advantage of this approach is that the Berry phase can be evaluated from the energy of the bound quasiparticle which is properly addressed by the BdG equations, without the need to explicitly refer to quantities more difficult to calculate such as the angular momentum and many-body wave functions.\
We have shown from symmetry that the Berry phase is $\pi$ (equal to the AB phase) at magnetic flux $\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}$ (in units of $h/|e|$) and vanishing superfluid velocity. We are interested in knowing the evolution of the Berry phase as we change the magnetic flux while keeping the winding number $l_0$ fixed. As we change the magnetic flux, a voltage is generated around the annulus. The amount of work done to the system is determined by the voltage and the current. Since work is equal to energy change, we can establish a relationship between the Berry phase (in terms of current) and variation of the quasiparticle energy.\
The work-energy equations for the system with $2N$ and $2N+1$ particles are $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Phi_i}^{\Phi_f}(L_{2N}+2N\Phi)d\Phi&=&E_{2N}(\Phi_f)-E_{2N}(\Phi_i) \nonumber \\
\int_{\Phi_i}^{\Phi_f}(L_{2N+1}+(2N+1)\Phi)d\Phi&=&E_{2N+1}(\Phi_f)-E_{2N+1}(\Phi_i), \label{work-energy}\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ denotes total angular momentum, $E$ refers to total energy of the system and $\Phi$ is external magnetic flux. All three quantities are dimensionless in units $\hbar$, $\hbar^2/2mR^2$ ($R$ - annulus radius) and $h/|e|$, respectively. Subtracting the two equations, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Phi_i}^{\Phi_f}(L_{2N+1}-L_{2N}+\Phi)d\Phi=(E_{2N+1}(\Phi_f)-E_{2N}(\Phi_f))-(E_{2N+1}(\Phi_i)-E_{2N+1}(\Phi_i)).
\label{work-energy_qp}\end{aligned}$$
Differentiating equation (\[work-energy\_qp\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
L_{2N+1}-L_{2N}=-\Phi+dE(\Phi)/d\Phi, \label{work-energy_qp_f}\end{aligned}$$ where $E(\Phi)\equiv E_{2N+1}(\Phi)-E_{2N}(\Phi)$ is the quasiparticle energy.\
Since the Berry phase $\phi$ is equal to $2\pi L$, we get the Berry phase from (\[work-energy\_qp\_f\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\phi/2\pi=-\Phi+dE(\Phi)/d\Phi. \label{Berry_energy}\end{aligned}$$ The first term on rhs of equation (\[Berry\_energy\]) is just the AB phase, the second term is the correction due to the energy dependence on the magnetic flux.\
We now solve the BdG equations to find $E(\Phi)$. In order to find a simple analytic expression, we choose a square shaped Zeeman trap, i.e. it is constant between $0$ and $\theta=\theta_L$ ($\theta$ is the azimuthal coordinate parametrizing the annulus) and zero elsewhere. We also ignore any spatial inhomogeneity of the gap magnitude, a valid approximation for weak enough Zeeman field.\
We consider a magnetic flux around $-1/2$, where the BdG equation reads $$\begin{aligned}
((l-\frac{1}{2})^2-\mu)u+\bigtriangleup e^{i\theta}v&=&(E+V)u \nonumber \\
-((l+\frac{1}{2})^2-\mu)v+\bigtriangleup e^{-i\theta}u&=&(E+V)v, \label{BdG_1/2_B}\end{aligned}$$ where $V$ is the Zeeman potential energy which is zero between $\theta_L$ and $2\pi$ and equal to $V$ elsewhere. $\bigtriangleup$ is constant to a good approximation and it can be made to be real, $l$ is the angular momentum quantum number, $\mu$ is chemical potential. Let’s make the gauge transformation $u=\tilde{u}e^{i\theta/2}$, $v=\tilde{v}e^{-i\theta/2}$. After the transformation and renaming $\tilde{u}$, $\tilde{v}$ to $u$, $v$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
(l^2-\mu)u+\bigtriangleup v&=&(E+V)u \nonumber \\
-(l^2-\mu)v+\bigtriangleup u&=&(E+V)v. \label{BdG_1/2_B_transf}\end{aligned}$$ Now $u$ and $v$ become anti-periodic around the annulus, which doesn’t affect a bound solution as it is localized.\
When the magnetic flux is $\Phi=-\frac{1}{2}+\lambda$, the BdG equation becomes $$\begin{aligned}
((l+\lambda)^2-\mu)u+\bigtriangleup v&=&(E+V)u \nonumber \\
-((l-\lambda)^2-\mu)v+\bigtriangleup u&=&(E+V)v, \label{BdG_0_transf}\end{aligned}$$ where again $u$ and $v$ satisfy an anti-periodic boundary condition. The BdG equation (\[BdG\_0\_transf\]) has the following symmetry: $\lambda\rightarrow-\lambda$, $E\rightarrow E$ for $(u,v)\rightarrow(u^*,v^*)$. Thus, the lowest energy eigenvalue $E_0(\lambda)$ is symmetric around $\lambda=0$. So $dE(\Phi)/d\Phi=0$ at $\Phi=-1/2$, and equation (\[Berry\_energy\]) gives just an AB phase at $\Phi=-1/2$, consistent with our previous general considerations based on symmetry (cf. Section \[Integer Flux\]).\
If we ignore mixing between positive and negative momenta, it’s relatively straightforward to show that the lowest energy doublet is degenerate at $\Phi=-1/2$ and the energies are linear in $\lambda$ with slope $\pm2l_F$ ($l_F^2=\mu$) (see appendix \[square well\] for a detailed derivation). When mixing is taken into account, an energy gap is opened up at the crossing point and we can write down the energy spectrum for small $\lambda$ as $$\begin{aligned}
E(\lambda)=\pm\sqrt{(2l_F\lambda)^2+\eta^2}, \label{doublet_splitting}\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is the energy gap at $\Phi=-1/2$. So the derivative of the lowest energy with respect to $\lambda$ is $$\begin{aligned}
dE/d\lambda=-4l_F^2\lambda/\sqrt{(2l_F\lambda)^2+\eta^2}. \label{dEdlambda}\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[dEdlambda\]) shows explicitly that the Berry phase is non-universal, depending on both the Fermi energy and the energy gap of the doublet splitting which is determined by both the Zeeman trap and the superfluid gap etc. It is further interesting to note the follow points concerning equation (\[dEdlambda\]). Firstly, it satisfies the f-sum rule and its upper bound is just half of the upper bound on the f-sum rule for a true 1D system since the magnitude of the rhs is bounded by $2l_F$ which is equal to the total number of particles for each spin. The physical system of interest is only quasi-1D and therefore the upper bound is smaller than half the upper bound on the f-sum rule. Secondly, comparing (\[dEdlambda\]) with (\[LR\]), we see that in the linear regime where $2l_F\lambda\ll\eta$, the Berry phase for a square well takes the same form as the doublet contribution to the sum in the linear response formula (up to a factor of 2) at the BdG level (i.e., many-body deformation is not taken into account).\
Finally, we note that although in calculating the Berry phase, we have used the BdG equations to evaluate the quasiparticle energy spectrum, the formula (\[Berry\_energy\]) for the Berry phase is derived in a way that fully respects particle number conservation and furthermore relies only on the system energy spectrum. This explains why the expression (\[dEdlambda\]), obtained from the BdG equations, satisfies the f-sum rule since the BdG equations can address the system energy levels properly. This is in contrast to using the expression (\[LR\]) to evaluate the Berry phase, where evaluation of the numerators relies on the system eigenstate wave functions. As demonstrated in section \[continuity condition\], the bound quasiparticle state doublet violates the continuity condition in the BdG framework, resulting in violation of the f-sum in evaluating the Berry phase.\
Summary and Conclusions {#summary}
=======================
The Berry phase associated with transport of a quasiparticle around a superfluid vortex is surprisingly a rather subtle problem, due to the effect of the superfluid condensate when it is moving relative to the bound quasiparticle. At integer or half-integer magnetic fluxes (in units of $h/|e|$), a general argument STET the exact result that the Berry phase is equal to the AB phase, a result independent of any approximation (Section \[Integer Flux\]). Away from the integer or half-integer fluxes, in order to take into account the condensate effect, it is crucial to respect particle number conservation. This is manifest throughout our discussions with a variety of approaches.\
If we regard the system ground state as a single-particle problem and map it into an effective spin-1/2 in a magnetic field, we explicitly break particle number conservation since the spin degree of freedom corresponds to particle and hole components of the quasiparticle. The Berry phase is found to be equal to $\pi$, irrespective of the external magnetic flux through the annulus (Section \[BdG\]). In a different approach, the Berry phase can be related to the total angular momentum of the system in the one-dimensional limit (annulus thickness much smaller than its radius) and making use of the continuity condition, the Berry phase can be obtained by evaluating the commutation relation between the localized quasiparticle operator and the local current operator (Section \[continuity condition\]). In the standard particle-number non-conserving formalism, the commutator vanishes as the Cooper pair operator associated with hole part of the quasiparticle is neglected. Therefore, the Berry phase is found to be equal to AB phase at any magnetic flux. This conclusion is in contradiction with that obtained from the effective spin model away from integer or half-integer magnetic fluxes. The inconsistency between the two approaches come from breaking particle number conservation, resulting in an incorrect Berry phase away from integer or half-integer magnetic fluxes by both approaches.\
The effect of particle number conservation is particularly manifest in linear response theory (or alternatively, from adiabatic perturbation theory in a rotating frame in which the Zeeman trap is at rest) in which the Berry phase is written in the sum given by equation (\[LR\]). This sum puts a upper bound on the Berry phase equal to the total number of particles of the system, i.e., $2N+1$. Examination of the first term in the sum shows that it violates the upper bound, as the energy splitting between the lowest two energy levels is exponentially small for a wide smooth Zeeman trap. This violation is closely related to the violation of the continuity condition for approximate eigenstates made out of a linear combination of the doublet eigenstates, i.e, for approximate states traveling in either direction inside the trap. To resolve this issue, we propose to modify the condensate wave function in response to quasiparticles traveling in either directions such that the quasiparticle wave function and the condensate wave function is entangled (Section \[continuity condition\]). The modified many-body state respects continuity condition and removes the divergence in the sum. This modification goes beyond the BdG framework in which the quasiparticle wave function is not entangled with the condensate wave function. This can have important implications for Majorana zero modes, as relevant many-body ground states may be subject to modifications beyond the BdG description, potentially affecting the properties of Majorana zero modes as given by the BdG description.\
We have also estimated a lower bound on the Berry phase modification away from the integer or half-integer magnetic fluxes in order to establish the non-zero modification of the Berry phase due to the superfluid flow. From both the CS inequality and directly evaluating the quasiparticle wave function as a solution to the effective time-independent Schrodinger equation, we get a lower bound of order $\bigtriangleup/\epsilon_F$. This lower bound rules out the Berry phase of $\pi$ given by the effective spin model. Furthermore, in evaluating the quasiparticle wave function, we see that the Berry phase is non-universal depending on the parameters of the system and the Zeeman trap. Of course, this conclusion is based on a many-body wave function constructed from the BdG solutions and its validity beyond the BdG approximation is not completely clear.\
Finally, we develop a formula for the Berry phase which depends only on the energy spectrum of the system, thus independent of particle number conservation. We use this formula to explicitly calculate the Berry phase for a square-well Zeeman trap and obtain a non-universal result similar to the contribution of doublet to the sum in (\[LR\]) within the BdG formalism. It’s tempting to believe that the non-universality of the Berry phase at general magnetic flux is valid even beyond the BdG approximation since we don’t expect the energy spectrum to modify significantly beyond the BdG equations.\
In this paper, we hope to have convinced the reader that careful application of BdG equations is needed to evaluating the Berry phase associated with the transport of a quasiparticle around a superfluid vortex, and that formalism beyond the BdG framework may be necessary for obtaining a physically correct result. Particle number conservation plays an important role in the Berry phase when the superfluid condensate is moving. The lesson we learn from this study may shed important light on understanding the properties of Majorana zero modes beyond the BdG framework.\
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation through grant NSF-DMR-09-06921.
Derivation of lower bound on Berry phase with Cauchy-Schwartz inequality {#CS}
========================================================================
In this appendix, we derive equation (\[CS\_lower\]) in the main text by applying the Cauchy-Schwartz (CS) inequality consecutively. For convenience, we define the following moments $$\begin{aligned}
I_k\equiv \sum_n|\langle0|J|n\rangle|^2(E_n-E_0)^k \label{mom_k}\end{aligned}$$ The CS inequality then reads $$\begin{aligned}
I_k^2\leq I_{k-1}I_{k+1} \label{CS_ineq}\end{aligned}$$
Applying (\[CS\_ineq\]) consecutively to evaluating the lower bound to the sum $\sum_n|\langle0|J|n\rangle|^2/(E_n-E_0)$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_n\frac{|\langle0|J|n\rangle|^2}{E_n-E_0}&=&I_{-1} \geq\frac{I^2_0}{I_1} =\frac{I^2_0I_2}{I_1I_2}\geq\frac{I_0I_1^2}{I_1I_2} =\frac{I_0I_1I_2}{I_2^2} \geq\frac{I_1^3}{I_2^2} \label{CS_ineq_f}\end{aligned}$$ Writing the rhs of the above inequality in terms of commutators, we arrive at equation (\[CS\_lower\]). End of Derivation.\
Energy spectrum of bound quasiparticle in square-well Zeeman potential {#square well}
======================================================================
In this appendix, we derive the energy spectrum of a localized quasiparticle in a square-well Zeeman potential trap. The derivation is given by Appendix A in [@Lin_Leggett] for the case without any external magnetic flux and at null superfluid winding number. For the reader’s convenience, we include it here. The generalization to the case of interest where the superfluid velocity is non-zero is straightforward and we will give the corresponding expression directly.\
For simplicity of notation, we’ll present details at magnetic flux $\Phi=-1/2$, i.e., we’ll solve equation (\[BdG\_1/2\_B\_transf\]). The corresponding result for general magnetic flux $\Phi=-1/2+\lambda$ (corresponding to equation (\[BdG\_0\_transf\])) will be listed without giving an explicit derivation.\
We solve equation (\[BdG\_1/2\_B\_transf\]) by expanding the wave vector around $p_F$ (we consider linear momentum here, which is equivalent to angular momentum in 1D). Inside the well, i.e., between $\theta=0$ and $\theta=\theta_L$, the BdG quasiparticle states are plane waves; outside the well, they decay exponentially. We solve them by matching the boundary conditions at the edge of the well. It is convenient to write the ratio of $u$ and $v$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{v}{u} &=& \frac{\bigtriangleup}{E+\Omega_o^{\pm}}=F_o^{\pm} \nonumber \\
\frac{v}{u}&=&\frac{\bigtriangleup}{E+V+\Omega_i^{\pm}}=F_i^{\pm}, \label{v_u}\end{aligned}$$ where subscripts $o$ and $i$ refer to outside and inside the Zeeman trap respectively, we have omitted subscripts $o$, $i$ and superscripts $\pm$ for $u$ and $v$ for notational simplicity. $\Omega_o^{\pm}=\pm\sqrt{\bigtriangleup^2-E^2}i$, $\Omega_i^{\pm}=\pm\sqrt{(E+V)^2-\bigtriangleup^2}$. Note that $\Omega_o^{\pm}$ is pure imaginary and this is the factor which gives rise to the exponential decay of the bound solutions outside the trap. Strictly speaking, there are eight boundary conditions, four of them coming from the continuity conditions for u and v at the two trap edges, the other half coming from the continuity conditions for the first derivatives of u and v. Since upon Andreev reflection, the momentum change is of order $\bigtriangleup/E_F$ compared to the Fermi momentum, the momenta of the particle and hole plane wave solutions differ only by order $\bigtriangleup/E_F$, relative to the Fermi momentum. If we ignore this small difference, the plane wave solutions for wave vectors in opposite directions become separate. We only need to match the continuity conditions for u and v (with wave vectors in one direction) and the continuity conditions for the first derivatives are automatically satisfied (this point is discussed in [@DG]). Within this approximation, the solutions with momentum in two opposite directions are degenerate, as is the case for the general gradually varying potential discussed in the main text. Consider a solution inside the trap of the form $$\begin{aligned}
u_i&=&u_i^+e^{ip_i^+\theta}+u_i^-e^{ip_i^-\theta} \nonumber \\
v_i&=&F_i^+u_i^+e^{ip_i^+\theta}+F_i^-u_i^-e^{ip_i^-\theta}, \label{u_v_i}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_i^\pm=p_F+\frac{\Omega_i^\pm}{v_F}$; in getting the second equation, equation (\[v\_u\]) is used.\
Similarly, the solution outside the trap is given by $$\begin{aligned}
u_o&=&u_o^+e^{ip_o^+(\theta-\theta_L)}+u_o^-e^{ip_o^-(2\pi-\theta)} \nonumber \\
v_o&=&F_o^+u_o^+e^{ip_o^+(\theta-\theta_L)}+F_o^-u_o^-e^{ip_o^-(2\pi-\theta)}, \label{u_v_i}\end{aligned}$$ where $p_o^\pm=p_F+\frac{\Omega_o^\pm}{v_F}$.\
Now by matching the boundary conditions at $\theta=2\pi$ and $\theta=\theta_L$, we get the following equations at $\theta=2\pi$ $$\begin{aligned}
u_o^+e^{ip_o^+(2\pi-\theta_L)}+u_o^-&=&u_i^+ +u_i^- \nonumber \\
F_o^+u_o^+e^{ip_o^+(2\pi-\theta_L)}+F_o^-u_o^-&=&F_i^+u_i^+ +F_i^-u_i^-. \label{BC_2pi}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly, the equations at $\theta=\theta_L$ are $$\begin{aligned}
u_o^+ +u_o^-e^{ip_o^-(\theta_L-2\pi)}&=&u_i^+e^{ip_i^+\theta_L} +u_i^-e^{ip_i^-\theta_L} \nonumber \\
F_o^+u_o^+ +F_o^-u_o^-e^{ip_o^-(\theta_L-2\pi)}&=&F_i^+u_i^+e^{ip_i^+\theta_L} +F_i^-u_i^-e^{ip_i^-\theta_L}. \label{BC_thetaL}\end{aligned}$$ Neglecting exponentially small terms in equation (\[BC\_2pi\]) and (\[BC\_thetaL\]), we get the following equation $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{F_i^- -F_o^-}{F_o^- -F_i^+}=\frac{F_i^- -F_o^+}{F_o^+ -F_i^+}e^{i(p_i^--p_i^+)\theta_L}. \label{E}\end{aligned}$$
This equation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathrm{tan}^{-1}(\frac{\sqrt{\bigtriangleup^2-E^2}}{V-\sqrt{(E+V)^2-\bigtriangleup^2}})-\mathrm{tan}^{-1}(\frac{\sqrt{\bigtriangleup^2-E^2}}{V+\sqrt{(E+V)^2-\bigtriangleup^2}})=-\frac{\sqrt{(E+V)^2-\bigtriangleup^2}}{v_F}\theta_L+n\pi, \nonumber \\
\label{E_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $n$ is an integer.\
We can find simple solutions to (\[E\_1\]) in the limit of a wide trap, i.e., satisfying the condition $$\begin{aligned}
(E+V)^2-\bigtriangleup^2\ll V^2. \label{wide_trap}\end{aligned}$$ This condition is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
E+V-\bigtriangleup\sim\frac{v_F^2}{\bigtriangleup\theta_L^2}\ll \frac{V^2}{\bigtriangleup} \nonumber \\
\therefore \theta_L\gg \theta_V, \label{wide_trap_1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_V=v_F/V$ is the length scale associated with the trap strength ($\hbar=1$).\
Under this condition, we can expand equation (\[E\_1\]) to first order in $\sqrt{((E+V)^2-\bigtriangleup^2)}/V$ and we get $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{1+\frac{\bigtriangleup^2-E^2}{V^2}}=-\frac{\theta_LV}{2v_F}+\frac{n\pi}{2\sqrt{\frac{(E+V)^2-\bigtriangleup^2}{V^2}}}. \label{E_2}\end{aligned}$$ Now, consider low bound states such that $(E+V-\bigtriangleup)/V\ll1$ and $(\bigtriangleup-E)/V\sim 1$. Since the lhs of equation (\[E\_2\]) is much smaller than 1 and the absolute values of both terms on the rhs of equation (\[E\_2\]) are much greater than 1, we could set the lhs to zero. Hence, we arrive at the solution $$\begin{aligned}
E=\sqrt{(\frac{n\pi v_F}{\theta_L})^2+\bigtriangleup^2}-V \label{solution_E}\end{aligned}$$
This solution is consistent with the intuitive argument. For low bound states, all the Zeeman energy $V$ is saved since low bound wave functions are completely localized inside the trap, i.e., their range outside the trap is negligible, hence the term $-V$ in equation (\[solution\_E\]). The term $(2n\pi v_F/\theta_L)^2$ in the square root of the above equation is simply the kinetic energy of the quasiparticle since its momentum $\delta p=p-p_F$ is quantized by the trap as $2n\pi/(2\theta_L)$, with $\theta_L$ as the trap width.\
Our result (\[solution\_E\]) is consistent with the standard picture that due to the Andreev reflection, the quantization length is twice the trap width [@Kulik].\
The energy spectrum for general magnetic flux $\Phi=-1/2+\lambda$ can be similarly found to be $$\begin{aligned}
(E+V)^2-4(E+V)p_F\lambda+4p_F^2\lambda^2=(\frac{2\pi np_F}{\theta_L})^2+\bigtriangleup^2 \label{E_flux}\end{aligned}$$
Taking derivative with respect to $\lambda$, we obtain the result in the main text (cf. equation (\[doublet\_splitting\]) in the absence of energy splitting), namely, near $\lambda=0$, $dE/d\lambda=2p_F$ (here $p_F$ refers to the angular momentum at the Fermi energy with $\hbar=1$, the energy unit is $\hbar^2/2mR^2$ with $R$ radius of annulus).
[99]{} P. G. De Gennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys Y. Lin and A. J. Leggett, manuscript in preparation Jason Alicea, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75 (2012) 076501 A. J. Leggett, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys., Vol. 6, 1973, 3187-3204; Ann. Phys. 85, 11-55 (1974); Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 47, No. 2, 331 (1975) M. A. Silaev, Phys. Rev. B 84, 144508 (2011); Edward Taylor, A. John Berlinsky and Catherine Kallin, Phys. Rev. B 91, 134505 (2015) Y. Lin and A. J. Leggett, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, vol.119, 1034-1041, 2014. A. J. Leggett and Yiruo Lin, In Memory of Akira Tonomura, 74-85, 2013. D. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 268 (2001) N. Byers and C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7, 46 (1961) see e.g., A. J. Leggett, Quantum Liquids, Oxford University Press, 2006 G. Baym, in Mathematical Methods in Solid State and Superfluid Theory, ed. by R. C. Clark and G. H. Derrick (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1969), pp. 121-156. Although the BdG equations satisfy the continuity condition for the ground state and for the thermal average, the time evolution of a general state under BdG Hamiltonian doesn’t obey continuity condition. We see here that the continuity condition needs to be obeyed for quasi-eigenstates in order to satisfy the f-sum rule. For previous discussions on charge conservation in the BdG equations, see Akira Furusaki and Masaru Tsukada, Solid State Communications, 78, 299, 1991; Philip F. Bagwell, Phys. Rev. B, 49, 6841, 1994; Fernado Sols and Jaime Ferrer, Phys. Rev. B, 49, 15913, 1994. Jacques Demers and Allan Griffin, Canadian Journal of Physics, vol. 49, 285, 1971. I. O. Kulik, JETP, 30, 944, 1970.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have recently begun Monte Carlo simulations of the dynamics of stripe phases in the cuprates. A simple model of spinodal decomposition of the holes allows us to incorporate Coulomb repulsion and coherency strains. We find evidence for a possible stripe disordering transition, at a temperature below the pseudogap onset. Experimental searches for such a transition can provide constraints for models of stripe formation.'
address: 'Physics Department (1) and Barnett Institute (2), Northeastern U., Boston MA 02115'
author:
- 'R.S. Markiewicz$^{1,2}$ and M.T. Vaughn$^1$'
title: Stripe Disordering Transition
---
The relationship between stripe phases and the pseudogap in underdoped cuprates is not well understood. In our model[@Pstr; @MKK; @Mia] the pseudogap is primary. It represents an instability of the hole Fermi liquid driven by Van Hove nesting[@RiSc]. However, there is a competition of instabilities, with an antiferromagnet (or flux phase[@Affl; @Laugh; @WeL]) at half filling and a charge-density wave (CDW) at the bare Van Hove singularity (VHS) near optimal doping. This competition leads to a classical phase separation of the holes – two minima in the free energy[@RM3; @Pstr]. This is restricted to a nanoscopic scale by long-range Coulomb effects, leading to phases similar to the experimentally observed stripe phases[@Tran].
For such a nanoscale phase separation, the correct dispersion and pseudogap must be found by appropriate averaging over the heterogeneous, usually fluctuating stripes. Fortunately, tunneling and photoemission are sensitive mainly to the pseudogaps, and hence can be described by a simple [*Ansatz*]{} of the stripe phase[@MKK; @Mia]. For other purposes, a more detailed picture of the stripes is needed.
As a first step, we have begun Monte Carlo calculations of a classical picture of this restricted phase separation. Using the derived form of the free energy vs doping, we calculate the dynamic spinodal decomposition of the holes in the presence of Coulomb interactions. We find that there can be a stripe disordering transition, Fig. \[fig:11\], at a temperature below the pseudogap onset. The disordering temperature is proportional to the free energy barrier between the two end-phases, inset, Fig. \[fig:13\].
Technical details of the calculation are as follows: we work with a generic form of the free energy, $F=F_0x(x-x_c)^2$, which approximates the calculated free energy of Ref. [@Pstr]. The calculations are done on 128$\times$128 lattices, with periodic boundary conditions. The critical doping $x_c$ is taken as 1/6, which necessitates a non-Markovian algorithm – a particular lattice site must retain memory of the average hole occupation over several cycles. We typically choose 30 cycles, which means that a single hole must spread out over 6 lattice sites – close to the size of a magnetic polaron[@Auer]. The algorithm chosen is able to find the correct ground states in the low doping limit (which can be found analytically). The stripes are not topological, and the stripe-like domains are produced by coherency strains[@FraPe]. In the absence of such strains, the domains would be irregular shaped, approximately equiaxed, as found by Veillette, et al.[@VBBK] The coherency strains produce a mixture of stripes along both $x$ and $y$ axes; to get single-axis stripes, as in the figure, it is assumed that there are local martensitic domains.
=0.46 0.5cm
=0.33 0.5cm
The phase separation can be most clearly seen in a plot of the distribution of site occupancies by holes, Fig. \[fig:13\]. At low temperatures, this is a two-peaked structure, with one peak (off scale in the figure) at zero doping, and the other near $x_c$ (it is actually at a doping below $x_c$, due to charging effects). As the temperature increases, the two-peak structure is gradually smeared out, and at high temperatures there is only a monotonic distribution. This finite system has a crossover rather than a sharp transition. For the parameters chosen, the transition is centered near $k_BT_m
\sim 30meV$, which is approximately the barrier height of the free energy (inset). This result is not very sensitive to the value of dielectric constant, $\epsilon$.
Thus, as the underdoped cuprate cools from high temperatures, there can be a series of phase transitions. At high temperatures, there will be the pseudogap onset. In our simplified mean field [*Ansatz*]{}[@Mia], this appears as a long-range ordered CDW phase, but the inclusion of two-dimensional fluctuations[@KaSch; @RM5] leads to appropriate pseudogap behavior. The stripe phase ordering temperature found here could in principle fall at a lower temperature. The stripes in our simulations continue to fluctuate, and the long-range stripe order phase seen by Tranquada[@Tran] may be yet another transition. The two-branched transition to a stripe phase bears some resemblance to the phase diagram of Emery, Kivelson, and Zakhar[@EKZ], but is in fact different. Their upper transition ($T_1^*$) corresponds to the onset of stripe order, their lower ($T_2^*$) to the onset of a spin gap on the hole doped stripes.
There is not much experimental evidence for the onset of short-range stripe order, although phase separation in La$_2$CuO$_{4+\delta}$ starts near 400K[@Rad], much lower than the pseudogap onset temperature, $\sim 800K$[@BatT]. In most materials, the incommensurate magnetic modulations near $(\pi ,\pi )$ broaden out and disappear near the pseudogap $T^*$, which is a lower temperature ($\sim\le$150K for the compositions studied)[@Moo]. The best place to look would be in the extremely underdoped regime, where $T^*$ is highest.
While the above calculations reproduce the general properties of the stripes, there are a number of features which are not well reproduced. First, for the elastic constants of LSCO[@Mig], the stripes lie along the orthorhombic axes – i.e., they are diagonal stripes. Further, for the parameters assumed, the charged stripes tend to grow wider with increased doping, maintaining a constant interstripe spacing, whereas experiment[@Yam] suggests that the stripe shape stays constant, but the stripes move closer, as doping increases, at least for $x\le 0.12$. This suggests that some important feature has been omitted from the model, most probably the topological nature of the stripes as magnetic antiphase boundaries.
MTV’s work was supported by DOE Grant DE-FG02-85ER40233. Publication 758 of the Barnett Institute.
R.S. Markiewicz, Phys. Rev. B[**56**]{}, 9091 (1997). R.S. Markiewicz, C. Kusko and V. Kidambi, unpublished (cond-mat/9807068). R.S. Markiewicz, C. Kusko and M.T. Vaughn, this conference. T.M. Rice and G.K. Scott, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**35**]{}, 120 (1975). I. Affleck and J.B. Marston, Phys. Rev. B[**37**]{}, 3774 (1988). R.B. Laughlin, J. Phys. Chem. Sol. [**56**]{}, 1627 (1995). X.-G. Wen and P.A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 503 (1996). R.S. Markiewicz, J. Phys. Cond. Matt. [**2**]{}, 665 (1990). J.M. Tranquada, B.J. Sternlieb, J.D. Axe, Y. Nakamura, and S. Uchida, Nature [**375**]{}, 561 (1995); J.M. Tranquada, J.D. Axe, N. Ichikawa, A.R. Moodenbaugh, Y. Nakamura, and S. Uchida, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 338 (1997). A. Auerbach and B.E. Larson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 2262 (1991). P. Fratzl and O. Penrose, Acta Mater. [**44**]{}, 3227 (1996). M. Veillette, Ya.B. Bazaliy, A.J. Berlinsky, and C. Kallin, unpublished (cond-mat/9812282). A. Kampf and J. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. B[**41**]{}, 6399 (1990), B[**42**]{}, 7967 (1990). R.S. Markiewicz, Physica C[**169**]{}, 63 (1990). V.J. Emery, S.A. Kivelson, and O. Zakhar, Phys. Rev. B[**56**]{}, 6120 (1997). P.G. Radaelli, J.D. Jorgensen, R. Kleb, B.A. Hunter, F.C. Chou, and D.C. Johnston, Phys. Rev. B[**49**]{}, 6239 (1994). B. Batlogg, H.Y. Hwang, H. Takagi, R.J. Cava, H.L. Kao, and J.Kwo, Physica C[**235-240**]{}, 130 (1994). T.E. Mason, unpublished (cond-mat/9812287); H.A. Mook, personal communication. A. Migliori, J.L. Sarrao, W.M. Visscher, T.M. Bell, M. Lei, Z. Fisk, and R.G. Leisure, Physica B[**183**]{}, 1 (1993). K. Yamada, C.H. Lee, K. Kurahashi, J. Wada, S. Wakimoto, S. Ueki, H. Kimura, Y. Endoh, S. Hosoya, G. Shirane, R.J. Birgeneau, M. Greven, M.A. Kastner, and Y.J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B[**57**]{}, 6165 (1998).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Motivated by the growing interest in the novel quantum phases in materials with strong electron correlations and spin-orbit coupling, we study the interplay between the spin-orbit coupling, Kondo interaction, and magnetic frustration of a Kondo lattice model on a two-dimensional honeycomb lattice. We calculate the renormalized electronic structure and correlation functions at the saddle point based on a fermionic representation of the spin operators. We find a global phase diagram of the model at half-filling, which contains a variety of phases due to the competing interactions. In addition to a Kondo insulator, there is a topological insulator with valence bond solid correlations in the spin sector, and two antiferromagnetic phases. Due to a competition between the spin-orbit coupling and Kondo interaction, the direction of the magnetic moments in the antiferromagnetic phases can be either within or perpendicular to the lattice plane. The latter antiferromagnetic state is topologically nontrivial for moderate and strong spin-orbit couplings.'
author:
- Xin Li
- Rong Yu
- Qimiao Si
title: 'Global phase diagram of a spin-orbit-coupled Kondo lattice model on the honeycomb lattice'
---
Introduction
============
Exploring novel quantum phases and the associated phase transitions in systems with strong electron correlations is a major subject of contemporary condensed matter physics.[@SpecialIssue2010; @Sachdev2011a; @SiSteglich_Sci2010] In this context, heavy fermion (HF) compounds play a crucial role. [@SiSteglich_Sci2010; @GegenwartSi_NatPhys2007; @Lohneysen_RMP2007; @Tsunetsugu_RMP1997] In these materials, the coexisted itinerant electrons and local magnetic moments (from localized $f$ electrons) interact via the antiferromagnetic exchange coupling, resulting in the Kondo effect.[@Hewson_Book] Meanwhile, the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) interaction, namely the exchange coupling among the local moments mediated by the itinerant electrons, competes with the Kondo effect.[@Doniach_Physica1977] This competition gives rise to a rich phase diagram with an antiferromagnetic (AFM) quantum critical point (QCP) and various emergent phases nearby.[@Custers_Nat2003; @SiSteglich_Sci2010]
In the HF metals, experiments [@Schroder_Nat2000; @Paschen_Nat2004] have provide strong evidence for local quantum criticality, [@Si_Nat2001; @Coleman_JPCM2001] which is characterized by the beyond-Landau physics of Kondo destruction at the AFM QCP. Across this local QCP, the Fermi surface jumps from large in the paramagnetic HF liquid phase to small in the AFM phase with Kondo destruction. A natural question is how this local QCP connects to the conventional spin density wave (SDW) QCP, described by the Hertz-Millis theory [@Hertz_1976; @Millis_1993]. A proposed global phase diagram [@Si_PhysB2006; @Si_PSSB2010; @Pixley_PRL2014; @SiPaschen] makes this connection via the tuning of the quantum fluctuations in the local-moment magnetism. Besides the HF metals, it is also interesting to know whether a similar global phase diagram can be realized in Kondo insulators (KIs), where the chemical potential is inside the Kondo hybridization gap when the electron filling is commensurate. The KIs are nontrivial band insulators because the band gap originates from strong electron-correlation effects. A Kondo-destruction transition is expected to accompany the closure of the band gap. The question that remains open is whether the local moments immediately order or form a different type of magnetic states, such as spin liquid or valence bond solid (VBS), when the Kondo destruction takes place.
Recent years have seen extensive studies about the effect of a fine spin-orbit coupling (SOC) on the electronic bands. In topological insulators (TIs), the bulk band gap opens due to a nonzero SOC, and there exist gapless surface states. The nontrivial topology of the bandstructure is protected by the time reversal symmetry (TRS). Even for a system with broken TRS, the conservation of combination of TRS and translational symmetry can give rise to a topological antiferromagnetic insulator (T-AFMI).[@MongMoore_2010] In general, these TIs and TAFIs can be tuned to topologically trivial insulators via topological quantum phase transitions. But how the strong electron correlations influence the properties of these symmetry dictated topological phases and related phase transitions is still under active discussion.
The SOC also has important effects in HF materials [@SiPaschen]. For example, the SOC can produce a topologically nontrivial bandstructure and induce exotic Kondo physics.[@Nakatsuji_PRL2006; @Chen_PRB2017] it may give rise to a topological Kondo insulator (TKI),[@Dzero_PRL2012] which has been invoked to understand the resistivity plateau of the heavy-fermion SmB$_6$ at low temperatures.[@SmB6].
From a more general perspective, SOC provides an additional tuning parameter enriching the global phase diagram of HF systems [@SiPaschen; @YamamotoSi_JLTP2010]. Whether and how the topological nontrivial quantum phases can emerge in this phase diagram is a timely issue. Recent studies have advanced a Weyl-Kondo semimetal phase [@Lai2018]. Experimental evidence has come from the new heavy fermion compound Ce$_3$Bi$_4$Pd$_3$, which display thermodynamic [@Dzsaber2017] and zero-field Hall transport [@Dzsaber2018] properties that provide evidence for the salient features of the Weyl-Kondo semimetal. These measurements respectively probe a linearly dispersing electronic excitations with a velocity that is renormalized by several orders of magnitude and singularities in the Berry-curvature distribution.
This type of theoretical studies are also of interest for a Kondo lattice model defined on a honeycomb lattice,[@Feng_PRL2012] which readily accommodates the SOC [@KaneMele_PRL2005] . In the dilute-carrier limit, this model supports a nontrivial Dirac-Kondo semimetal (DKSM) phase, which can be tuned to a TKI by increasing SOC.[@Feng_2016] In Ref. , it was shown that, at half-filling, increasing the Kondo coupling induces a direct transition from a TI to a KI. A related model, with the conduction-electron part of the Hamiltonian described by a Haldane model [@Haldane1988] on the honeycomb lattice, was subsequently studied.[@Zhong_PRB2012]
Here we investigate the global phase diagram of a spin-orbit-coupled Kondo lattice model on the honeycomb lattice at half-filling. We show that the competing interactions in this model give rise to a very rich phase diagram containing a TI, a KI, and two AFM phases. We focus on discussing the influence of magnetic frustration on the phase diagram. In the TI, the local moments develop a VBS order. In the two AFM phases, the moments are ordered, respectively, in the plane of the honeycomb lattice (denoted as AFM$_{xy}$) and perpendicular to the plane (AFM$_z$). Particularly in the AFM$_z$ phase, the conduction electrons may have a topologically nontrivial bandstructure, although the TRS is explicitly broken. This T-AFM$_z$ state connects to the trivial AFM$_z$ phase via a topological phase transition as the SOC is reduced.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. We start by introducing the model and our theoretical procedure in Sec.II. In Sec.III we discuss the magnetic phase diagram of the Heisenberg model for the local moments. Next we obtain the global phase diagram of the full model in Sec. IV. In Sec V we examine the nature of the conduction-electron bandstructures in the AFM states, with a focus on their topological characters. We discuss the implications of our results in Sec. VI.
Model and method
================
The model we considere here is defined on an effective double-layer honeycomb lattice. The top layer contains conduction electrons realizing the Kane-Mele Hamiltonian [@KaneMele_PRL2005]. The conduction electrons are Kondo coupled to (*i.e.*, experiencing an AF exchange coupling $J_{\rm{K}}$ with) the localized magnetic moments in the bottom layer. The local moments interact among themselves through direct exchange interaction as well as the conduction electron mediated RKKY interaction; this interaction is described by a simple $J_{1}$-$J_{2}$ model. Both the conduction bands and the localized bands are half-filled. This Kondo-lattice Hamiltonian takes the following form on the honeycomb lattice: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Kondo}
H&=&t\sum_{\langle i j\rangle\sigma}c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}
c_{j\sigma} + i\lambda_{\rm{so}}\sum_{\ll
ij\gg\sigma\sigma'}v_{ij}c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma}
{\sigma}^z_{\sigma\sigma'}
c_{j\sigma'}\nonumber\\&+&J_K\sum_i {\vec s}_i\cdot {\vec
S}_i+J_{1}\sum_{\langle i j\rangle}{\vec S}_i\cdot{\vec S}_j
+J_{2}\sum_{\langle \langle i j\rangle \rangle}{\vec S}_i\cdot{\vec S}_j,\end{aligned}$$ where $c^\dagger_{i\sigma}$ creates a conduction electron at site $i$ with spin index $\sigma$. $t$ is the hopping parameter between the nearest neighboring (NN) sites, and $\lambda_{\rm{so}}$ is the strength of the SOC between next-nearest neighboring (NNN) sites. $v_{ij}=\pm1$, depending on the direction of the NNN hopping. ${\vec s}_i=c^{\dagger}_{i\sigma} \vec{\sigma}_{\sigma\sigma'}c_{i\sigma'}\nonumber$, is the spin operator of the conduction electrons at site $i$ with $\vec{\sigma}=\sigma^{x} , \sigma^{y} , \sigma^{z}$ being the pauli matrices. ${\vec S}_i$ refers to the spin operator of the local moments with spin size $S=1/2$. In the model we considered here, $J_{\rm{K}}$, $J_1$, and $J_2$ are all AF. By incorporating the Heisenberg interactions, the Kondo-lattice model we study readily captures the effect of geometrical frustration. In addition, instead of treating the Kondo screening and magnetic order in terms of the longitudinal and transverse components of the Kondo-exchange interactions [@Lacroix_prb1979; @GMZhang; @Zhong_PRB2012], we will treat both effects in terms of interactions that are spin-rotationally invariant; this will turn out to be important in mapping out the global phase diagram.
![Top panels: Definition of nearest neighboring and next nearest neighboring valence bond fields $Q_{ij}$. Filled and empty circles denote the two sublattices A and B, respectively. Different bond directions are labeled by different colors. Bottom panel: First Brillouin zone corresponding to the two-sublattice unit cell.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
We use the spinon representation for ${\vec S}_i$, *i.e.*, by rewriting ${\vec S}_i=f^{\dagger}_{i\sigma} \vec{\sigma}_{\sigma\sigma'}f_{i\sigma'}\nonumber$ along with the constraint $\sum_{\sigma} f^{\dagger}_{i\sigma} f_{i\sigma}=1$, where $f^\dagger_{i\sigma}$ is the spinon operator. The constraint is enforced by introducing the Lagrange multiplier term $\sum_{i} \lambda_{i} (\sum_{\sigma} f^{\dagger}_{i\sigma} f_{i\sigma} -1) $ in the Hamiltonian. In order to study both the non-magnetic and magnetic phases, we decouple the Heisenberg Hamiltonian into two channels: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:HeisMF}
&&J\bm{ S}_{i} \cdot \bm{S}_{j} \nonumber \\
&=&x J \bm{ S}_{i} \cdot \bm{S}_{j} +(1-x) J \bm{ S}_{i} \cdot \bm{S}_{j} \nonumber \\
&\simeq & x \left ( \frac{J}{2} |Q_{ij} |^{2} -\frac{J}{2} Q^{*}_{ij} f_{i\alpha}^{\dagger} f_{j\alpha} -\frac{J}{2} Q_{ij} f_{j\alpha}^{\dagger} f_{i\alpha} \right) \nonumber \\
&+& (1-x) \left( -J \bm{M}_{i} \cdot \bm{M}_{j}+ J \bm{M}_{j} \cdot \bm{S} _{i} + J \bm{M}_{i} \cdot \bm{S} _{j} \right)\end{aligned}$$ Here $x$ is a parameter that is introduced in keeping with the generalized procedure of Hubbard-Stratonovich decouplings and will be fixed to conveniently describe the effect of quantum fluctuations. The corresponding valence bond (VB) parameter $Q_{ij}$ and sublattice magnetization $\bm{M}_i$ are $Q_{ij}=\langle \sum_{\alpha} f_{i\alpha}^{\dagger} f_{j \alpha} \rangle$ and $\bm{M}_i=\langle \bm{S}_{i}\rangle$, respectively. Throughout this paper, we consider the two-site unit cell thus excluding any states that breaks lattice translation symmetry. Under this construction, there are 3 independent VB mean fields $Q_{i}$, $i=1,2,3$, for the NN bonds and 6 independent VB mean fields $Q_{i}$, $i=4,5,...,9$, for the NNN bonds. They are illustrated in Fig. \[fig1\]. We consider only AF exchange interactions, $J_{1}>0$ and $J_{2}>0$, and will thus only take into account AF order with $\bm{M}=\bm{M}_{i\in A}=-\bm{M}_{i \in B}$.
![Ground-state phase diagram of the $J_1$-$J_2$ Hamiltonian for the local moments in the $x$-$J_{2}/J_{1}$ plane. A NN VBS and an AFM state are stabilized in the parameter regime shown.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
To take into account the Kondo hybridization and the possible magnetic order on an equal footing, we follow the treatment of the Heisenberg interaction as outlined in Eq. \[Eq:HeisMF\] and decouple the Kondo interaction as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:JKMF}
&& J_{K} \bm{S} \cdot \bm{s} \nonumber \\
&\simeq & y \left(\frac{J_{K} }{2} |b|^{2} -\frac{J_{K} }{2} b f^{\dagger}_{i\alpha} c_{i \alpha}
-\frac{J_{K} }{2} b^{*} c_{i \alpha}^{\dagger} f_{i\alpha} \right) \nonumber \\
&+& (1-y) \left( - J_{K} \bm{M}_{i} \cdot \bm{m}_{i} + J_{K} \bm{S}_{i} \cdot \bm{m}_{i} + J_{K} \bm{s}_{i} \cdot \bm{M}_{i} \right).\end{aligned}$$ Here we have introduced the mean-field parameter for the Kondo hybridization, $b=\langle \sum_{\alpha} c_{i\alpha}^{\dagger} f_{i\alpha} \rangle $, and the conduction electron magnetization: $\bm{m_{i}} = \langle \bm{s}_{i} \rangle$. For nonzero $b$, the conduction band will Kondo hybridize with the local moments and the system at half-filling is a KI. On the other hand, when $b$ is zero and $\bm{M}$ is nozero, magnetization ($\bm{m}\neq0$) on the conduction electron band will be induced by the Kondo coupling, and various AF orders can be stabilized depending on the strength of the SOC. Just like the parameter $x$ of Eq. \[Eq:HeisMF\] is chosen so that a saddle-point treatment captures the quantum fluctuations in the form of spin-singlet bond parameters [@Pixley_PRL2014], the parameter $y$ will be specified according to the criterion that the treatment at the same level describes the quantum fluctuations in the form of Kondo-insulator state (see below).
![Evolution of the VBS order parameter $Q$ \[in (a)\] and the AFM order parameter $M$ \[in (b)\] as a function of $J_{2}/J_{1}$ for $x=0.3,0.4,0.5$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Phase diagram of the Heisenberg model for the local moments
===========================================================
Because of the complexity of the full Hamiltonian, we start by setting $J_{K}=0$ and discuss the possible ground-state phases of the $J_1$-$J_2$ Heisenberg model for the local moments. By treating the problem at the saddle-point level in Eq. , we obtain the phase diagram in the $x$-$J_{2}/J_{1}$ plane shown in Fig.\[fig2\]. Here the $x$-dependence is studied in the same spirit as that of Ref. for the Shastry-Sutherland lattice. In the parameter regime explored, an AF ordered phase (labeled as “AFM" in the figure) and a valence bond solid (VBS) phase are stabilized. The AF order stabilized is the two-sublattice Néel order on the honeycomb lattice, and the VBS order refers to covering of dimer singlets with $|Q_{i}|=Q \neq 0 $ for one out of the three NN bonds (e.g. $Q_{1}\neq 0, Q_{2}=Q_{3}=0$) and $|Q_{i}|=0$ for all the NNN bonds. This VBS state spontaneously breaks the C$_{3}$ rotational symmetry of the lattice. We thus define the order parameter for VBS state to be $Q=|\sum_{j=1,2,3} Q_{j} e^{ i (2\pi j/3) } |$.
In Fig. \[fig3\] we plot the evolution of VBS and AF order parameters $Q$ and $M$ as a function of $J_{2}/J_{1}$. A direct first-order transition (signaled by the mid-point of the jump of the order parameters) between these two phases is observed for $ x \lesssim 0.6$. For the sake of understanding the global phase diagram of the full Kondo-Heisenberg model, we limit our discussion to $J_2/J_1<1$, where only the NN VBS is relevant. A different decoupling scheme approach was used to study this model [@Liu_JPCM2016] found results that are, in the parameter regime of overlap, consistent with ours. To fix the parameter $x$, we compare our results with those about the $J_1-J_2$ model derived from previous numerical studies. DMRG studies [@Ganesh_PRL2013] found that the AFM state is stabilized for $J_{2}/J_{1}<0.22$, and VBS exists for $J_{2}/J_{1}>0.35$, while in between the nature of the ground states are still under debate. In this parameter regime, the DMRG calculations suggest a plaquette resonating valence bond (RVB) state,[@Ganesh_PRL2013] while other methods implicate possibly spin liquids.[@Clark_PRL2011] In light of these numerical results, we take $x=0.4$ in our calculations. This leads to a direct transition from AFM to VBS at $J_{2}/J_{1} \simeq 0.27$, close to the values of phase boundaries of these two phases determined by other numerical methods.
Global phase diagram of the Kondo-lattice model
================================================
We now turn to the global phase diagram of the full model by turning on the Kondo coupling. For definiteness, we set $J_{1}=1$ and consider $t=1$ and $\lambda_{so}=0.4$. As prescribed in the previous section, we take $x=0.4$. Similar considerations for $y$ require that its value allows for quantum fluctuations in the form of Kondo-singlet formation. This has guided us to take $y=0.7$ (see below). The corresponding phase diagram as a function of $J_{K}$ and the frustration parameter $J_2/J_1$ is shown in Fig. \[fig4\].
![Global phase diagram at $T=0$ from the saddle-point calculations with $x=0.4$, $y=0.7$. The ground states include the valence-bond solid (VBS) and Kondo insulator (KI), as well as two antiferromagnetic orders, T-AFM$_z$ and AFM$_{xy}$, as described in Sec. V. []{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![Evolution of the parameters $b$ , $Q$ , $M_{x}$ and $M_{z}$ as a function of $J_{K}$ for different ratio of $J_{2}/J_{1}$. []{data-label="fig5"}](fig5.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
In our calculation, the phase boundaries are determined by sweeping $J_{K}$ while along multiple horizontal cuts for several fixed $J_{2}/J_{1}$ values, as shown in Fig. 5. For small $J_K$ and large $J_2/J_1$, the local moments and the conduction electrons are still effectively decoupled. The conduction electrons form a TI for finite SOC, and the local moments are in the VBS ground state as discussed in the previous section. When both $J_K$ and $J_2/J_1$ are small, the ground state is AFM. Due to the Kondo coupling, finite magnetization $\bm{m}$ is induced for the conduction electrons. This opens a spin density wave (SDW) gap in the conduction band, and therefore the ground state of the system is an AFM insulator. The SOC couples the rotational symmetry in the spin space to the one in real space. As a consequence, the ordered moments in the AFM phase can be either along the $z$ direction (AFM$_{z}$) or in the $x$-$y$ plane (AFM$_{xy}$). For finite SOC, these two AFM states have different energies, which can be tuned by $J_K$. As shown in the phase diagram, the AFM phase contains two ordered states, the AFM$_{z}$ and AFM$_{xy}$. They are separated by a spin reorientation transition at $J_K/J_1\approx0.8$. For the value of SOC taken, the AFM state is topologically nontrivial, and is hence denoted as T-AFM$_z$ state. The nature of this state and the associated topological phase transition is discussed in detail in the next section.
For sufficiently large $J_K$, the Kondo hybridization $b$ is nonzero (see Fig.5(a)), and the ground state is a KI. Note that for finite SOC, this KI does not have a topological nontrivial edge state, as a consequence of the topological no-go theorem [@Feng_PRL2012; @HasanKane_RMP2010; @QiZhang_RMP2011]. In our calculation at the saddle-point level, the KI exists for $y \geq 0.6$; this provides the basis for taking $y=0.7$, as noted earlier. Going beyond the saddle-point level, the dynamical effects of the Kondo coupling will appear, and we will expect the KI phase to arise for other choices of $y$.
Several remarks are in order. The phase diagram, Fig. \[fig4\], has a similar profile of the global phase diagram for the Kondo insulating systems [@YamamotoSi_JLTP2010; @Pixley_PRB2018]. However, the presence of SOC has enriched the phase diagram. In the AF state, the ordered moment may lie either within the plane or be perpendicular to it. These two states have very different topological properties. We now turn to a detailed discussion of this last point.
Topological properties of the AFM states
=========================================
![ The conduction electron magnetization for the AFM$_{xy}$ and AFM$_{z}$ states at $\lambda_{so}=0.1$.[]{data-label="fig6"}](fig6.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
In this section we discuss the properties of the AFM$_{xy}$ and AFM$_{z}$ states, in particular to address their topological nature. For a clear discussion, we fix $t=1$, $J_1=1$, and $J_2$=0. Since the Kondo hybridization is not essential to the nature of the AFM states, in this section we simply the discussion by setting $y=0$.
We start by defining the order parameters of the two states: $$\begin{aligned}
M_{x}&=&\langle S_{f,A}^{x} \rangle= -\langle S_{f,B}^{x} \rangle , \\
M_{z}&=&\langle S_{f,A}^{z} \rangle= - \langle S_{f,B}^{z} \rangle, \\
m_{x}&=& -\langle s_{c,A}^{x} \rangle= \langle s_{c,B}^{x} \rangle, \\
m_{z}&=& -\langle s_{c,A}^{z} \rangle= \langle s_{c,B}^{z} \rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Note that for AFM$_{xy}$ state we set $M_x=m_{y}= 0$ without losing generality. In Fig.(\[fig6\]) we plot the evolution of these AFM order parameters with $J_K$ for a representative value of SOC $\lambda_{so}=0.1$. Due to the large $J_1$ value we take, the sublattice magnetizations of the local moments are already saturated to $0.5$. Therefore, at the saddle-point level, they serve as effective (staggered) magnetic fields to the conduction electrons. The Kondo coupling then induces finite sublattice magnetizations for the conduction electrons, and they increase linearly with $J_K$ for small $J_K$ values. But $m_x$ is generically different from $m_z$. This is important for the stabilization of the states.
We then discuss the energy competition between the AFM$_{xy}$ and AFM$_{z}$ states. The conduction electron part of the mean-field Hamiltonian reads: $$H_{c}=
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{A\uparrow}^{\dagger} &
c_{A\downarrow}^{\dagger}&
c_{B\uparrow}^{\dagger} &
c_{B\downarrow}^{\dagger} &
\end{pmatrix}^{T}
h_{MF}
\begin{pmatrix}
c_{A\uparrow} \\
c_{A\downarrow} \\
c_{B\uparrow} \\
c_{B\downarrow} \\
\end{pmatrix}$$
with $$\label{afmx}
h_{MF}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\Lambda(k) & J_{K}M_{x}/2 & \epsilon(k) & \\
J_{K}M_{x}/2 & -\Lambda(k) & & \epsilon(k) \\
\epsilon^{*}(k) & & -\Lambda(k) & -J_{K}M_{x}/2 \\
& \epsilon^{*}(k) & -J_{K}M_{x}/2 & \Lambda(k)
\end{pmatrix}$$
for the AFM$_{xy}$ state and
$$\label{afmz}
h_{MF}=
\begin{pmatrix}
\Lambda(k)+J_{K}M_{z}/2 & & \epsilon(k) & \\
& -\Lambda(k)-J_{K}M_{z}/2 & & \epsilon(k) \\
\epsilon^{*}(k) & & -\Lambda(k)-J_{K}M_{z}/2 & \\
& \epsilon^{*}(k) & & \Lambda(k)+J_{K}M_{z}/2
\end{pmatrix}$$
for the AFM$_{z}$ state. Here $\Lambda(k)= 2 \lambda_{so} \left( sin( k \cdot a_{1}) - sin( k \cdot a_{2}) - sin( k \cdot (a_{1}-a_{2}) ) \right) $, $\epsilon(k)=t_{1} ( 1+ e^{-i k \cdot a_{1} } + e^{-i k \cdot a_{2}} ) $, $\epsilon^{*}(k)$ is the complex conjugate of $\epsilon(k)$, and $a_{1}=(\sqrt{3}/2, {1}/{2})$,$a_{2}=(\sqrt{3}/2, -{1}/{2})$ are the primitive vectors. For both states the eigenvalues are doubly degenerate. $$\begin{aligned}
E^{c}_{\pm,xy}(k)&=&\pm \sqrt{ \Lambda(k)^{2}+(J_{K}M_{x}/2)^{2} + |\epsilon(k)|^{2} } \label{Eq:Ecxy}\\
E^{c}_{\pm,z}(k)&=&\pm \sqrt{ (\Lambda(k)+J_{K}M_{z}/2)^{2} + |\epsilon(k)|^{2} } \label{Eq:Ecz}\end{aligned}$$
The eigenenergies of the spinon band can be obtained in a similar way: $$\begin{aligned}
E^{f}_{\pm,xy}(k)& = &\pm \frac{1}{2} (3 J_{1} M_{x} + J_{K} m_{x} ), \label{Eq:Efxy}\\
E^{f}_{\pm,z}(k) & = &\pm \frac{1}{2} (3 J_{1} M_{z} + J_{K} m_{z} ). \label{Eq:Efz}\end{aligned}$$ The expression of total energy for either state is then $$\begin{aligned}
E_{tot}
&=&2 \frac{1}{N_{k}} \sum_{k}E^{c}_{-}(k)
+2 \frac{1}{N_{k}} \sum_{k}E^{f}_{-}(k) \nonumber \\
&+&
3J_{1} |\bm{M}|^{2}
+2J_{K} (\bm{M}\cdot\bm{m}).\label{Eq:Etot}\end{aligned}$$ The first line of the above expression comes from filling the bands up to the Fermi energy (which is fixed to be zero here). The second line is the constant term in the mean-field decomposition. The factor of $2$ in the $k$ summation is to take into account the double degeneracy of the energies. $N_{k}$ refers to the number of $k$ points in the first Brillouin zone.
By comparing the expressions of $E_{-}^{c}(k)$ in Eqns. and , we find that adding a small $M_{x}$ is to increase the size of the gap at both of the two (inequivalent) Dirac points, thereby pushing the states further away from the Fermi-energy. While adding a small $M_{z}$ is to enlarge the gap at one Dirac point but reduce the gap size at the other one. Therefore, an AFM$_{xy}$ state is more favorable than the AFM$_z$ state in lowering the energy of conduction electrons $\sum_{k} E_{-}^{c}(k)$.
On the other hand, from Eqns.-, we see that the overall effect of adding a magnetization of the conduction band, $\bm{m}$, is to increase the total energy $E_{tot}$ (the main energy increase comes from the $2J_{K} (\bm{M}\cdot\bm{m})$ term). Because $|m_z|<|m_x|$ from the self consistent solution, as shown in Fig. \[fig6\], the energy increase of the AFM$_{z}$ state is smaller than that in the AFM$_{xy}$ state.
![ The energy difference between AFM$_{z}$ and AFM$_{xy}$ states as a function of $J_{K}$ for various values of spin-orbital coupling $\lambda_{so}$. []{data-label="fig7"}](fig7.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
With increasing $J_K$ the above two effects from the magnetic orders compete, resulting in different magnetic ground states as shown in Fig. \[fig4\]. This analysis is further supported by our self-consistent mean-field calculation. In Fig. \[fig7\] we plot the energy difference between these two states $\Delta E = E_{xy}-E_{z}$ as a function of $J_{K}$ at several $\lambda_{so}$ values. In the absence of SOC, the model has the spin SU(2) symmetry, and the AFM$_z$ and AFM$_{xy}$ states are degenerate with $\Delta E=0$. For finite $\lambda_{so}$, at small $J_K$ values, the energy gain from the $\sum_{k} E_{-}^{c}(k)$ term dominates, $\Delta E>0$, and the ground state is an AFM$_{z}$ state. With increasing $J_K$, the contribution from the $2J_{K} (\bm{M}\cdot\bm{m})$ term is more important. $\Delta E$ crosses zero to be negative, and the AFM$_{xy}$ state is eventually energetically favorable for large $J_K$.
Next we discuss the topological nature of the AFM$_z$ and AFM$_{xy}$ state. In the absence of Kondo coupling $J_K$, the conduction electrons form a TI, which is protected by the TRS. Their the left- and right-moving edge states connecting the conduction and valence bands are respectively coupled to up and down spin flavors (eigenstates of the $S^z$ operator) as the consequence of SOC, and these two spin polarized edge states do not mix.
Once the TRS is broken by the AFM order, generically, topologically nontrivial edge states are no longer guaranteed. However, in the AFM$_z$ state, the structure of the Hamiltonian for the conduction electrons is as same as that in a TI. This is clearly shown in Eq. : the effect of magnetic order is only to shift $\Lambda(k)$ to $\Lambda(k)+J_{K}M_{z}/2$. In particular, the spin-up and spin-down sectors still do not mix each other. Therefore, the two spin polarized edge states are still well defined as in the TI, and the system is topologically nontrivial though without the protection of TRS. Note that the above analysis is based on assuming $J_K M_z\ll\Lambda(k)$, where the bulk gap between the conduction and valence bands is finite. For $J_K M_z>6\sqrt{3}\lambda_{so}/(1-y)$, the bulk gap closes at one of the inequivalent Dirac points and the system is driven to a topologically trivial phase via a topological phase transition.[@Feng_PRL2012]. We also note that a similar AFM$_z$ state arises in a Kondo lattice model without SOC but with a Haldane coupling, as analyzed in Ref. .
For the AFM$_{xy}$ state, we can examine the Hamiltonian for the conduction electrons in a similar way. As shown in Eq. , the transverse magnetic order $M_x$ mixes the spin-up and spin-down sectors. As a result, a finite hybridization gap opens between the two edge states making the system topologically trivial.
To support the above analysis, we perform calculations of the energy spectrum of the conduction electrons in the AFM$_z$ and AFM$_{xy}$ states, as shown in Eq.(\[afmx\]) and Eq.(\[afmz\]), on a finite slab of size $L_{x} \times L_{y}$, with $L_{x}=200$ and $L_{y}=40$. The boundary condition is chosen to be periodic along the $x$ direction and open and zig-zag-type along the $y$ direction. In Fig. \[fig8\] we show the plots of the energy spectra with three different set of parameters: (a) $\lambda_{so}=0.01$, $J_{K}=0.4$, $M_{z}=0.5$, (b) $\lambda_{so}=0.0$, $J_{K}=0.4$, $M_{z}=0.5$, and (c) $\lambda_{so}=0.0$, $J_{K}=0.8$, $M_{x}=0.5$, which respectively correspond to the topologically trivial AFM$_{z}$ state, topological AFM$_{z}$ insulator, and AFM$_{xy}$ state. As clearly seen, the gapless edge states only exist for parameter set (b), where the system is in the topological AFM$_z$ state. Note that in this state, the spectrum is asymmetric with respect to the Brilluion zone boundary ($k_x=\pi$), reflecting the explicit breaking of TRS. Based on our analysis and numerical calculations, we construct a phase diagram, shown in Fig. \[fig9\], to illustrate the competition of these AFM states. As expected, the AFM$_z$ state is stabilized for $J_K\lesssim0.7$, and is topological for $J_K<12\sqrt{3} \lambda_{so}$ (above the red line).
![Energy spectra of the trivial AFM$_{z}$ state \[in (a)\], the topological AFM$_{z}$ insulator \[in (b)\], and the AFM$_{xy}$ state \[in (c)\] from finite slab calculations. Black lines denote the bulk states and red lines denote edge states. The topological AFM$_z$ state is characterized by the gapless edge states. See text for detailed information on the parameters.[]{data-label="fig8"}](fig8.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
![Phase diagram in the $\lambda_{so}$-$J_K$ plane showing the competition of various AFM states. The red line denotes a topological phase transition between the topological trivial and topological nontrivial AFM$_z$ states, and the black curve gives the boundary between the AFM$_z$ and AFM$_{xy}$ states. These two states become equivalent in the limit of $\lambda_{so}\to0$.[]{data-label="fig9"}](fig9.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Discussion and Conclusion
=========================
We have discussed the properties of various phases in the ground-state phase diagram of the spin-orbit-coupled Kondo lattice model on the honeycomb lattice at half filling. We have shown how the competition of SOC, Kondo interaction, and magnetic frustration stabilizes these phases. For example, in the AFM phase the moments can order either along the $z$-direction or within the $x$-$y$ plane. In our model, the AFM order is driven by the RKKY interaction, and the competition of SOC and Kondo interaction dictates the direction of the ordered magnetic moments.
Throughout this work, we have discussed the phase diagram of the model at half filling. The phase diagram away from half-filling is also an interesting problem. We expect that the competition between the AFM$_z$ and AFM$_{xy}$ states persist at generic fillings, but the topological feature will not. Another interesting filling would be the dilute-carrier limit, where a DKSM exists, and can be tuned to a TKI by increasing SOC.[@Feng_2016]
In this work we have considered a particular type of SOC, which is inherent in the bandstructure of the itinerant electrons. In real materials, there are also SOC terms that involve the magnetic ions. Such couplings will lead to models beyond the current work, and may further enrich the global phase diagram.
In conclusion, we have investigated the ground-state phase diagram of a spin-orbit coupled Kondo-lattice model at half-filling. The combination of SOC, Kondo and RKKY interactions produces various quantum phases, including a Kondo insulator, a topological insulator with VBS spin correlations, and two AFM phases. Depending on the strength of SOC, the magnetic moments in the AFM phase can be either ordered perpendicular to or in the $x$-$y$ plane. We further show that the $z$-AFM state is topologically nontrivial for strong and moderate SOC, and can be tuned to a topologically trivial one via a topological phase transition by varying either the SOC or the Kondo coupling. Our results shed new light on the global phase diagram of heavy fermion materials.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank W. Ding, P. Goswami, S. E. Grefe, H.-H. Lai, Y. Liu, S. Paschen, J. H. Pixley, T. Xiang, and G. M. Zhang for useful discussions. Work at Renmin University was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, National Program on Key Research Project Grant number 2016YFA0300504, the National Science Foundation of China Grant number 11674392 and the Research Funds of Remnin University of China Grant number 18XNLG24. Work at Rice was in part supported by the NSF Grant DMR-1611392 and the Robert A. Welch Foundation Grant C-1411. Q.S. acknowledges the hospitality and support by a Ulam Scholarship from the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
[10]{}
****, ().
, [ ** ]{} (, , ), ed.
Q. Si and F. Steglich, Science **329**, 1161¨C1166 (2010).
P. Gegenwart, Q. Si, and F. Steglich Nat. Phys. **4**, 186 - 197 (2008).
H. von Löhneysen, A. Rosch, M. Vojta, and P.Wolfle, Rev. Mod. Phys. **79**, 1015 (2007).
H. Tsunetsugu, M. Sigrist, and K. Ueda, Rev. Mod. Phys. **69**, 809 (1997).
A. C. Hewson, *The Kondo Problem to Heavy Fermions*, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England (1993).
S. Doniach, Physica B+C **91**, 231-234 (1977).
J. Custers, *et al.*, Nature **424**, 524-527 (2003).
A. Schröder *et al.*, Nature **407**, 351 (2000).
S. Paschen, T. Luhmann, S. Wirth, P. Gegenwart, O. Trovarelli, C. Geibel, F. Steglich, P. Coleman, and Q. Si, Nature **432**, 881 (2004).
Q. Si, S. Rabello, K. Ingersent, and J. L. Smith, Nature **413**, 804 (2001).
P. Coleman, C. Pépin, Q. Si, and R. Ramazashvili, J. Phys.: Condens. Matt. **13**, R723-R738 (2001).
J. A. Hertz, Phys. Rev. B **14**, 1165-1184 (1976).
A. J. Millis, Phys. Rev. B **48**, 7183-7196 (1993).
Q. Si, Physica B **378-380**, 23-27 (2006).
Q. Si, Phys. Stat. Solid. B **247**, 476-484 (2010).
J. H. Pixley, R. Yu, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. Lett. **113**, 176402 (2014).
Q. Si and S. Paschen, Phys. Stat. Solid. B **250**, 425-438 (2013).
R. S. K. Mong, A. M. Essin, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 245209 (2010).
S. Nakatsuji *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **96**, 087204 (2006).
G. Chen, Phys. Rev. B **94**, 205107 (2016).
M. Dzero, K. Sun, V. Galitski, and P. Coleman, Phys. Rev. Lett. **104**, 106408 (2010).
A. Barla *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **94**, 166401 (2005).
S. Yamamoto and Q. Si, J. Low Temp. Phys. **161**, 233-262 (2010).
H.-H. Lai, S. E. Grefe, S. Paschen, and Q. Si, PNAS **115**, 93 (2018).
S. Dzsaber *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **118**, 246601 (2017).
S. Dzsaber *et al.* arXiv:1811.02819.
X.-Y. Feng, C.-H. Chung, J. Dai, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. Lett. **111**, 016402 (2013).
C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. **95**, 226801 (2005).
X.-Y. Feng, H. Zhong, J. Dai, and Q. Si, arXiv:1605.02380 (2016).
F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. **61**, 2015 (1988).
Y. Zhong, Y.-F. Wang, Y.-Q. Wang, and H.-G. Luo, Phys. Rev. B **87**, 035128 (2013).
C. Lacroix and M. Cyrot, Phys. Rev. B **20**, 1969 (1979).
H. Li, H.-F. Song, and Y. Liu, EuroPhys. Lett. **116**, 37005 (2016).
H. Li, Y. Liu, G.-M. Zhang, and L. Yu, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter **27**, 425601 (2015).
R. Ganesh, J. van den Brink, and S. Nishimoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. **110**, 127203 (2013).
B. K. Clark , D. A. Abanin, S. L. Sondhi, Phys. Rev. Lett. **107**, 087204(2011).
M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 3045 (2010).
X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys. **83**, 1057¨C1110 (2011).
J. H. Pixley, R. Yu, S. Paschen, and Q. Si, Phys. Rev. B **98**, 085110 (2018).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The aim of this paper is to establish a theory of Galerkin approximations to the space of convex and compact subsets of ${\mathbbm{R}}^d$ with favorable properties, both from a theoretical and from a computational perspective. These Galerkin spaces are first explored in depth and then used to solve optimization problems in the space of convex and compact subsets of ${\mathbbm{R}}^d$ approximately.'
author:
- 'Janosch Rieger[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'galerkin.bib'
title: 'A Galerkin approach to optimization in the space of convex and compact subsets of ${\mathbbm{R}}^d$'
---
\[oberklasse\][Lemma]{} \[oberklasse\][Proposition]{} \[oberklasse\][Theorem]{} \[oberklasse\][Remark]{} \[oberklasse\][Corollary]{} \[oberklasse\][Definition]{}
[[**Keywords:**]{} Set optimization, Galerkin approximation, convex sets, polytopes.\
[**AMS codes:**]{} 65K10, 52A20, 52B11.]{}
Introduction
============
In the context of partial differential equations, Galerkin approximations are the conceptual link between their analysis and modern numerical methods for their solution. Once the regularity of a solution is established, finite-dimensional Galerkin approximations to the corresponding function space are designed, and efficient numerical methods compute approximate solutions to the discretized problems. This simple, but very powerful idea has been driving the evolution of major parts of applied mathematics for more than half a century.
The aim of this article is to create an analog of Galerkin approximations for problems posed in the space ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ of all nonempty, convex and compact subsets of ${\mathbbm{R}}^d$. Spaces of polytopes with prescribed facet orientations, which have been described, e.g., in [@Alexandrov:05], are natural candidates for this purpose.
Our analysis in Section \[polsec\] shows that these spaces are useful objects, both from a theoretical as well as from a computational perspective. They possess a natural system of coordinates, which can be characterized as the set of all vectors in ${\mathbbm{R}}^N$ satisfying a linear inequality, and they have approximation properties, which are very similar to those of finite element spaces.
In Section \[optimsec\], we demonstrate that there exist nested Galerkin sequences, which are the equivalents of nested conforming finite element schemes in the world of sets, and that minimizers of auxiliary optimization problems posed in the Galerkin spaces approximate minimizers of optimization problems posed in ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$. As interior point methods are by far the most suitable class of algorithms for the solution of the resulting finite-dimensional optimization problems, we devote a substantial part of Section \[polsec\] to the classification and geometry of polytopes corresponding to interior and boundary points of our coordinate spaces.
The contents of this paper found first applications in [@Ernst] and in [@Harrach:19], where the infinite time reachable sets of strictly stable linear control systems and convex source supports of elliptic impedance tomography problems are computed as solutions to optimization problems in Galerkin polytope spaces. All results provided in this manuscript have explicitly or implicitly been exploited in these applications.
The space ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ {#polsec}
===========================
In this section, we characterize and analyze the space ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ of all polyhedra with prescribed facet orientations, which are encoded in terms of a matrix $A$ containing the corresponding outer normals. After collecting some preliminaries in Section \[prelim1\] and introducing a natural space ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ of coordinates in Section \[coor1\], we investigate in Section \[boundedsec\], under which circumstances the spaces ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ consist of bounded polytopes. In Section \[charsec\], we characterize ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ in terms of a system of linear inequalities, and after collecting some information on vertices of certain polyhedra in Section \[verticessec\], we eliminate some redundancies in the characterizing system of inequalities in Section \[eliminatesec\]. In Section \[intptsec\] we discuss the geometry of polyhedra corresponding to coordinate vectors in the interior and in different parts of the boundary of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$, and in Section \[approxsec\], we quantify how well the space ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ approximates ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$.
Setting and preliminaries {#prelim1}
-------------------------
We denote the unit sphere in ${\mathbbm{R}}^d$ by $S^{d-1}:=\{x\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d:\|x\|_2=1\}$. Throughout this section, we will assume that $A\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{N\times d}$ is a fixed matrix which consists of pairwise distinct rows $a_1^T,\ldots,a_N^T$ satisfying $a_i\in S^{d-1}$ for $i=1,\ldots,N$. Denoting ${\mathbbm{R}}_+:=\{s\in{\mathbbm{R}}:s\ge 0\}$, for every $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ and $c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d$, we define $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{A,b}:=\{x\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d: Ax\le b\},\quad Q_{A,c}^*:=\{p\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+:A^Tp=c\},\end{aligned}$$ and for $x\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d$ and $p\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+$, we set $$I_x^b:=\{i:a_i^Tx=b_i\},\quad I_p^*:=\{i:p_i>0\}.$$ We define a space of polyhedra by setting $${\mathcal}{G}_A:=\{Q_{A,b}:b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N\}\setminus\{\emptyset\}.$$ The vectors $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ provide a natural system of coordinates on ${\mathcal}{G}_A$. We denote $\mymathbb{0}=(0,\ldots,0)^T\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ and $\mathbbm{1}=(1,\ldots,1)^T\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$. For any closed convex set $C\subset{\mathbbm{R}}^d$, we denote its set of extremal points by $\operatorname{ext}(C)$.
Let ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ denote the space of all nonempty, convex and compact subsets of ${\mathbbm{R}}^d$, and consider the Hausdorff semi-distance $\operatorname{dist}:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\times{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathbbm{R}}_+$ and the Hausdorff-distance $\operatorname{dist}_H:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\times{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathbbm{R}}_+$ defined by $$\begin{aligned}
&\operatorname{dist}(C,\tilde C):=\sup_{c\in C}\inf_{\tilde c\in\tilde C}\|c-\tilde c\|_2,\\
&\operatorname{dist}_H(C,\tilde C):=\max\{\operatorname{dist}(C,\tilde C),\operatorname{dist}(\tilde C,C)\}.\end{aligned}$$ In addition, we introduce the size and the support function $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\cdot\|_2:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathbbm{R}}_+,\quad
\|C\|_2:=\sup_{c\in C}\|c\|_2,\\
&\sigma:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\times{\mathbbm{R}}^d\to{\mathbbm{R}},\quad
\sigma_C(x):=\sup_{c\in C}x^Tc.\end{aligned}$$
The following statements are Corollary 4.5 in [@Lauritzen] and the first theorem in Section 2.5 of [@Luenberger].
\[vertices\] Let $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ and $c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d$.
- A point $x\in Q_{A,b}$ satisfies $x\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,b})$ if and only if $x\in Q_{A,b}$ and $\operatorname{rank}(\{a_i:i\in I_x^b\})=d$.
- A point $p\in Q_{A,c}^*$ satisfies $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,c}^*)$ if and only if the vectors $\{a_i:i\in I_p^*\}$ are linearly independent.
The following facts are Propositions 1.7 and 1.9 in [@Ziegler:95].
\[Farkas\] Let $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$, $c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d$ and $\beta\in{\mathbbm{R}}$.
- Either $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$, or there exists $p\in Q_{A,0}^*$ with $b^Tp<0$.
- Assume that $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$. Then the inequality $c^Tx\le\beta$ is true for all $x\in Q_{A,b}$ if and only if there exists $p\in Q_{A,c}^*$ with $p^Tb\le\beta$.
Finitely generated convex cones will play a major role in this paper.
Given vectors $v_1,\ldots,v_k\in{\mathbbm{R}}^m$, we define the cone generated by these vectors by $\operatorname{cone}(\{v_1,\ldots,v_k\}):=\{\sum_{j=1}^k\lambda_jv_k:\lambda\in{\mathbbm{R}}^k_+\}$.
Caratheodory’s theorem for cones is taken from Theorem 3.14 in [@Lauritzen].
\[Caratheodory\] Let $I\subset\{1,\ldots,N\}$, and let $c\in\operatorname{cone}(\{a_i:i\in I\})$. Then there exists a subset $J\subset I$ such that $c\in\operatorname{cone}(\{a_i:i\in J\})$ and the vectors $\{a_i:i\in J\}$ are linearly independent.
The following version of the strong duality theorem for linear programming can be found, e.g., in [@Joswig:Theobald:13 Theorem 4.13].
\[strong:duality\] Let $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ and $c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d$. For the LPs $$\max\{c^Tx: x\in Q_{A,b}\}\quad\text{and}\quad\min\{b^Tp:p\in Q_{A,c}^*\},$$ precisely one of the following alternatives holds:
- We have $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$ and $Q_{A,c}^*\neq\emptyset$, and $$\max\{c^Tx: x\in Q_{A,b}\}=\min\{b^Tp:p\in Q_{A,c}^*\}.$$
- We have either $Q_{A,b}=\emptyset$ and $\inf\{b^Tp:p\in Q_{A,c}^*\}=-\infty$ or $Q_{A,c}^*=\emptyset$ and $\sup\{c^Tx: x\in Q_{A,b}\}=\infty$.
- We have $Q_{A,b}=\emptyset$ and $Q_{A,c}^*=\emptyset$.
Hoffman’s error bound was first given in the paper [@Hoffman:52].
\[Hoffman\] There exists a constant $L_A\ge 0$ such that for all $x\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d$ and all $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ with $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$, we have $$\operatorname{dist}(x,Q_{A,b})\le L_A\|\max\{0,Ax-b\}\|_\infty,$$ where the maximum is to be interpreted component-wise.
The following facts are proved in Lemmas 1.8.12 and 1.8.14 in [@Schneider:14].
\[support:Lipschitz\] For all $x,\tilde x\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d$ and $C,\tilde{C}\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\sigma_C(x)-\sigma_{\tilde{C}}(\tilde x)|
\le&\max\{\|C\|_2,\|\tilde{C}\|_2\}\|x-\tilde x\|_2\\
&+\max\{\|x\|_2,\|\tilde{x}\|_2\}\operatorname{dist}_H(C,\tilde{C}),\end{aligned}$$ as well as $$\operatorname{dist}_H(C,\tilde C)=\sup_{x\in S^{d-1}}|\sigma_C(x)-\sigma_{\tilde C}(x)|.$$
Coordinates on ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ {#coor1}
--------------------------------
In this section, we check that the mapping $${\varphi}:{\mathcal}{C}_A\to{\mathcal}{G}_A,\quad {\varphi}(b):=Q_{A,b},$$ is a bijection between the coordinate space $${\mathcal}{C}_A:=\{b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N:\forall\,i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}\ \exists x_i\in Q_{A,b}\ \text{with}\ a_i^Tx_i = b_i\}$$ and the space of polytopes ${\mathcal}{G}_A$. It is immediate that $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$ whenever $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$. The following lemmas state that vectors in ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ are, in a sense, minimal descriptions of polyhedra in ${\mathcal}{G}_A$.
\[minimal:lemma\] If $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ and $\tilde b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ with $Q_{A,b}=Q_{A,\tilde b}$, then $b\le\tilde b$.
Let $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$. By definition of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$, there exists $x_i\in Q_{A,b}$ with $b_i=a_i^Tx_i$, and since $Q_{A,b}=Q_{A,\tilde{b}}$, we have $a_i^Tx_i\le\tilde b_i$.
In the next proof, we use Farkas’ lemma instead of compactness arguments, because we are currently not excluding unbounded polyhedra $Q_{A,b}$.
\[construct:minimal:lemma\] Let $\tilde b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ with $Q_{A,\tilde b}\neq\emptyset$, and define $$\label{loc}
b_i:=\sup\{a_i^Tx:x\in Q_{A,\tilde b}\},\quad i=1,\ldots,N.$$ Then $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$, and we have $b\le\tilde b$ and $Q_{A,b}=Q_{A,\tilde b}$.
Because of $Q_{A,\tilde b}\neq\emptyset$ and by statement , we have $-\infty<b_i\le\tilde b_i$ for every $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, and hence $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ and $Q_{A,b}\subset Q_{A,\tilde b}$. On the other hand, for every $x\in Q_{A,\tilde b}$ and every $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, statement yields $a_i^Tx\le b_i$, so $Q_{A,\tilde b}\subset Q_{A,b}$. All in all, we have $Q_{A,b}=Q_{A,\tilde b}\neq\emptyset$.
Now fix $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, and let us check that there exists $x_i\in Q_{A,b}$ with $a_i^Tx_i=b_i$. According to statement , for every ${\varepsilon}>0$, there exists $x_{\varepsilon}\in Q_{A,b}$ with $a_i^Tx_{\varepsilon}>b_i-{\varepsilon}$. By Proposition \[Farkas\]b, this implies that $$\label{loca}
p^Tb\ge b_i\quad\forall\,p\in Q_{A,a_i}^*.$$ Now consider $(p,s)\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+\times{\mathbbm{R}}_+$ with $A^Tp-sa_i=0$. If $s>0$, then we have $s^{-1}p\in Q_{A,a_i}^*$, so by , we obtain $b^Tp-b_is\ge 0$. If $s=0$, then $A^Tp=0$, and since $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$, Proposition \[Farkas\]a yields $b^Tp\ge 0$. Thus, in both cases we find $$(b^T,-b_i)\begin{pmatrix}p\\s\end{pmatrix}\ge 0,$$ and according to Proposition \[Farkas\]a, this implies $$\{x\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d:Ax\le b,\,-a_i^Tx\le-b_i\}\neq\emptyset,$$ so there exists $x_i\in Q_{A,b}$ with $a_i^Tx_i=b_i$.
Now we establish the converse of Lemma \[minimal:lemma\].
\[minimal:then\] If $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ and $b\le\tilde b$ for all $\tilde b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ with $Q_{A,b}=Q_{A,\tilde b}$, then we have $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$.
If $Q_{A,b}=\emptyset$, then $\tilde b:=b-\mathbbm{1}<b$ and $Q_{A,b-\mathbbm{1}}=\emptyset=Q_{A,b}$, which contradicts the assumption. Hence $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$, and by Lemma \[construct:minimal:lemma\], there exists some $\tilde b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ with $\tilde b\le b$ and $Q_{A,b}=Q_{A,\tilde b}$. By assumption, we have $b\le\tilde b$, so $b=\tilde b$ and $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$.
Let us sum up the preceding discussion.
\[summary\] For $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$, we have $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ if and only if $b\le\tilde b$ for all $\tilde b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ with $Q_{A,b}=Q_{A,\tilde b}$.
Combine Lemmas \[minimal:lemma\] and \[minimal:then\].
Finally, we conclude that ${\varphi}$ is a nice parametrization of ${\mathcal}{G}_A$.
\[phi\] The mapping ${\varphi}:{\mathcal}{C}_A\to{\mathcal}{G}_A$, ${\varphi}(b)=Q_{A,b}$, is a homeomorphism between $({\mathcal}{C}_A,\|\cdot\|_\infty)$ and $({\mathcal}{G}_A,\operatorname{dist}_H)$. The mapping ${\varphi}$ is $L_A$-Lipschitz, and its inverse ${\varphi}^{-1}$ is $1$-Lipschitz.
By definition of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$, it is clear that ${\varphi}({\mathcal}{C}_A)\subset{\mathcal}{G}_A$.
Let $\tilde b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$ with $Q_{A,\tilde b}\in{\mathcal}{G}_A$. By Lemma \[construct:minimal:lemma\], there exists $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ such that $Q_{A,b}=Q_{A,\tilde b}$, so ${\varphi}$ is surjective. Assume that there exist $b,\tilde b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ with $Q_{A,b}={\varphi}(b)={\varphi}(\tilde b)=Q_{A,\tilde b}$. By Proposition \[summary\], we have $b\le\tilde b$ and $\tilde b\le b$, so $b=\tilde b$. Hence ${\varphi}$ is injective.
The Lipschitz property of ${\varphi}$ is a consequence of Hoffman’s error bound, see Theorem \[Hoffman\]. To check the Lipschitz property of the inverse, let $b,\tilde b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ and fix $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$. By definition of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$, there exists $x\in{\varphi}(b)=Q_{A,b}$ with $a_i^Tx=b_i$, and there exists $\tilde x\in{\varphi}(\tilde b)=Q_{A,\tilde b}$ with $\|x-\tilde x\|_2\le\operatorname{dist}(Q_{A,b},Q_{A,\tilde b})$. But then $$b_i-\tilde b_i\le a_i^T(x-\tilde x)\le\|x-\tilde x\|_2
\le\operatorname{dist}(Q_{A,b},Q_{A,\tilde b}).$$ By symmetry, and since the above argument holds for any $i$, we obtain $$\|b-\tilde b\|_\infty\le\operatorname{dist}(Q_{A,b},Q_{A,\tilde b}).$$
Spaces of polytopes or unbounded polyhedra {#boundedsec}
------------------------------------------
The recession cone of a convex set describes its behavior at infinity.
The recession cone of a closed convex set $C\subset{\mathbbm{R}}^d$ is the set $$\operatorname{rec}(C):=\{c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d:x+\lambda c\in C\ \forall\,\lambda\ge 0,\ \forall\,x\in C\}.$$
We use this notion to prove a theorem of the alternative for the space ${\mathcal}{G}_A$.
\[alternative\] Either ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ is a collection of unbounded polyhedra, or it is a collection of bounded polytopes. The latter alternative is equivalent with the statement $Q_{A,0}=\{0\}$, and it is also equivalent with the condition $$Q_{A,c}^*\neq\emptyset\quad\forall\,c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d.$$
Let $Q_{A,b}\in{\mathcal}{G}_{A}$ be arbitrary. According to Theorem 8.4 in [@Rockafellar:70], the set $Q_{A,b}$ is bounded if and only if $\operatorname{rec}(Q_{A,b})=\{0\}$, and by Proposition 1.12 from [@Ziegler:95], we have $\operatorname{rec}(Q_{A,b})=Q_{A,0}$.
By definition, we have $0\in\operatorname{rec}(Q_{A,b})$. By Theorem \[strong:duality\], the statement $Q_{A,0}=\{0\}$ implies that $Q_{A,c}^*\neq\emptyset$ for all $c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d$. Conversely, if there exists $c\in Q_{A,0}\setminus\{0\}$, then $\lambda c\in Q_{A,0}$ for all $\lambda\ge 0$, and $\max\{c^Tx:x\in Q_{A,0}\}$ is unbounded. But then, Theorem \[strong:duality\] yields $Q_{A,c}^*=\emptyset$.
The following statement gives some insight into the structure of ${\mathcal}{G}_A$.
\[cacc\] The space ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ is a cone if and only if ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ consists of polytopes.
For any $\lambda>0$ and $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$, we have $\lambda Q_{A,b}=Q_{A,\lambda b}\in{\mathcal}{G}_A$. If ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ consists of polytopes, then Theorem \[alternative\] yields $0\cdot Q_{A,b}=\{0\}=Q_{A,0}\in{\mathcal}{G}_A$, and ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ is a cone. If ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ consists of unbounded polyhedra, then $0\cdot Q_{A,b}=\{0\}\notin{\mathcal}{G}_A$.
An explicit characterization of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ {#charsec}
-------------------------------------------------
We characterize the set ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ in terms of a system of linear inequalities. To maintain readability, we will denote $$Q_{A,0}^\diamond=\{q\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+: A^Tq=0,\,\mathbbm{1}^Tq=1\}.$$ For the interpretation of Theorem \[characterisation\], note that $\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$ can be empty, while $e_i\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*)$ for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$.
\[characterisation\] Let $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N$. Then we have $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ if and only if
$$\begin{aligned}
&0\le b^Tp\quad\forall\,p\in Q_{A,0}^\diamond,\label{pre:nonempty}\\
&b_i\le b^Tp\quad\forall\,p\in Q_{A,a_i}^*,\quad\forall\,i\in\{1,\ldots,N\},
\label{pre:touching}\end{aligned}$$
which is equivalent with
$$\begin{aligned}
&0\le b^Tp\quad\forall\,p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond),\label{nonempty}\\
&b_i\le b^Tp\quad\forall\,p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*),\quad\forall\,i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}.
\label{touching}\end{aligned}$$
In fact, the conditions are equivalent with $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$, and when $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$, the conditions guarantee that every inequality $a_i^Tx\le b_i$ is attained.
By definition, we have $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ if and only if $$\label{point1}
\max\{a_i^Tx:x\in Q_{A,b}\}=b_i\quad\forall\,i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}.$$ Let us show that is equivalent with conditions (\[pre:nonempty\],\[pre:touching\]).
Assume that statement holds. Then we have $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$, so Proposition \[Farkas\]a yields condition . Applying Theorem \[strong:duality\] to statement gives $$\label{interm}
\min\{b^Tp:p\in Q_{A,a_i}^*\}=b_i\quad\forall\,i\in\{1,\ldots,N\},$$ which implies condition .
Conversely, assume that conditions and hold. Statement and Proposition \[Farkas\]a imply $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$. Statement and Theorem \[strong:duality\] imply $$b_i\le\min\{b^Tp:p\in Q_{A,a_i}^*\}=\max\{a_i^Tx:x\in Q_{A,b}\}\le b_i
\quad\forall\,i\in\{1,\ldots,N\},$$ so statement holds.
Since $Q_{A,0}^\diamond$ is a bounded polytope, conditions and are equivalent. Statement clearly implies . Assume that and hold. By Lemma \[vertices\]b, we have $e_i\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*)$, so by Theorem 4.24 in [@Lauritzen], we have $$Q_{A,a_i}^*=\operatorname{conv}(\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*))+\operatorname{rec}(Q_{A,a_i}^*)
=\operatorname{conv}(\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*))+Q_{A,0}^*.$$ Let $p\in Q_{A,a_i}^*$, and let $q\in\operatorname{conv}(\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*))$ and $r\in Q_{A,0}^*$ with $p=q+r$. Statement gives $b_i\le b^Tq$, and statement implies $0\le b^Tr$, so $$b_i\le b^T(q+r)=b^Tp.$$
We use Theorem \[characterisation\] to characterize ${\mathcal}{C}_A$. Note that $\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$ as well as $\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i})\setminus\{e_i\}$ with $i\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$ can be the empty set. In this case, the corresponding matrices are to be interpreted as the empty matrix.
\[matrix:representation\] If we enumerate $$\begin{aligned}
&\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)=\{f^{0,1},\ldots,f^{0,m_0}\},\\
&\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i})\setminus\{e_i\}=\{f^{i,1},\ldots,f^{i,m_i}\},\quad i\in\{1,\ldots,N\},\end{aligned}$$ and form the matrix $F:=(F_0,\ldots,F_N)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&F_0:=(f^{0,1},\ldots,f^{0,m_0})\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{N\times m_0},\\
&F_i:=(f^{i,1}-e_i,\ldots,f^{i,m_i}-e_i)\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{N\times m_i},\quad i\in\{1,\ldots,N\},\end{aligned}$$ then $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ is equivalent with $F^Tb\ge 0$.
This representation is the key for the practical applicability of the theory laid out in this paper. In addition, it has nice theoretical consequences.
\[ca:cone\] The set ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ is a closed convex subcone of $({\mathbbm{R}}^N,\|\cdot\|_\infty)$.
We can immediately draw the following conclusion.
\[GA:closed\] The metric space $({\mathcal}{G}_A,\operatorname{dist}_H)$ is complete.
According to Theorem \[phi\], the mapping ${\varphi}:{\mathcal}{C}_A\to{\mathcal}{G}_A$, ${\varphi}(b)=Q_{A,b}$, is a bi-Lipschitz homeomorphism between $({\mathcal}{C}_A,\|\cdot\|_\infty)$ and $({\mathcal}{G}_A,\operatorname{dist}_H)$, and by Corollary \[ca:cone\], the space $({\mathcal}{C}_A,\|\cdot\|_\infty)$ is complete.
Vertices of $Q_{A,0}^\diamond$ and $Q_{A,c}^*$ {#verticessec}
----------------------------------------------
In this section, we gather information on the representation of vertices that will be used later in the paper.
\[nonempty:vertices\] Let $p\in Q_{A,0}^\diamond$. Then $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$ if and only if the vectors $\{(a_i^T,1)^T:i\in I_p^*\}$ are linearly independent.
An elementary, but lengthy proof shows that the following statement holds: If $p\in Q_{A,0}^\diamond$, then $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$ if and only if for every $i_0\in I_p^*$, the vectors $\{a_i:i\in I_p^*\setminus\{i_0\}\}$ are linearly independent.
Apply Lemma \[vertices\]b to $Q_{A,0}^\diamond=Q_{(A^T,\mathbbm{1})^T,(0_{{\mathbbm{R}}^d},1)^T}^*$.
The following statement is an immediate consequence of the above lemma.
\[unique:nonempty\] If $p\in Q_{A,0}^\diamond$ and $\tilde p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$ satisfy $I_p^*\subset I_{\tilde p}^*$, then $p=\tilde p$.
Since $\tilde p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$, the vectors $\{(a_i^T,1)^T:i\in I_{\tilde{p}}^*\}$ are linearly independent by Lemma \[nonempty:vertices\] . The vector $\hat p:=\frac12(p+\tilde p)\in Q_{A,0}^\diamond$ clearly satisfies $I_{\hat p}^*=I_{\tilde p}^*$. Hence Lemma \[nonempty:vertices\] yields $\hat p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$, which forces $p=\tilde p=\hat p$.
Let us check that $\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,c}^*)\neq\emptyset$ whenever $Q_{A,c}^*\neq\emptyset$.
\[has:vertices\] If $c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d\setminus\{0\}$, then for every $p\in Q_{A,c}^*$, there exists some $\tilde{p}\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,c}^*)$ with $I_{\tilde{p}}^*\subset I_p^*$.
If $p\in Q_{A,c}^*$, then $c\in\operatorname{cone}(\{a_i:i\in I_p^*\})$. By Proposition \[Caratheodory\], there exists $J\subset I_p^*$ such that $c\in\operatorname{cone}(\{a_j:j\in J\})$ and $\{a_j:j\in J\}$ are linearly independent. Since $c\neq 0$, we have $J\neq\emptyset$, and there is $\tilde{p}\in Q_{A,c}^*$ with $I_{\tilde{p}}^*\subset J$. By Lemma \[vertices\]b, we have $\tilde{p}\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,c}^*)$.
A statement similar with Corollary \[unique:nonempty\] holds for vertices of $Q_{A,c}^*$.
\[extremal:p\] Let $c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d$. If $p\in Q_{A,c}^*$ and $\tilde p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,c}^*)$ satisfy $I_{p}^*\subset I_{\tilde p}^*$, then we have $p=\tilde p$. In particular, if $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*)\setminus\{e_i\}$, then $p_i=0$.
By assumption, we can represent $\sum_{i\in I_{\tilde p}^*}p_ia_i=c=\sum_{i\in I_{\tilde p}^*}\tilde p_ia_i$. Since $\tilde p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,c}^*)$, Lemma \[vertices\]b yields that the vectors $\{a_i:i\in I_{\tilde p}^*\}$ are linearly independent, which forces $p=\tilde p$. Now let $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*)$ with $p_i>0$. Then the inclusions $e_i\in Q_{A,a_i}^*$ and $I_{e_i}\subset I_p^*$ imply $e_i=p$.
Redundancy in the characterisation of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ {#eliminatesec}
-------------------------------------------------------
The system (\[nonempty\],\[touching\]) is, in general, highly redundant. From a practical perspective, redundancies can be eliminated in an offline computation. The results in this section are useful for this elimination process, and they provide some intuition for the origin of the redundancy.
The system of inequalities does not contain redundant conditions.
Let $\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)=\{p^1,\ldots,p^m\}$ with pairwise distinct $p^j\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+$. Assume that for some $k\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, the condition $(p^k)^Tb\ge 0$ is redundant in system . By Proposition \[Farkas\]b, there exists $\lambda\in{\mathbbm{R}}^m_+\setminus\{0\}$ with $\lambda_k=0$ and $p^k=\sum_{j=1}^m\lambda_jp^j$. Since $p^j\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+$ for $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$, it follows that $$I_{p^j}^*\subset I_{p^k}^*\quad\forall j\in\{1,\ldots,m\},$$ so Corollary \[unique:nonempty\] gives $p^j=p^k$ for all $j\in\{1,\ldots,m\}$ with $\lambda_j>0$. This is a contradiction.
The way in which the geometry of the matrix $A$ determines the redundancies in conditions is vaguely related to Haar’s lemma. It is currently not clear whether the complete system (\[nonempty\],\[touching\]) of linear inequalities contains redundancies other than those identified in the following theorem.
\[redundancy\] Let $k\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, and let $p,\tilde p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_k}^*)\setminus\{e_k\}$ with $$\label{cone:contained}
\operatorname{cone}(\{a_i:i\in I_p^*\})\subsetneq\operatorname{cone}(\{a_i:i\in I_{\tilde p}^*\}).$$ Then the condition $b_k\le b^T\tilde p$ is redundant in the system of inequalities .
First note that the condition $b_k\le b^Tp$ is one of the conditions in statement , and by , we have $p\neq\tilde p$.
Again by , for all $i\in I_p^*$, there exist $p^i\in Q_{A,a_i}^*$ with $I_{p^i}^*\subset I_{\tilde p}^*$. Lemma \[vertices\]b and $\tilde p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_k}^*)$ imply linear independence of the vectors $\{a_i:i\in I_{\tilde p}^*\}$. Lemma \[vertices\]b and linear independence of $\{a_i:i\in I_{p^i}^*\}$ imply $p^i\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*)$, so the conditions $$\label{local:3}
b_i\le b^Tp^i\quad\forall\,i\in I_p^*,$$ occur in the system of inequalities as well. By Lemma \[extremal:p\] and since $p\neq e_k$, we have $p_k=0$. Hence $a_i\neq a_k$ for all $i\in I_p^*$, which implies $A^Tp^i=a_i\neq a_k=A^T\tilde{p}$ for all $i\in I_p^*$, so that $p^i\neq\tilde p$ for all $i\in I_p^*$.
Now we show that the condition $b_k\le b^T\tilde p$ is a consequence of the inequalities $b_k\le b^Tp$ and . We compute $$\sum_{j\in I_{\tilde p}^*}\tilde p_ja_j
=a_k
=\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_ia_i
=\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_i\sum_{j\in I_{\tilde p}^*}p^i_ja_j
=\sum_{j\in I_{\tilde p}^*}(\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_ip^i_j)a_j,$$ and since $\{a_j:j\in I_{\tilde p}\}$ are linearly independent, it follows that $$\label{p:identity}
\tilde p_j=\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_ip^i_j\quad\forall\,j\in I_{\tilde p}^*.$$ Using and , we arrive at the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
b_k\le b^Tp
=\sum_{i\in I_p^*}b_ip_i
\le\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_i\sum_{j\in I_{\tilde p}^*}b_jp^i_j
=\sum_{j\in I_{\tilde p}^*}b_j\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_ip^i_j
=\sum_{j\in I_{\tilde p}^*}b_j\tilde p_j
=b^T\tilde p,\end{aligned}$$ which proves that the condition $b_k\le b^T\tilde p$ is indeed redundant.
The following immediate consequence of Theorem \[redundancy\] explains the small number of irredundant constraints in when $d=2$.
\[red2d\] Let $t_1<\ldots<t_N\in[0,2\pi)$, and let $a_i^T=(\sin t,\cos t)$. Then every condition $b_i\le p^Tb$ with $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*)$ is redundant in unless $$I_p^*=\begin{cases}
\{N,2\},&i=1,\\
\{i-1,i+1\},&i\in\{2,\ldots,N-1\},\\
\{N-1,1\},&i=N.
\end{cases}$$
Interior and boundary points of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ {#intptsec}
-------------------------------------------------
In this section, we will characterize interior and boundary points of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$, which is essential for the use of interior-point methods for optimization on ${\mathcal}{G}_A$. For any $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ and $I\subset\{1,\ldots,N\}$, we define affine subspaces and facets by $$H(A,b,I):=\{x\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d:a_i^Tx=b_i,\,i\in I\},\quad
Q_{A,b}^{I}:=Q_{A,b}\cap H(A,b,I).$$
The set ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ has nonempty interior, which can be characterized easily in the setting of Corollary \[matrix:representation\].
\[interior:bigger\] The topological interior $\operatorname{int}({\mathcal}{C}_A)$ of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ in ${\mathbbm{R}}^N$ coincides with the set $\{b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N:F^Tb>0\}$, and we have $\mathbbm{1}\in\operatorname{int}({\mathcal}{C}_A)$.
By Corollary \[matrix:representation\], we have ${\mathcal}{C}_A=\{b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N:F^Tb\ge 0\}$. Since $F$ does not contain any zero columns, it follows from elementary arguments that $$\operatorname{int}({\mathcal}{C}_A)=\operatorname{int}(\{b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N:F^Tb\ge 0\})=\{b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N:F^Tb>0\}.$$ Let us check that $F^T\mathbbm{1}>0$. By definition, any vector $f^{0,k}\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$ satisfies $\mathbbm{1}^Tf^{0,k}>0$. By Lemma \[extremal:p\], a vector $f^{i,k}\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*)\setminus\{e_i\}$ satisfies $f^{i,k}_i=0$, and we have $f^{i,k}\neq 0$. Since $a_i^Ta_j<1$ for $i\neq j$, we find $$\mathbbm{1}^Tf^{i,k}
=\sum_{j=1}^Nf^{i,k}_j
>\sum_{j=1}^Nf^{i,k}_ja_i^Ta_j
=a_i^T\sum_{j=1}^Nf^{i,k}_ja_j
=a_i^Ta_i
=1,$$ which shows that $(f^{i,k}-e_i)^T\mathbbm{1}>0$, as desired.
Let us take a closer look at the boundary of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$. When one of the inequalities in is an equality, then $Q_{A,b}$ is flat.
\[almostgone\] Let $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$, and let $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$. Then $b^Tp=0$ holds if and only if $Q_{A,b}\subset Q_{A,b}^{I_p^*}$.
Let $b^Tp=0$. For any $i\in I_p^*$ and $x\in Q_{A,b}$, we compute $$\begin{aligned}
-p_ia_i^Tx & = p^TAx - p_ia_i^Tx = \sum_{j\in I_p^*}p_ja_j^Tx - p_ia_i^Tx\\
&= \sum_{j\in I_p^*\setminus\{i\}}p_ja_j^Tx
\le \sum_{j\in I_p^*\setminus\{i\}}p_jb_j = p^Tb-p_ib_i=-p_ib_i,\end{aligned}$$ which, after division by $-p_i$, gives $a_i^Tx\ge b_i$ and hence $a_i^Tx=b_i$ for all $i\in I_p^*$.
Conversely, assume that $Q_{A,b}\subset Q_{A,b}^{I_p^*}$ holds. Since $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$, there exists $x\in Q_{A,b}$, and we obtain $$p^Tb=\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_ib_i=\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_ia_i^Tx=(A^Tp)^Tx=0.$$
In terms of dimension, this means the following.
\[flat\] Let $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$. Then $\dim(Q_{A,b})\le d-1$ if and only if there exists $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$ with $b^Tp=0$.
Assume that there exists $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$ with $b^Tp=0$. Since $\mathbbm{1}^Tp=1$, we have $\#I_p^*>0$. Now Proposition \[almostgone\] yields $\dim(Q_{A,b})\le\dim(Q_{A,b}^{I_p^*})\le d-1$.
Conversely, assume that $\dim(Q_{A,b})\le d-1$. Then there exist $\alpha\in{\mathbbm{R}}$ and $c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d\setminus\{0\}$ such that $c^Tx=\alpha$ for all $x\in Q_{A,b}$. By assumption, we have $Q_{A,b}\neq\emptyset$, and by Proposition \[Farkas\]b applied to the inequalities $c^Tx\le\alpha$ and $(-c)^Tx\le-\alpha$, we conclude that there exist $q\in Q_{A,c}^*$ with $b^Tq\le\alpha$ and $\tilde q\in Q_{A,-c}^*$ with $b^T\tilde q\le-\alpha$. Then $$\hat p:=\frac{q+\tilde q}{\mathbbm{1}^Tq+\mathbbm{1}^T\tilde q}\in Q_{A,0}^\diamond,\quad
b^T\hat p=\frac{b^Tq+b^T\tilde q}{\mathbbm{1}^Tq+\mathbbm{1}^T\tilde q}\le 0.$$ Since $Q_{A,0}^\diamond$ is a bounded polytope, this implies that there exists $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$ with $b^Tp\le 0$. By Theorem \[characterisation\], we have $b^Tp=0$.
If one of the inequalities in is attained, the corresponding facet is degenerated.
\[degenerate:vertex\] Let $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$, and let $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_k}^*)\setminus\{e_k\}$. Then $k\notin I_p^*$, and $b^Tp=b_k$ holds if and only if $Q_{A,b}^k\subset Q_{A,b}^{I_p^*}$.
We have $k\notin I_p^*$ by Lemma \[extremal:p\].
Assume that $p^Tb=b_k$ holds. Then for any $i\in I_p^*$ and $x\in Q_{A,b}^k$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
-p_ia_i^Tx &= p^TAx-a_k^Tx-p_ia_i^Tx
= \sum_{j\in I_p^*}p_ja_j^Tx-b_k-p_ia_i^Tx\\
&= \sum_{j\in I_p^*\setminus\{i\}}p_ja_j^Tx-b_k
\le \sum_{j\in I_p^*\setminus\{i\}}p_jb_j-b_k
=p^Tb-p_ib_i-b_k=-p_ib_i,\end{aligned}$$ so $a_i^Tx\ge b_i$. Conversely, let $Q_{A,b}^k\subset Q_{A,b}^{I_p^*}$. Since $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$, there exists some $x\in Q_{A,b}^k$, and we find $$p^Tb=\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_ib_i=\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_ia_i^Tx=(A^Tp)^Tx=a_k^Tx=b_k.$$
Alternatively, we can describe this situation from an algebraic perspective: If one of the inequalities in is an equality, then the corresponding condition $a_k^Tx\le b_k$ is redundant in the definition of $Q_{A,b}$.
Let $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$, and let $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_k}^*)\setminus\{e_k\}$. Then $k\notin I_p^*$, and $b^Tp=b_k$ holds if and only if $a_i^Tx\le b_i$ for all $i\in I_p^*$ implies $a_k^Tx\le b_k$.
Again, we have $k\notin I_p$ by Lemma \[extremal:p\].
If we assume that $b^Tp=b_k$ holds and that $a_i^Tx\le b_i$ for all $i\in I_p^*$, then $a_k^Tx\le b_k$ follows directly from $A^Tp=a_k$ and Proposition \[Farkas\]b.
Conversely, assume that $a_i^Tx\le b_i$ for all $i\in I_p^*$ implies $a_k^Tx\le b_k$. By Proposition \[Farkas\]b, there exists $\tilde p\in Q_{A,a_k}^*$ with $I_{\tilde p}^*\subset I_p^*$ and $b^T\tilde p\le b_k$. Corollary \[unique:nonempty\] yields $\tilde p=p$, so $b^Tp\le b_k$, and $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$ implies $b^Tp\ge b_k$ by Theorem \[characterisation\].
The correspondence between dimensionality and algebraic inequalities is more complicated for facets $Q_{A,b}^k$ than for the entire polyhedron $Q_{A,b}$.
\[noface\] Let $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$, and let $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_k}^*)\setminus\{e_k\}$. Then $b^Tp=b_k$ implies $\dim(Q_{A,b}^k)\le d-2$.
By Proposition \[degenerate:vertex\], the identity $b^Tp=b_k$ implies $Q_{A,b}^k\subset Q_{A,b}^{I_p^*}$. Since $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_k}^*)\setminus\{e_k\}$, Lemma \[extremal:p\] yields $p_k=0$, so $\#I_p^*\ge 2$. By Lemma \[vertices\]b, the vectors $\{a_i:i\in I_p^*\}$ are linearly independent. Hence we conclude $\dim(Q_{A,b}^k)\le\dim(H(A,b,I_p^*))\le d-2$.
The following statement is a semi-converse of Corollary \[noface\].
\[ecafon\] Let $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$. If $\dim(Q_{A,b}^k)\le d-2$, then $\dim(Q_{A,b})\le d-1$ or there exists $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_k}^*)\setminus\{e_k\}$ with $b^Tp=b_k$.
If $\dim(Q_{A,b}^k)\le d-2$, then there exist $\alpha\in{\mathbbm{R}}$ and $c\in{\mathbbm{R}}^d$ with $c\neq 0$ such that $\{a_k,c\}$ are linearly independent and $c^Tx=\alpha$ holds for all $x\in Q_{A,b}^k$. Applying Proposition \[Farkas\]b to the inequalities $$c^Tx\le\alpha\ \forall\,x\in Q_{A,b}^k,\quad (-c)^Tx\le-\alpha\ \forall\,x\in Q_{A,b}^k,$$ yields $q,\tilde q\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+$ and $t,\tilde t\in{\mathbbm{R}}_+$ with $$\begin{aligned}
&A^Tq-ta_k=c,&& b^Tq-tb_k\le\alpha,\\
&A^T\tilde q-\tilde ta_k=-c,&& b^T\tilde q-\tilde tb_k\le-\alpha.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\{a_k,c\}$ are linearly independent, there exist $\ell,\tilde\ell\in\{1,\ldots,N\}\setminus\{k\}$ with $q_\ell>0$ and $\tilde{q}_{\tilde\ell}>0$. Setting $\hat p:=q+\tilde q$ and $s:=t+\tilde t$, we obtain $\hat{p}\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+$, $\hat{p}_\ell,\hat{p}_{\tilde\ell}>0$, $s\ge 0$ and $$\label{two:ways}
A^T\hat p=sa_k,\quad b^T\hat p\le sb_k.$$ *Case 1:* If $\hat{p}_k\ge s$, define $\bar{p}:=\hat{p}-se_k$. Then $\bar{p}\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+\setminus\{0\}$, and from statement we have $A^T\bar{p}=0$ and $b^T\bar{p}\le 0$. In particular, we have $\frac{\bar{p}}{\mathbbm{1}^T\bar{p}}\in Q_{A,0}^\diamond$, and Theorem \[characterisation\] yields $b^T\frac{\bar{p}}{\mathbbm{1}^T\bar{p}}=0$. Since $Q_{A,0}^\diamond$ is a bounded polytope, Proposition \[flat\] yields $\dim(Q_{A,b})\le d-1$.
*Case 2:* If $\hat{p}_k<s$, define $\bar{p}:=\hat{p}-\hat{p}_ke_k$. Then $\bar{p}\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+\setminus\{0\}$ and $\bar{p}_k=0$, and statement yields $$\label{loco}
A^T\frac{\bar{p}}{s-\hat{p}_k}=a_k,\quad b^T\frac{\bar{p}}{s-\hat{p}_k}\le b_k.$$ In particular, we have $\frac{\bar{p}}{s-\hat{p}_k}\in Q_{A,a_k}^*$. As in the proof of Theorem \[characterisation\], we can write $\frac{\bar{p}}{s-\hat{p}_k}=v+w$ with $v\in\operatorname{conv}(\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_k}^*))$ and $w\in Q_{A,0}^*$. Since $\bar{p}_k=0$ and $v,w\ge 0$, we have $v_k=0$. Denote $\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_k}^*)\setminus\{e_k\}=\{f^{k,1},\ldots,f^{k,m_k}\}$, and let $\lambda\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{m_k}_+$ and $\mu\ge 0$ with $\mathbbm{1}^T\lambda+\mu=1$ and $v=\sum_{j=1}^{m_k}\lambda_jf^{k,j}+\mu e_k$. Then $v_k=0$ and $f^{k,j}\ge 0$ for all $j\in\{1,\ldots,m_k\}$ force $\mu=0$, so we have $$\label{ek:does:not:matter}
\sum_{j=1}^{m_k}\lambda_j=1,\quad v=\sum_{j=1}^{m_k}\lambda_jf^{k,j}.$$ By Theorem \[characterisation\] and by statement , we have $$\sum_{j=1}^{m_k}\lambda_jb^Tf^{k,j}=b^Tv\le b^Tv+b^Tw=b^T(v+w)\le b_k.$$ But Theorem \[characterisation\] also guarantees $b^Tf^{k,j}\ge b_k$ for all $j\in\{1,\ldots,m_k\}$, which implies $b^Tf^{k,j}=b_k$ for every $j\in\{1,\ldots,m_k\}$ with $\lambda_j>0$. By statement , there exists at least one such $j$, which completes the proof.
Now we characterize the polyhedra $Q_{A,b}$, which correspond to interior points of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$. Recall the definition of the matrix $F$ from Corollary \[matrix:representation\].
\[inner:points\] We have $b\in\operatorname{int}{\mathcal}{C}_A$ if and only if $$\label{int:char}
\dim Q_{A,b}=d,\quad\dim Q_{A,b}^k=d-1\quad\forall\,k\in\{1,\ldots,N\}.$$
According to Theorem \[interior:bigger\], we have $b\in\operatorname{int}{\mathcal}{C}_A$ if and only if $F^Tb>0$. If $F^Tb>0$, then Propositions \[flat\] and \[ecafon\] imply . Conversely, if condition holds, then Proposition \[flat\] and Corollary \[noface\] imply $F^Tb>0$.
Approximation properties {#approxsec}
------------------------
First, we introduce a projector from ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ to ${\mathcal}{G}_A$.
\[projectorprop\] Let ${\varphi}$ and $L_A$ as in Section \[coor1\]. The mapping $$\begin{aligned}
P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathcal}{C}_A,\quad
P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C):=(\sigma_C(a_1),\ldots,\sigma_C(a_N))\end{aligned}$$ is well-defined and $1$-Lipschitz from $(K_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d),\operatorname{dist}_H)$ to $({\mathbbm{R}}^N,\|\cdot\|_\infty)$ with $$P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C)\le P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(\tilde C)\quad\forall\,C,\tilde C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\
\text{with}\ C\subset\tilde C,$$ and the mapping $$\begin{aligned}
P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathcal}{G}_A,\quad
P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C):={\varphi}(P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C))\end{aligned}$$ is an $L_A$-Lipschitz projector from $(K_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d),\operatorname{dist}_H)$ onto $({\mathcal}{G}_A,\operatorname{dist}_H)$ with $$P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(\tilde C)\quad\forall\,C,\tilde C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\
\text{with}\ C\subset\tilde C.$$
If $C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$, then for all $k\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, there exists $x_k\in C$ with $$a_k^Tx_k=\sup_{x\in C}a_k^Tx=\sigma_C(a_k),\quad
a_l^Tx_k\le\sigma_C(a_l)\ \forall\,\ell\in\{1,\ldots,N\}.$$ In particular $x_k\in Q_{A,P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C)}$ for all $k\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$, so $P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C)\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$, and the mapping $P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}$ is well-defined.
It follows from Lemma \[support:Lipschitz\] and $\|a_k\|_2=1$ for $k\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$ that $$\|P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C)-P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(\tilde{C})\|_\infty\le\operatorname{dist}_H(C,\tilde{C})
\quad\forall\,C,\tilde C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d).$$ Since ${\varphi}$ is $L_A$-Lipschitz according to Theorem \[phi\], so is $P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}$. By construction, $$P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(Q_{A,b})={\varphi}(P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(Q_{A,b}))
={\varphi}(b)=Q_{A,b}\quad\forall\,b\in{\mathcal}{C}_A,$$ so $P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}$ is indeed a projector from ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ onto ${\mathcal}{G}_A$.
Now we investigate the quality of the approximation of ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ by ${\mathcal}{G}_A$. Theorem \[oldapprox\], originally proved in [@Rieger:11], provides a measure in terms of the metric density $$\delta_A:=\sup_{c\in S^{d-1}}\min\{\|c-a_k\|_2:k=1,\ldots,N\}$$ of the vectors $\{a_k:k=1,\ldots,N\}$ in the sphere $S^{d-1}$. The assumption $\delta_A\in(0,1)$ is only restrictive when working with very coarse spaces ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ in high-dimensional ambient spaces ${\mathbbm{R}}^d$.
\[oldapprox\] Let ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ be a space of polytopes (see Theorem \[alternative\]), and let $\delta_A\in(0,1)$. Then for every $C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$, we have $C\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)$ and $$\operatorname{dist}(P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C),C)\le\frac{2-\delta_A}{1-\delta_A}\delta_A\|C\|_2.$$
The inclusion $C\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)$ holds by construction of $P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}$, and since ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ is a space of polytopes, Lemma \[support:Lipschitz\] applied with $\tilde{C}=\{0\}$ yields $$\|\sigma_{P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)}\|_\infty=\|P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)\|_2<\infty.$$ Let $x\in P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)$ and $c\in S^{d-1}$. By assumption, there exists $k\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$ with $\|c-a_k\|_2\le\delta_A$, so, again by Lemma \[support:Lipschitz\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
c^Tx
&=(c-a_k)^Tx+a_k^Tx\\
&\le\|c-a_k\|_2\,\|x\|_2+\|\sigma_C\|_\infty
\le\delta_A\|\sigma_{P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)}\|_\infty+\|\sigma_C\|_\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Since $x$ and $c$ were arbitrary, we have $$\|\sigma_{P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)}\|_\infty
\le\delta_A\|\sigma_{P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)}\|_\infty+\|\sigma_C\|_\infty,$$ so that $$\label{inter}
\|\sigma_{P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)}\|_\infty\le\frac{1}{1-\delta_A}\|\sigma_C\|_\infty.$$ Again, let $x\in P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)$, $c\in S^{d-1}$ and $k\in\{1,\ldots,N\}$ with $\|c-a_k\|_2\le\delta_A$. Using inequality , Lemma \[support:Lipschitz\] and $\sigma_C(a_k)=\sigma_{P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)}(a_k)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&c^Tx-\sigma_C(c)
=(c-a_k)^Tx+a_k^Tx-\sigma_C(c)\\
&\le\|c-a_k\|_2\,\|x\|_2+\sigma_C(a_k)-\sigma_C(c)
\le\delta_A\|\sigma_{P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)}\|_\infty+\delta_A\|C\|_2\\
&\le\frac{\delta_A}{1-\delta_A}\|\sigma_C\|_\infty+\delta_A\|C\|_2
=\frac{2-\delta_A}{1-\delta_A}\delta_A\|C\|_2.\end{aligned}$$ Since $x$ and $c$ were arbitrary, it follows from Lemma \[support:Lipschitz\] that $$\operatorname{dist}_H(P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C),C)
=\|\sigma_{P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)}-\sigma_C\|_\infty
\le\frac{2-\delta_A}{1-\delta_A}\delta_A\|C\|_2.$$
While the number $\delta_A$ only measures metric density, the quantity $$\kappa_A:=\sup_{c\in S^{d-1}}\,
\inf\Big\{\sum_{k\in I_p^*}p_k\|a_k-\frac{c}{\|p\|_1}\|_2:p\in Q_{A,c}^*\Big\}$$ encodes the geometry of the matrix $A$. Let us first check that it is well-defined when ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ is a space of bounded polytopes and the geometry of $A$ is sufficiently rich. For the interpretation of the following proposition, note that $\lim_{\rho\nearrow 1}\sqrt{(2-2\rho)/\rho}=0$.
Assume that there exists $\rho\in(0,1)$ such that for every $c\in S^{d-1}$, there is $p\in Q_{A,c}^*$ with $\min_{i,j\in I_p^*}a_i^Ta_j\ge\rho$. Then $$\kappa_A\in[0,\sqrt{\frac{2-2\rho}{\rho}}].$$
Let $c\in S^{d-1}$. By assumption, there exists $p\in{\mathbbm{R}}^N_+$ with $A^Tp=c$ and $\min_{i,j\in I_p^*}a_i^Ta_j\ge\rho$, so $$\begin{aligned}
&\rho\|p\|_1^2=\rho\sum_{i,j\in I_p^*}p_ip_j
\le\sum_{i,j\in I_p^*}p_ia_i^Ta_jp_j,\label{ha}\\
&\|p\|_1^2=\sum_{i,j\in I_p^*}p_ip_j\ge\sum_{i,j\in I_p^*}p_ia_i^Ta_jp_j,\label{hi}\\
&1=\|c\|^2_2=\|A^Tp\|_2^2=\sum_{i,j\in I_p^*}p_ia_i^Ta_jp_j,\label{ho}\end{aligned}$$ and combining statements and , we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\|a_k-\frac{c}{\|p\|_1}\|_2^2
=\|a_k\|_2^2-\frac{2}{\|p\|_1}a_k^Tc+\frac{\|c\|^2}{\|p\|_1^2}\\
&=1-\frac{2}{\|p\|_1}\sum_{i\in I_p^*}p_ia_k^Ta_i+\frac{1}{\|p\|_1^2}
\le 2-2\rho.\end{aligned}$$ Using this and combining statements and , we arrive at $$\sum_{k\in I_p^*}p_k\|a_k-\frac{c}{\|p\|_1}\|_2\le\sqrt{\frac{2-2\rho}{\rho}}.$$
Now we estimate the quality of the approximation of ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ by ${\mathcal}{G}_A$.
\[projector\] Let ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ be a space of polytopes. Then for every $C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$, we have $C\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)$ and $$\operatorname{dist}(P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C),C)\le\kappa_A\|C\|_2.$$
The definition of $P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}$ implies $C\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)$. Let us fix $C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ and $z\in P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)$. Then for every $c\in S^{d-1}$ and every $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,c}^*)$, we obtain, using Lemma \[support:Lipschitz\], that $$\begin{aligned}
&c^Tz-\sigma_C(c)
=\sum_{k=1}^Np_ka_k^Tz-\Big(\sum_{k=1}^N\frac{p_k}{{\|p\|_1}}\Big)\sigma_C(c)
\le\sum_{k=1}^Np_k\sigma_C(a_k)-\sum_{k=1}^Np_k\frac{\sigma_C(c)}{\|p\|_1}\\
&=\sum_{k=1}^Np_k\Big(\sigma_C(a_k)-\sigma_C(\frac{c}{\|p\|_1})\Big)
\le\|C\|_2\sum_{k=1}^Np_k\Big\|a_k-\frac{c}{\|p\|_1}\Big\|_2.\end{aligned}$$ It follows from $C\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)$, Lemma \[support:Lipschitz\] and the above computation that $$\operatorname{dist}(P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C),C)\le\sup_{c\in S^{d-1}}|\sigma_{P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C)}(c)-\sigma_C(c)|
\le\kappa_A\|C\|_2.$$
Galerkin optimization in ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ {#optimsec}
===========================================================
In this section, we use the spaces analyzed in Section \[polsec\] to solve optimization problems in ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ approximately. After gathering a few preliminaries in Section \[prelim2\] we prove a convergence result for an abstract set optimization problem and suitable auxiliary problems in Section \[abstract\]. In Section \[galerseq\], we introduce the concept of Galerkin approximations to ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$, and in Section \[concrete\], we show in detail that an important class of optimization problems in ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ and their Galerkin approximations are a special case of the abstract framework discussed in Section \[abstract\].
Preliminaries {#prelim2}
-------------
All notions of convergence, continuity and compactness are to be understood in terms of the Hausdorff distance $\operatorname{dist}_H$. We equip the space of all compact subsets of $({\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d),\operatorname{dist}_H)$ with the Hausdorff semi-distance and the Hausdorff-distance given by $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal}{D}:2^{{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)}\times 2^{{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)}\to{\mathbbm{R}}_+,\quad
{\mathcal}{D}({\mathcal}{M},\tilde{{\mathcal}{M}}):=\sup_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}}\inf_{\tilde C\in\tilde{{\mathcal}{M}}}\operatorname{dist}_H({\mathcal}{M},\tilde{{\mathcal}{M}}),\\
&{\mathcal}{D}_H:2^{{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)}\times2^{{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)}\to{\mathbbm{R}}_+,\
{\mathcal}{D}_H({\mathcal}{M},\tilde{{\mathcal}{M}}):=\max\{{\mathcal}{D}({\mathcal}{M},\tilde{{\mathcal}{M}}),{\mathcal}{D}(\tilde{{\mathcal}{M}},{\mathcal}{M})\}.\end{aligned}$$
Let us fix some notation for the objective function.
Consider a functional $\Phi:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathbbm{R}}$.
- The function $\Phi$ is called lower semicontinuous if for every $C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ and every sequence $(C_k)_{k=0}^\infty\subset{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ with $\lim_{k\to\infty}\operatorname{dist}_H(C_k,C)=0$, we have $\liminf_{k\to\infty}\Phi(C_k)\ge\Phi(C)$.
- For every $\beta\in{\mathbbm{R}}$, we denote $S(\Phi,\beta):=\{C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d):\Phi(C)\le\beta\}$.
The following result is Theorem 1.8.7 in [@Schneider:14].
\[Blaschke\] For every $R>0$, the collection $\{C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d):\|C\|_2\le R\}$ is compact.
An abstract framework {#abstract}
---------------------
The following statements are variations of well-known facts.
\[exargmin\] Let $\Phi:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathbbm{R}}$ be lower semicontinuous, let $\beta\in{\mathbbm{R}}$, and let ${\mathcal}{M}\subset{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ be a closed set. Then the following statements hold.
- The set $S(\Phi,\beta)$ is closed.
- The set $\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}}\Phi(C)$ is closed.
- If ${\mathcal}{M}\cap S(\Phi,\beta)$ is nonempty and compact, then $\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}}\Phi(C)\neq\emptyset$.
The sets of global minima of suitable auxiliary problems converge to the set of global minima of the original optimization problem.
\[minconvthm\] Let ${\mathcal}{M}\subset{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ be nonempty and compact, and let $({\mathcal}{M}_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ be a sequence of nonempty and compact subsets ${\mathcal}{M}_k\subset{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{setconv}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\mathcal}{D}_H({\mathcal}{M},{\mathcal}{M}_k)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\Phi:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathbbm{R}}$ be continuous, let $(\Phi_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ be a sequence of mappings $\Phi_k:{\mathcal}{M}_k\to{\mathbbm{R}}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{uniapprox}
\lim_{k\to\infty}\sup_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}_k}|\Phi(C)-\Phi_k(C)|=0,\end{aligned}$$ and let $\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}_k}\Phi_k(C)\neq\emptyset$. Then $\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}}\Phi(C)\neq\emptyset$, and $$\label{desiredconv}
\lim_{k\to\infty}{\mathcal}{D}(\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}_k}\Phi_k(C),
\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}}\Phi(C))=0.$$
Consider a subsequence ${\mathbbm{N}}'\subset{\mathbbm{N}}$ and sets $C_k^*\in\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}_k}\Phi_k(C)$ for all $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}'$. By statement , there exists a sequence $(C_k)_{k\in{\mathbbm{N}}'}\subset{\mathcal}{M}$ with $$\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}'\ni k\to\infty}\operatorname{dist}_H(C_k,C_k^*)=0.$$ Since ${\mathcal}{M}$ is compact, there exist $C^*\in{\mathcal}{M}$ and a subsequence ${\mathbbm{N}}''\subset{\mathbbm{N}}'$ with $\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}\operatorname{dist}_H(C_k,C^*)=0$, so all in all, we have $$\label{converge}
\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}\operatorname{dist}_H(C_k^*,C^*)=0.$$ Continuity of $\Phi$ and statements and yield $$\left.\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}|\Phi(C^*)-\Phi_k(C_k^*)|\\
&\le\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}|\Phi(C^*)-\Phi(C_k^*)|
+\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}|\Phi(C_k^*)-\Phi_k(C_k^*)|=0.
\end{aligned}\right\}\label{ssvalue}$$ Let $C\in{\mathcal}{M}$. By statement , there exists $(\tilde C_k)_{k\in{\mathbbm{N}}''}$ with $\tilde C_k\in{\mathcal}{M}_k$ and $$\label{convlow}
\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}\operatorname{dist}_H(\tilde C_k,C)=0.$$ Again, statements and yield $$\left.\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}|\Phi(C)-\Phi_k(\tilde C_k)|\\
&\le\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}|\Phi(C)-\Phi(\tilde C_k)|
+\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}|\Phi(\tilde C_k)-\Phi_k(\tilde C_k)|=0,
\end{aligned}\right\}\label{sslvalue}$$ and because of statements and , we have $$\Phi(C)=\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}\Phi_k(\tilde C_k)
\ge\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}\Phi_k(C_k^*)=\Phi(C^*).$$ All in all, we have $C^*\in\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}}\Phi(C)$.
Now assume that statement is false. Then there exist ${\varepsilon}>0$, a subsequence ${\mathbbm{N}}'\subset{\mathbbm{N}}$ and sets $C_k^*\in\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}_k}\Phi_k(C)$ for all $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}'$ with $$\label{contradict}
{\mathcal}{D}(C_k^*,\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}}\Phi(C))\ge{\varepsilon}\quad\forall\,k\in{\mathbbm{N}}'.$$ But the first part of the proof shows that there exists $C^*\in\operatorname{argmin}_{c\in{\mathcal}{M}}\Phi(C)$ such that statement holds. This contradicts statement .
Galerkin sequences {#galerseq}
------------------
Now we introduce the equivalent to Galerkin schemes from the realm of partial differential equations.
\[galseq\] A sequence $(A_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ of matrices $A_k\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{N_k\times d}$ with $N_k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$, $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$, is called a Galerkin sequence if there exists a sequence $(\alpha_k)_{k=0}^\infty\in{\mathbbm{R}}_+$ with $\lim_{k\to\infty}\alpha_k=0$ such that $$\inf_{\tilde C\in{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}\operatorname{dist}_H(C,\tilde C)\le\alpha_k\|C\|_2\quad\forall\,C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d).$$ If, in addition, $A_k$ is a submatrix of $A_{k+1}$ for all $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$, then we call $(A_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ a nested Galerkin sequence.
Let us draw some immediate conclusions from Definition \[galseq\].
\[immediate\] If $(A_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ is a Galerkin sequence, the following statements hold.
- The spaces ${\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}$ consist of polytopes.
- If $(A_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ is nested, then ${\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}\subset{\mathcal}{G}_{A_{k+1}}$ for all $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$.
a\) Fix $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$. Since $\{0\}\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$, we have $$\inf_{C\in{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}\operatorname{dist}_H(\{0\},C)\le\alpha_k\cdot 0=0.$$ In particular, there exists $C\in{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}$ with $\|C\|_2\le 1$, and hence, by Theorem \[alternative\], the entire space ${\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}$ consist of polytopes.
Statement b) is trivial.
Let us check that the concept of Galerkin sequences makes sense.
\[ngsexists\] For every $d\ge 2$, there exists a nested Galerkin sequence $(A_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ of matrices $A_k\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{N_k\times d}$.
Consider spherical coordinates $\zeta:[0,\pi]^{d-2}\times[0,2\pi]\to S^{d-1}$ given by $\zeta_i(\theta)=\cos(\theta_i)\prod_{j=1}^{i-1}\sin(\theta_j)$ for $i\in\{1,\ldots,d-1\}$ and $\zeta_d(\theta)=\prod_{j=1}^{d-1}\sin(\theta_j)$. For every $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}_1$, we consider the grid $$\Delta_k:=\frac{\pi}{2^k}{\mathbbm{Z}}^{d-1}\cap([0,\pi]^{d-2}\times[0,2\pi]),$$ we define $\{a_1^k,\ldots,a_{N_k}^k\}:=\zeta(\Delta_k)$, and we let $A_k$ be the matrix consisting of the rows $(a_1^k)^T,\ldots,(a_{N_k}^k)^T$. Since the grids $(\Delta_k)_{k\in{\mathbbm{N}}}$ are nested, so are the matrices $(A_k)_{k=0}^\infty$.
For every $c\in S^{d-1}$, there exists $\theta\in[0,\pi]^{d-2}\times[0,2\pi]$ with $\zeta(\theta)=c$. By definition, there exists $\tilde\theta\in\Delta_k$ with $\|\theta-\tilde\theta\|_\infty\le 2^{-k-1}\pi$. An elementary computation shows $$\|\zeta(\theta)-\zeta(\tilde\theta)\|_2
\le\sqrt{d}\|\zeta(\theta)-\zeta(\tilde\theta)\|_\infty
\le d\sqrt{d}\|\theta-\tilde\theta\|_\infty
\le 2^{-k-1}\pi d\sqrt{d},$$ so by Theorem \[oldapprox\], the spaces ${\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}$ have the desired approximation properties for sufficiently large $k$.
The following proposition reveals additional details of the relationship between two polytope spaces from a nested Galerkin sequence, which may be of some interest for numerical computations with adaptive refinement.
\[nested\] Let $N_1,N_2\in{\mathbbm{N}}$ with $N_1<N_2$, let $a_1,\ldots,a_{N_2}\in S^{d-1}$ be pairwise distinct, and let $A_1\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{N_1\times d}$ and $A_2\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{N_2\times d}$ be the matrices consisting of the rows $a_1^T,\ldots,a_{N_1}^T$ and $a_1^T,\ldots,a_{N_2}^T$, respectively. If the space ${\mathcal}{G}_{A_1}$ consists of polytopes, then the following statements hold:
- The space ${\mathcal}{G}_{A_2}$ consists of polytopes.
- We have $P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_2}}(C)\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_1}}(C)$ for any $C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$.
- We have $P_{{\mathcal}{C}_{A_2}}({\mathcal}{G}_{A_1})
\subset\mathrm{bd}({\mathcal}{C}_{A_2})$.
Statement a) follows from Theorem \[alternative\] and the fact that $p\in Q_{A_1,c}^*$ implies $(p^T,0_{{\mathbbm{R}}^{N_2-N_1}})^T\in Q_{A_2,c}^*$. Statement b) is obvious.
Let $b^1\in{\mathcal}{C}_{A_1}$, and let $b^2:=P_{{\mathcal}{C}_{A_2}}(Q_{A_1,b^1})$. By the definitions of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ and $P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}$, we have $b^2_i=b^1_i$ for all $i\in\{1,\ldots,N_1\}$, and for every $i\in\{N_1+1,\ldots,N_2\}$, Theorem \[strong:duality\] gives $$b^2_i
=\max\{a_i^Tx:x\in Q_{A_1,b^1}\}
=\min\{(b^1)^Tp:p\in Q_{A_1,a_i}^*\}.$$ In particular, we have $Q_{A_1,a_i}^*\neq\emptyset$, and by Lemma \[has:vertices\], we have $\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A_1,a_i}^*)\neq\emptyset$, so there exists $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A_1,a_i}^*)$ with $b^2_i=p^Tb^1$. By Lemma \[vertices\]b, we have $(p^T,\mymathbb{0}_{N_2-N_1}^T)^T\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A_2,a_i}^*)$. Since $(p^T,\mymathbb{0}_{N_2-N_1}^T)^T\neq e_i$ and $$(p^T,\mymathbb{0}_{N_2-N_1}^T)b^2=p^Tb^1=b_i^2,$$ it follows from Theorem \[interior:bigger\] that $b^2\notin\operatorname{int}({\mathcal}{C}_{A_2})$.
Property d) above may be undesirable. In particular, interior point methods require an initial guess in $\operatorname{int}({\mathcal}{C}_{A_k})$. A simple solution to this problem is provided in the following proposition.
Let $A\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{N\times d}$ such that ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ consists of polytopes, and let $\lambda\in(0,1)$. Then the mappings $$\begin{aligned}
&P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}^\lambda:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to\operatorname{int}({\mathcal}{C}_A),\quad
P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}^\lambda(C):=(1-\lambda)P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C)+\lambda\|C\|_2\mathbbm{1},\\
&P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}^\lambda:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathcal}{G}_A,\quad
P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C):={\varphi}(P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}^\lambda(C))\end{aligned}$$ with ${\varphi}$ as in Theorem \[phi\] satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
&\|P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}^\lambda(C)-P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C)\|_\infty\le 2\lambda\|C\|_2
\quad\forall\,C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d),\\
&\operatorname{dist}_H(P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}^\lambda(C),P_{{\mathcal}{G}_A}(C))\le 2\lambda L_A\|C\|_2
\quad\forall\,C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d).\end{aligned}$$
According to Theorem \[interior:bigger\], we have $\mathbbm{1}\in\operatorname{int}({\mathcal}{C}_A)$, and by Corollary \[cacc\], the coordinate space ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ is a convex cone. Since $P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C)\in{\mathcal}{C}_A$, it follows that $$(1-\lambda)P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C)+\lambda\|C\|_2\mathbbm{1}\in\operatorname{int}({\mathcal}{C}_A).$$ The estimates follow from Lemma \[support:Lipschitz\], the computation $$\|P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}^\lambda(C)-P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C)\|_\infty
\le\lambda\|P_{{\mathcal}{C}_A}(C)-\|C\|_2\mathbbm{1}\|_\infty
\le\lambda(\|\sigma_C\|_\infty+\|C\|_2)
\le 2\lambda\|C\|_2,$$ and the fact that ${\varphi}$ is $L_A$-Lipschitz.
A concrete optimization problem in ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ {#concrete}
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout this section, we fix a continuous functional $\Phi:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathbbm{R}}$, an $L$-Lipschitz constraint $\Psi:({\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d),\operatorname{dist}_H)\to({\mathbbm{R}}^m,\|\cdot\|_\infty)$ as well as sets $\check{C},\hat{C}\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$, and we consider the model problem $$\label{aop}
\min_{C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)}\Phi(C)\quad\text{subject to}\quad
\Psi(C)\le 0,\ \check{C}\subset C\subset\hat{C}.$$ We fix a nested Galerkin sequence $(A_k)_{k=0}^\infty$ with $A\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{N_k\times d}$ and approximate this problem with a sequence $$\label{fdop}
\min_{C\in{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}\Phi_k(C)\quad\text{subject to}\quad
\Psi_k(C)\le 0,\ P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\check{C})\subset C\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\hat{C})$$ of finite-dimensional problems with suitable mappings $\Psi_k$, which become $$\label{cop}
\min_{b\in{\mathcal}{C}_{A_k}}\Phi_k(Q_{A_k,b})\quad\text{subject to}\quad
\Psi_k(Q_{A_k,b})\le 0,\
P_{{\mathcal}{C}_{A_k}}(\check{C})\le b\le P_{{\mathcal}{C}_{A_k}}(\hat{C})$$ when expressed in coordinates. By Corollary \[matrix:representation\], the constraint $b\in{\mathcal}{C}_{A_k}$ can be represented as a linear inequality. Let us denote $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathcal}{M}:=\{C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d): \Psi(C)\le 0,\ \check{C}\subset C\subset\hat{C}\},\\
&{\mathcal}{M}_k:=\{C\in{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}: \Psi_k(C)\le 0,\
P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\check{C})\subset C\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\hat{C})\}.\end{aligned}$$
Conditions are redundant in the characterization of ${\mathcal}{M}_k$, which is convenient from a computational perspective.
\[dispense\] For any $b\in{\mathbbm{R}}^{N_k}$ with $P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\check{C})\subset Q_{A_k,b}$ and any $p\in\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,0}^\diamond)$, we have $0\le b^Tp$.
Since $\emptyset\neq P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\check{C})\subset Q_{A_k,b}$ this follows from Proposition \[Farkas\]a.
The constraints $\Psi_k$ can be designed in such a way that the sets ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ converge to ${\mathcal}{M}$. Recall the definition of the constant $\kappa_A$ from Section \[approxsec\].
\[setconvprop\] The set ${\mathcal}{M}$ is compact. Assume that ${\mathcal}{M}\neq\emptyset$, and define $$\label{psidef}
\Psi_k:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathbbm{R}}^m,\quad
\Psi_k(C):=\Psi(C)-L\kappa_{A_k}\|\hat{C}\|_2\mathbbm{1}_{{\mathbbm{R}}^m}.$$ Then the sets ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ are nonempty and compact for all $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$. If, in addition, we have $\lim_{k\to\infty}\kappa_{A_k}=0$, then we have $${\mathcal}{D}_H({\mathcal}{M},{\mathcal}{M}_k)\to 0\quad\text{as}\quad k\to\infty.$$
By Theorem \[Blaschke\], the set $\{C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d):\check{C}\subset C\subset\hat C\}$ is relatively compact. Since $\check{C}\subset C\subset\hat C$ holds if and only if we have $\operatorname{dist}(\check{C},C)=0$ and $\operatorname{dist}(C,\hat C)=0$, and since $C\mapsto\operatorname{dist}(\check{C},C)$ and $C\mapsto\operatorname{dist}(C,\hat C)$ are continuous, the set $\{C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d):\check{C}\subset C\subset\hat C\}$ is closed. By continuity of $\Psi$, the set $\{C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d): \Psi(C)\le 0\}$ is closed as well. All in all, the set ${\mathcal}{M}$ is compact, and the sets ${\mathcal}{M}_k$, $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$, are compact for the same reasons.
Let ${\mathcal}{M}\neq\emptyset$. All $C\in{\mathcal}{M}$ satisfy $C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ and $\Psi(C)\le 0$, as well as $\check{C}\subset C\subset\hat{C}$. By Proposition \[projectorprop\], we have $P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\check{C})\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(C)\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\hat{C})$, and according to Theorem \[projector\], we have $$\label{kommetihrhirten}
\operatorname{dist}_H(C,P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(C))\le\kappa_{A_k}\|C\|_2\le\kappa_{A_k}\|\hat C\|_2.$$ But then $$\begin{aligned}
&\Psi_k(P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(C))
=\Psi(P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(C))-L\kappa_{A_k}\|\hat{C}\|_2\mathbbm{1}_{{\mathbbm{R}}^m}\\
&\le\Psi(C)+\|\Psi(P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(C))-\Psi(C)\|_\infty\mathbbm{1}_{{\mathbbm{R}}^m}
-L\kappa_{A_k}\|\hat{C}\|_2\mathbbm{1}_{{\mathbbm{R}}^m}\le 0\end{aligned}$$ shows $P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(C)\in{\mathcal}{M}_k$. Hence ${\mathcal}{M}_k\neq\emptyset$ and ${\mathcal}{D}({\mathcal}{M},{\mathcal}{M}_k)\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$.
Assume that ${\mathcal}{D}({\mathcal}{M}_k,{\mathcal}{M})\not\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$. Then there exist a number ${\varepsilon}>0$, a subsequence ${\mathbbm{N}}'\subset{\mathbbm{N}}$ and $(C_k)_{k\in{\mathbbm{N}}'}$ with $C_k\in{\mathcal}{M}_k$ for all $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}'$ and $$\label{contra}
{\mathcal}{D}(C_k,{\mathcal}{M})\ge{\varepsilon}\quad\forall\,k\in{\mathbbm{N}}'.$$ By Lemma \[nested\]b, we have $C_k\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\hat C)\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_0}}(\hat C)$, and by Lemma \[immediate\]a, the set $P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_0}}(\hat C)$ bounded, so according to Theorem \[Blaschke\], there exist a subsequence ${\mathbbm{N}}''\subset{\mathbbm{N}}$ and $C\in{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$ such that $\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}\operatorname{dist}_H(C,C_k)=0$. By continuity of $\Psi$ and by the definition of $\Psi_k$, we have $$\Psi(C)=\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}\Psi(C_k)
=\lim_{{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty}\big(\Psi_k(C_k)+L\kappa_{A_k}\|\hat{C}\|_2\mathbbm{1}_{{\mathbbm{R}}^m}\big)=0.$$ Moreover, since $C_k\subset P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\hat{C})$ and by Proposition \[projector\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{dist}(C,\hat{C})
\le&\operatorname{dist}(C,C_k)
+\operatorname{dist}(C_k, P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\hat{C}))\\
&+\operatorname{dist}(P_{{\mathcal}{G}_{A_k}}(\hat{C}),\hat{C})
\to 0\quad\text{as}\quad{\mathbbm{N}}''\ni k\to\infty,\end{aligned}$$ so $C\subset\hat{C}$. But then $C\in{\mathcal}{M}$, which contradicts statement . All in all, we proved that ${\mathcal}{D}({\mathcal}{M}_k,{\mathcal}{M})\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$.
Now we gather the results from this section in a final statement.
\[concreteconv1\] For $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$, let $\Phi_k:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathbbm{R}}$ be lower semicontinuous mappings which satisfy condition , let constraints $\Psi_k:{\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)\to{\mathbbm{R}}^m$ be defined by , and assume that ${\mathcal}{M}\neq\emptyset$. Then $\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}}\Phi(C)\neq\emptyset$, and $$\lim_{k\to\infty}{\mathcal}{D}(\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}_k}\Phi_k(C),
\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}}\Phi(C))=0.$$
By Proposition \[setconvprop\], the set ${\mathcal}{M}$ is compact, and for every $k\in{\mathbbm{N}}$, there exists $C_k\in{\mathcal}{M}_k$, and the set ${\mathcal}{M}_k$ is compact. As $\Phi_k$ is lower semicontinuous, the nonempty sets $S(\Phi_k,\Phi_k(C_k))$ are closed by Lemma \[exargmin\]a. Lemma \[exargmin\]c yields that $\operatorname{argmin}_{C\in{\mathcal}{M}_k}\Phi_k(C)\neq\emptyset$. In addition, Proposition \[setconvprop\] ensures that condition is satisfied. Thus Theorem \[minconvthm\] applies and yields the desired statement.
Conclusion
==========
This paper lays the foundations for a systematic numerical treatment of optimization problems in the space ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$. First applications presented in [@Ernst] and [@Harrach:19] support the usefulness of this approach. On the other hand, many questions remain open. We present them as clusters of interconnected problems.
*Cluster 1: The nature of the mapping ${\varphi}:{\mathcal}{C}_A\to{\mathcal}{G}_A$.*\
Is ${\varphi}$ piecewise affine linear with respect to Minkowski addition? What is its exact local modulus of continuity? Which local and global properties of a functional $\Phi:{\mathcal}{K}_c\to{\mathbbm{R}}$ does the composition $\Phi\circ{\varphi}:{\mathcal}{C}_A\to{\mathbbm{R}}$ inherit? What is the structure of ${\mathcal}{G}_A$ as a subspace of ${\mathcal}{K}_c({\mathbbm{R}}^d)$?
*Cluster 2: More on the coordinate space ${\mathcal}{C}_A$.*\
What are the extremal rays of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$, and does this knowledge have any implications for practical computations? Are there more redundancies in the full system (\[nonempty\],\[touching\]) than those identified in Theorem \[redundancy\]? How is the algebraic structure of the vectors $a_1,\ldots,a_N$ reflected by the algebraic structure of the sets $\operatorname{ext}(Q_{A,a_i}^*)$, and what does this tell us about ${\mathcal}{C}_A$, ${\mathcal}{G}_A$, redundancies, etc?
*Cluster 3: The design of the matrix $A$.*\
Is there a principle that helps designing $A$ in such a way that $\delta_A$ or $\kappa_A$ is (almost) minimized over ${\mathbbm{R}}^{N\times d}$? Can these special matrices be organized in a nested Galerkin sequence? How to balance approximation properties of ${\mathcal}{C}_A$ with local Lipschitz properties of ${\varphi}$?
*Cluster 4: Offline computations.*\
How much can we infer about the structure of $Q_{A,b}$ for a particular $b$ from offline computations? Can we speed up the enumeration of its vertices using offline computations? Can we use offline computations to solve linear programs over $Q_{A,b}$ quickly? Can we update the vertices of $Q_{A,b}$ efficiently under changes of $b$ using information compiled in offline computations?
*Cluster 5: Local minima.*\
Under which conditions do local minimizers of the auxiliary problems converge to local minimizers of the original problem ? What about KKT points?
Further interesting questions are whether our approach can help answer theoretical questions about optimization problems in the space of convex bodies, and whether the approach can be extended to spaces of nonconvex sets in a meaningful way.
We hope that at least some of these questions will be answered in the future, and that other researchers find this programme sufficiently interesting to contribute to its development.
[^1]: School of Mathematical Sciences, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia; telephone: +61(3)99020579; email: [email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Andrea Scagliarini, Enrico Calzavarini, Daniela Mansutti and Federico Toschi'
title: 'Modelling sea ice and melt ponds evolution: sensitivity to microscale heat transfer mechanisms'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Arctic Ocean is characterised by the presence of ice, formed from the freezing of oceanic water. Such layer of sea ice is a key component of the Earth Climate System [@Hunke2010; @Notz2012], for it represents a sort of ‘boundary condition’ for heat, momentum and mass exchange between ocean and atmosphere at high latitudes [@CattleCrossley; @Ebert1995; @MaykutMcPhee; @Tsamados2014] and plays a crucial role in the salinity balance in the ocean [@Vancoppenolle2009a; @Vancoppenolle2009b], thus affecting also the thermohaline circulation [@Mauritzen]. Moreover, sea ice turns out to be a sensitive indicator of climate change: during the last few decades its average thickness and extent decreased significantly [@Kwok2009; @Stroeve2012; @Laxon2013]. This decrease is two-way coupled with global warming, which shows up particularly striking in the Arctic, via the so called ice-albedo feedback. Sea ice, in fact, has a large albedo as compared to open oceanic waters, i.e. it reflects a high fraction of the incident solar radiation, while water absorbes it, thus favouring warming. The warmer the Earth surface the more ice melts, the lower gets the global albedo. The variability of sea ice emerges as the result of many processes acting on different time scales. The energy budget involving incoming and outgoing radiation [@MaykutUntersteiner; @EbertCurry; @EisenmanWettlaufer], the melting phase transition [@Steele1992; @BitzLipscomb], the transport of water through ice porous structure [@FreitagEicken; @FelthamMushy; @WellsMushy; @TurnerHunke], the rheology of internal stresses [@FelthamRheo; @HunkeDukowicz; @Tsamados2013; @Rabatel2018], the transport forced by couplings with ocean and atmosphere [@Steele1997; @Schroeder2003; @Rampal2009; @Rampal2011; @Petty2013; @Tsamados2018], all these make sea ice an extremely complex system and its theoretical modelling a challenge [@Hunke2010; @Notz2012; @HunkeCryo; @Massonnet].\
An important role in the ice-albedo feedback is played by the presence, on the ice surface, of melt ponds [@FettererUntersteiner; @Perovich2002aerial]: during summer both the snow cover and the upper surface of sea ice melt and, as a consequence, meltwater may accumulate in depressions of the ice topography (thus forming ponds). The albedo of a melt pond ranges between $\sim 0.1$ and $\sim 0.5$ [@Hanesiak], while for ice between $\sim 0.4$ and $\sim 0.8$ [@FettererUntersteiner]. The average albedo for ponded ice is, then, lower than for the unponded one [@Perovich2002albedo]. The evolution of melt ponds and of their distribution over the sea ice surface is, therefore, a key ingredient to be accounted for in realistic models of sea ice. It has been indeed suggested that a missing or improper inclusion of melt ponds could be the cause of overestimation, by certain general circulation models (GCMs), of the September sea ice minumum [@Flocco2012; @Schroeder2014]. For climatological temporal scales, it is important to get an accurate enough knowledge of the pond depth and surface area distributions, since these ones impact on the radiation budget; the rate of heat transfer through the ice pack, moreover, depends on the dynamics of meltwater, which, despite the average shallowness of ponds, can be turbulent [@TaylorFeltham].\
The complexity of the melt-pond-covered sea ice system resides exactly in this intrinsic multiscale nature. Borrowing terms from Condensed Matter Physics, one can say that a modellistic approach may be tackled, at least, at three level of description: a [*microscopic*]{} level, where the focus is on the “atoms” of the system, the single pond and the fluid dynamics inside it, as done in, e.g., [@SkyllingstadPaulson; @Enrico]; a [*mesoscopic*]{} level, where the evolution of many ponds is considered, coupled with the evolution of a resolved sea ice topography [@Luethje; @Luethje2; @SkyllingstadEtAl; @ScottFeltham]; and, finally, a [*macroscopic*]{} level, on scales of climatological interest, where sea ice dynamics is described in terms of an ice thickness distribution (ITD) [@Thorndike; @CICE; @LIM], and melt ponds need to be parametrized [@Flocco2012; @FloccoFeltham; @Flocco2010]. The aim of this contribution is twofold. We will propose a [*mesoscopic*]{} model (in the sense explained above) and employ it to assess the sensitivity of the melt-ponds-covered sea ice system to different modelling of certain dynamical processes occurring at the single pond [*microscopic*]{} level.\
The paper is organized as follows: in section \[sec:ourmm\] we introduce the proposed mathematical model and its numerical implementation; in section \[sec:results\] the main results are illustrated and discussed, while concluding remarks and research outlooks are left to section \[sec:concl\].
The mathematical model {#sec:ourmm}
======================
The physical processes that occur within the ice pack and lead to variation of the sea ice thickness, can be grouped essentially into two categories: thermodynamic and mechanical. Thermodynamic processes are those related to the radiative budget; the fraction of incoming radiation that is absorbed is spent to increase the surface temperature and to melt ice. Mechanical deformations of sea ice are induced by ocean and wind stresses. These can drive sea ice transport, as well as elasto-plastic deformations in the pack, giving rise to events such as ridging and rafting [@Hunke2010]. Since we are interested in simulating processes involving ice melting and meltwater dynamics, we will neglect sea ice transport and mechanical terms (despite they can act on time scales comparable to melting in summer). As ice melts, meltwater is formed and transported, by sliding over the ice topography and seepage through its porous structure. It will eventually concentrate in [*local minima*]{} of the ice topography, forming melt ponds.
The sea-ice-thickness/melt-pond-depth system {#subsec:equations}
--------------------------------------------
We consider, therefore, the evolution of the ice (of density $\rho_i$) thickness field $h(\mathbf{x},t) \geq 0$ and the meltwater (of density $\rho_w$) pond depth field $w(\mathbf{x},t) \geq 0$ (with $\mathbf{x} \in \Omega \subset R^2$), whose dynamical equations read:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:SM1}
\partial_t h & = & -f \\ \nonumber
\partial_t w & = & -\nabla \cdot (\mathbf{u} w) + \frac{\rho_i}{\rho_w}f - s,\end{aligned}$$
where $f$, $\mathbf{u}w$ and $s$ represent, respectively, the melting rate, the meltwater flux (per unit cross-sectional area) and the seepage rate, which are, in general, functionals of $h$ and $w$. Similar mesoscopic models based on the evolution of $h$ and $w$ have been proposed in the past [@Luethje; @ScottFeltham]. Here, the original contributions to the modelling are in the parametrization of fluid-dynamics processes, in particular the water transport term and, more importantly, the vertical and lateral melt-rate term in turbulent flow conditions, which we will describe in detail in the following.
### Melting rate
The precise description of the energy budget at the sea ice cover, involving incoming and outgoing radiations and the thermodynamics of ice, can be quite a challenging task [@MaykutUntersteiner; @EbertCurry; @EisenmanWettlaufer]. Being the focus of our study, though, a particular aspect of the melting process, namely the reduced albedo by meltwater covering the sea ice surface, we adopt a simple modelling [@Luethje], that proves, on the other hand, to be suitable to straightforward generalizations for the problems of interest here. We write the total melting rate $f$ appearing in (\[eq:SM1\]) as the sum of two terms $$\label{eq:f}
f = (1-\chi)\phi_1(w) + \chi \phi_2(w,\nabla w,\nabla h);$$ here, the first term, $\phi_1$, is [*local*]{}, in fact it depends only on the pond depth $w(\mathbf{x},t)$, whereas the second term, $\phi_2$, includes also [*lateral melting*]{} mechanisms and may, thus, in principle depend also on gradients of the pond depth and ice thickness fields. The binary variable $\chi \in \{0,1\}$ has been introduced to switch on ($\chi=1$) or off ($\chi=0$) such lateral melting contribution. Let us first discuss the local term $\phi_1$. We assume a constant melting rate $\phi_1 = m_i$, of dimensions $[\mbox{length}/\mbox{time}]$, for [*bare*]{} (unponded) ice (i.e. if $w(\mathbf{x},t)=0$), which is magnified by a $w$-dependent factor $\mathcal{A}(w)$, if ice is covered by a pond ($w(\mathbf{x},t)>0$); altogether, the expression for $\phi_1$ reads: $$\label{eq:mrluethje1}
\phi_1(w) = \mathcal{A}(w)m_i.$$ Following Lüthje et al. [@Luethje], one can take $\mathcal{A}(w)$ to be: $$\label{eq:mrluethje2}
\mathcal{A}(w) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 + \frac{m_p}{m_i}\frac{w}{w_{\mbox{\tiny{max}}}} & \mbox{if } w \in [0,w_{\mbox{\tiny{max}}}] \\
& \\
1 + \frac{m_p}{m_i} & \mbox{otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.$$ where $m_p$ is a (constant) limit melting rate for ponded ice, when the overlying pond depth exceeds the value $w_{\mbox{\tiny{max}}}$ (which is usually estimated to be pretty small, $w_{\mbox{\tiny{max}}} \approx 0.1 {\mbox{m}}$, because turbulent convection is already relevant at such depth, as discussed later on). The meaning and origin of such magnifying factor deserves some comments. In very shallow ponds, $w < w_{max}$, as a consequence of the absorption of solar radiation by water, the warming up is proportional to its volume and so the heat flux through the liquid layer is proportional to $w$. The situation changes for slightly deeper ponds, $w > w_{max}$, due to the appearance of natural convection. Indeed in summertime the temperature of air in contact with ponds ($\approx 2^o\,C$) is higher than the basal one, in contact with melting ice (at $0^o\,C$). In this range water density shows the well known anomaly, according to which it decreases with temperature, $\rho_w(T=2^0\,C) > \rho_w(T=0^0\,C)$, therefore, the pond is prone to convection. The latter sets on when the system becomes dynamically unstable; this will occur when the pond depth, which grows in time because of melting (thus making the system intrinsically non-stationary), will reach a value such that the time-dependent Rayleigh number $Ra(t)$ is large enough. The Rayleigh number quantifies the relative magnitude of buoyancy and dissipative terms; grouping together water density $\rho_w$, thermal expansion coefficient $\beta$, dynamic viscosity $\eta$, thermal conductivity $\kappa$ and specific heat capacity at constant pressure $c_p$ with gravity yields: $$\label{eq:Ra}
Ra(t) = \frac{c_p \rho_w^2 \beta g (\Delta T) w(t)^3}{\kappa \eta},$$ Although it may seem surprising, the ponds being in general shallow, if we plug typical values in (\[eq:Ra\]) we get, even for $w \approx 0.1 {\mbox{m}}$ and $\Delta T \approx 0.2^o\,C$, $Ra \approx 10^6$ [@TaylorFeltham], a value at which convection is already moderately turbulent [@Ahlers]. Within ponds of depth $w \stackrel{>}{\sim}0.1 {\mbox{m}}$, filled of fresh water, heat is not transferred by conduction, but by turbulent convection, whence the larger basal melting rate (\[eq:mrluethje1\])-(\[eq:mrluethje2\]). For the sake of simplicity we neglect here salt concentration. Such an assumption must be taken with due care, though, since salinity hinders convection, by density stratification, and can even inhibit it (as shown in [@Kim]).\
The dependence of the turbulent heat flux $\Phi_{\mbox{\tiny{turb}}}$ (in $W/\textrm{m}^{-2}$ units) on the depth, though, is a complex problem. Expressed in non-dimensional variables, it amounts to assessing the Nusselt $Nu$ *vs* Rayleigh numbers scaling $Nu \sim Ra^{c}$ [@Ahlers; @GL], where the Nusselt number is defined as: $$Nu(t) = \frac{\Phi_{\mbox{\tiny{turb}}}(t)}{\kappa \frac{(\Delta T)}{w(t)}}.$$ The expression (\[eq:mrluethje2\]) arises from the assumption of the so called Malkus scaling $Nu \sim Ra^{1/3}$ [@Malkus]. Note that this state corresponds the conjecture that the turbulent heat flux is independent of the thickness of the liquid layer, and as consequence that the melt rate is fixed at a constant value $m_p$ as stated by (\[eq:mrluethje2\]) in the model by Lüthje et al. [@Luethje] or by Taylor & Feltham [@TaylorFeltham]. However, theories, experiments and numerical simulations tend to agree that, in the range of $Ra$ of relevance for melt pond convection, the scaling exponent should be $c<1/3$ (see, e.g., [@GL] and references therein); in particular, widely observed is $Nu \sim Ra^c$, with $c \approx 2/7$. A similar scaling was observed, in numerical simulations, also for turbulent thermal convection with phase transition, where a boundary evolves, driven by melting [@Enrico], a setup which more closely resembles what occurs inside a melt pond. So, we propose to generalize Eqs. (\[eq:mrluethje1\])-(\[eq:mrluethje2\]) for the local magnitude of melting to a generic $Nu \sim Ra^{c}$ relation and we obtain: $$\label{eq:gmrate}
\phi_1(w) = m_i + m_p(w,c)\left(\frac{w}{w_{\mbox{\tiny{max}}}}\right)^{\alpha}, \quad \mbox{with}\
\alpha =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \ \ \mbox{if } w \in [0,w_{\mbox{\tiny{max}}}] \\
\\
3c - 1 &\ \ \mbox{if } w > w_{\mbox{\tiny{max}}},
\end{array}
\right.$$ so that for ponds deeper than $w_{max}$ Lüthje et al.’s case [@Luethje] is recovered for $\alpha = 0$, while scaling exponent equal to $2/7$ yields for $\alpha = -1/7$. Notice that we have allowed also the constant $m_p$ to be depth dependent in our model, $m_p \rightarrow m_p(w)$. This is done in order to include another aspect of realistic convection in Arctic ponds: the effect of a surface wind shear. At high latitudes, in fact, strong wind shear from the atmospheric boundary layer is present that can affect significantly sea ice dynamics (e.g. in the formation of sea-ice bridges [@Rallabandi]). Artic winds act on pond surfaces and are able, in principle, to strongly modify the convection patterns [@SkyllingstadPaulson]. In such situations, turbulent heat flux is initially depleted, due to thermal plumes distortion by the shear [@Domaradzki; @Scagliarini], and then it increases again, when turbulent forced convection becomes the dominant mechanism. On the line of the same arguments exposed in [@Scagliarini], based on Prandtl’s mixing length theory [@Prandtl], an expression for the coefficient $m_p(w)$ of the following form $$\label{eq:mprate}
m_p(w,c) \sim m_p^{(0)}(w,c)\left( \frac{a_1}{1 + c_1(\tau_s) w^{\gamma_1}} + a_2 c_2(\tau_s) w^{\gamma_2} \right),$$ can be expected, where $a_1$ and $a_2$ are some phenomenological parameters and $c_1$ and $c_2$ are functions of the wind shear magnitude $\tau_s$ (and of physical properties of meltwater). In all numerical results reported here, however, we have set $\tau_s=0$, that is we have kept $m_p(w) \equiv m_p^{(0)}(w,c)$ (exploring wind shear effects will be object of a forthcoming study). The dependence of $m_p^{(0)}(w,c)$ on $w$ and $c$ stems from the fact that: i) below $w_{max}$ the heating is mainly radiative and ii) changing the exponent of the scaling relation between dimensionless quantities, $Nu \sim Ra^c$, affects also the prefactor of the turbulent heat flux, i.e. $\Phi_{\mbox{\tiny{turb}}} = A(c)w^{3c-1}$. The expression for $m_p^{(0)}(w,c)$ therefore reads: $$\label{eq:mprate0}
m_p^{(0)}(w,c) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
m_{p,r}^{(0)} & \ \ \mbox{if } w \in [0,w_{\mbox{\tiny{max}}}] \\
\\
b_c(Pr) \left(\frac{c_p \rho_w^2 \beta g}{\eta}\right)^c \kappa^{1-c} (\Delta T)^{1+c} &\ \ \mbox{if } w > w_{\mbox{\tiny{max}}},
\end{array}
\right.$$ where the coefficient $b_c(Pr)$ depends on the Prandtl number, $Pr=c_p \eta/\kappa$. As previously commented, Eq. (\[eq:gmrate\]) is purely local and “vertical”, in the sense that, if we think in discrete time, in a step $\Delta t$, it would increase the pond depth by $\phi_1(w(\mathbf{x},t))\Delta t$, $w(\mathbf{x},t) \rightarrow w(\mathbf{x},t) + \frac{\rho_i}{\rho_w}\phi_1(w(\mathbf{x},t),t)\Delta t$, and decrease the ice thickness by $h(\mathbf{x},t) \rightarrow h(\mathbf{x},t) - \phi_1(w(\mathbf{x},t))\Delta t$, without affecting or being affected by the neighbourhood. We may expect, though, that, due to convection induced mixing, meltwater will be at a higher temperature than the surrounding ice and it may, therefore, favour melting also horizontally. This can be especially relevant close to the edge of pond surfaces, where it should give rise to a widening of ponds. To account for this kind of mechanism, we have introduced in the expression for the total melting rate, Eq. (\[eq:f\]), the term $\phi_2(w,\nabla w, \nabla h)$, which contains the lateral melting (its explicit lattice expression will be given in section \[subsec:numerics\]). An attempt to estimate lateral fluxes in pond convection was proposed by Skyllingstad & Paulson [@SkyllingstadPaulson], though with prescribed and fixed (with no evolving boundaries) forms of ponds. Finally, it is important to underline that by “lateral melting” we refer here to horizontal melting within the pond, and not edge melting of the ice pack, as when interactions with the ocean are considered [@Tsamados2015].
### Seepage rate
Sea ice has a complex porous structure that evolve in time as the pack melts [@FelthamMushy; @Eicken2002]; a thorough description of water percolation through it is a formidable task that goes beyond the scope of the present work. We just model water transport through sea ice using Darcy’s law; in addition, we distinguish between vertical and horizontal transport [@Luethje; @ScottFeltham]. Vertical transport is accounted for in Eqs. (\[eq:SM1\]) by the seepage term $s$; the horizontal contribution, also dubbed lateral drainage, will be discussed in the next subsection. In order to derive an expression for the seepage rate, we recall that, according to Darcy’s law, the discharge through of homogeneous porous material of permeability $k$, cross-sectional area $a$ and length $\ell$, under an applied pressure difference $(p_{\mbox{\tiny{in}}} - p_{\mbox{\tiny{out}}})$, is given by $$q = k \frac{a(p_{\mbox{\tiny{in}}} - p_{\mbox{\tiny{out}}})}{\eta \ell};$$ for a portion of ponded ice of elementary area $\delta a$ and thickness $h$, such pressure head is due to the hydrostatic pressure of the column of water in the pond overlying ice on $\delta a$, whose height is $w$, is $(p_{\mbox{\tiny{in}}} - p_{\mbox{\tiny{out}}}) = \rho_w g \delta a w$. The discharge $q$ equals the time variation of the overlying volume of water, $\dot{\mathcal{V}} = \delta a \dot{w}$, providing $$\dot{w} = -k\frac{\rho_w g w}{\eta h},$$ out of which we can read the expression for the seepage rate $s$ that is [@ScottFeltham] $$\label{eq:seepage}
s = k\frac{\rho_w g}{\eta}\frac{w}{h}.$$
### Meltwater flux
The seepage rate just introduced, Eq. (\[eq:seepage\]), entails a dependence of the equation for $w(\mathbf{x},t)$ on $h(\mathbf{x},t)$ (that would be otherwise be decoupled from it, as far as only melting is concerned). A further coupling is induced by the transport term and the associated meltwater flux $\mathbf{u}$. Such term is also the only non-local one in the evolution (for it involves derivatives of $h$ and $w$), thus introducing a dependence of the dynamics on the ice topography. It represents, in other words, the driving for meltwater to accumulate to form ponds. The transport of meltwater is realised essentially with two mechanisms: [*sliding*]{} of water over slopes of the ice surface and [*lateral drainage*]{} through the porous structure of ice. Correspondingly, the flux consists of the sum of two terms $$\mathbf{u} = \mathbf{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{sliding}}} + \mathbf{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{drainage}}};$$ as discussed in the previous subsection, $\mathbf{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{drainage}}}$ stems from the horizontal component of Darcy’s law and, hence, is given by [@Luethje] $$\label{eq:latdrainage}
\mathbf{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{drainage}}} = -\Pi\frac{\rho_w g}{\eta} \nabla (h + w),$$ where $\Pi$ is the horizontal permeability of ice.\
In order to model the sliding term, we resort to the theory of shallow water equations (SWE) [@Landau], considering that the width of a layer of water sliding over the ice topography is relatively thin. If we assume, furthermore, that the Reynolds number is small (we expect so, and a consequent creeping flow, for a thin layer of water sliding over the ice topography, the thickening of such layer being inhibited by seepage), the SWE for the depth-averaged two-dimensional velocity field reduce to the following balance equation between stresses at the bottom (due to friction with ice) and top (induced by wind forcing) of the fluid layer and gravity [@Marche; @Oron] (assuming a no-slip boundary condition between water and ice and neglecting capillary effects) $$\frac{3 \eta}{w} \mathbf{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{sliding}}} + \mathbf{\tau}_s +g w \nabla (h + w) \approx 0,$$ which yields for $\mathbf{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{sliding}}}$: $$\label{eq:sliding}
\mathbf{u}_{\mbox{\tiny{sliding}}} = - \frac{g w^2}{3 \eta} \nabla(h+w) + \frac{\tau_s w}{3\eta} \hat{\tau}_s,$$ where $\hat{\tau}_s$ is the direction of the wind shear vector at the free water surface and $\tau_s$ is its magnitude, as in Eq. (\[eq:mprate\]). Let us stress that, in this way, we have introduced, through Eqs. (\[eq:mprate\]) and (\[eq:sliding\]) a first minimal coupling of the model for the sea-ice-melt-ponds system with the atmospheric dynamics.
Numerical implementation {#subsec:numerics}
------------------------
The system of equations (\[eq:SM1\]) is solved by means of a finite differences scheme; upon discretization on a square $M \times M$ lattice, with $M=1024$, of equally $\Delta$-spaced nodes, the system is converted in a set of coupled ordinary differential equations for the variables $h_{ij}(t) \equiv h(x_i,y_j,t)$ (with $x_i = i\Delta$, $y_j = j\Delta$ and $i,j=1,2,\dots,M$) and $w_{ij}(t) \equiv w(x_i,y_j,t)$, that are, then, integrated numerically using a standard explicit Runge-Kutta $4$th order time marching scheme with time step $\Delta t = 60 \mbox{s}$, that allows to resolve the fastest time scales of the meltwater transport terms. Spatial derivatives are approximated by the corresponding second order accuracy central differences. The lattice spacing $\Delta$ is taken to be $\Delta = 1 {\mbox{m}}$, so the physical size of the simulated system is $L^2 \approx 1 \mbox{km}^2$, where $L=M\Delta$; this choice is dictated by the condition that $\Delta$ is $\Delta \stackrel{>}{\sim} \sigma_h$ ($\sigma_h$ being the standard deviation of the initial ice thickness distribution), such that no significant variations of of $h$ occur within one lattice spacing, i.e. the spatial derivative is at most $h^{\prime}(x) \sim 1$, assuming that the average finite height variation over a $\Delta$ is $\Delta h \propto \sigma_h$. Periodic boundary conditions apply, so we neglect edge effects, such as water run-off and direct coupling with the ocean (e.g. lateral melting of floe, ocean stresses), i.e. it is as if we were simulating a virtually infinite sea ice floe.\
The melting term $\phi_2$, appearing in eq. (\[eq:f\]), takes the following expression on the lattice $$\label{eq:latmelt}
\phi_{2_{i,j}} = \phi^{(V)}_{2_{i,j}} + \sum_{i^{\prime}=\pm 1}\phi^{(L,x)}_{2_{i+i^{\prime},j}}
\Theta(w_{i+i^{\prime},j} - w_{i,j})+ \sum_{j^{\prime}=\pm 1}\phi^{(L,y)}_{2_{i,j+j^{\prime}}}
\Theta(w_{i,j+j^{\prime}} - w_{i,j}),$$ which contains a combination of [*vertical*]{}, $\phi^{(V)}_{2_{i,j}}$, and [*lateral*]{}, $\phi^{(L,(x,y))}_{2{i,j}}$, components of the melting; the latter are given by: $$\label{eq:vertmelt}
\phi^{(V)}_{2_{i,j}} = \phi_{1_{i,j}} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + (\hat{\partial}_x w_{i,j})^2 + (\hat{\partial}_y w_{i,j})^2}}$$ and $$\label{eq:latlatmelt}
\phi^{(L,(x,y))}_{2,{i,j}} = \phi_{1_{i,j}} \frac{|\hat{\partial}_{(x,y)}w_{i,j}|}{\sqrt{1 + (\hat{\partial}_x w_{i,j})^2 + (\hat{\partial}_y w_{i,j})^2}},$$ where $\hat{\partial}_{(x,y)}$ stands for the finite difference derivative. We assume that the magnitude of the turbulent heat flux is homogeneously distributed over the pond walls (that is at the ice/water interface) and its direction is parallel to the normal $\hat{n}$ to the interface. Therefore, the vertical and lateral contributions to the melting rate are weighted with the absolute values of the components of $\hat{n}$, $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + (\hat{\partial}_x w_{i,j})^2 + (\hat{\partial}_y w_{i,j})^2}}
\left(|\partial_x w|,|\partial_y w|,1\right),$$ whence eqs. (\[eq:vertmelt\]) and (\[eq:latlatmelt\]). In other words, this means that, for instance, at the bottom of the pond mostly the vertical term will act, while when the topography is steep, as, e.g., next to the pond edge, ice ablation will be dominated by lateral melting. The presence of the Heaviside’s functions, $\Theta$, in (\[eq:latmelt\]) is to guarantee that the, non-local, lateral contribution to melting on a given site comes only from those neighbours that have a larger amount of overlying water (larger $w$). This is motivated by the idea that, if at a given elevation $H$ a certain site is in the ’ice state’, it will get a lateral melting contribution from a neighbouring site which, at the same elevation, is in a ’water state’, since melting is driven by water convection in contact with ice enclosing the pond.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The initial values of the sea ice topography $h^0_{ij} \equiv h(x_i,y_j,0)$ are random Gaussian numbers with given mean and variance. The initial topography is spatially correlated over a characteristic length $\delta \approx 8 \, {\mbox{m}}$. Two types of ice are used as initial conditions, namely first-year ice (FYI) and multi-year ice (MYI). FYI is newly formed in the winter preceding the melt season and is typically flatter, whereas MYI, that has overcome one or more melt seasons, presents a more rugged surface profile, i.e. it is characterized by larger variance and mean as compared to FYI. Consequently, wide and ramified but shallow melt ponds are more probably formed on FYI, while melt ponds on MYI will be tendentially deeper, of limited areal extension and more regularly shaped [@FloccoFeltham]. The initial condition is therefore expected to play an important role on the meltwater dynamics. The statistical parameters (mean $\langle h \rangle$ and variance $\sigma_h$ of the thickness distribution) employed are $\langle h \rangle = 0.92 \,{\mbox{m}}$, $\sigma_h = 0.18 \,{\mbox{m}}$, for FYI, and $\langle h \rangle = 3.67 \,{\mbox{m}}$, $\sigma_h = 1.5 \,{\mbox{m}}$, for MYI [@Luethje; @Hvidegaard]. Other numerical values for the model parameters, which are kept fixed in all simulations, are summarized in Table \[tab:params\]. Evidently, we are faced to a wide, multi-dimensional, parameter space; many of these parameters (such as permeabilities and melting rates) are known only with limited accuracy and the system can be quite sensitive to their values. A full sensitivity study in such sense is somehow beyond the scope of the present work; moreover some studies of this kind (on similar models) are available (see, e.g. [@Luethje; @ScottFeltham]). We limit here ourselves, therefore, to test the novelties of the present model, namely the melting rate exponent associated to turbulent thermal convection and its contribution along the lateral (horizontal) directions.
[p[1.5cm]{}|p[1.cm]{}p[1.cm]{}p[1.6cm]{}p[1.cm]{}p[1.3cm]{}p[1.1cm]{}p[1.1cm]{}p[1.cm]{}]{} Parameter & $\ \rho_w $ & $\rho_i $ & $\eta $& $g $ & $\Pi $ & $m_i $ & $m_p^{(0)} $ & $w_{\mbox{\tiny{max}}} $\
Units & $\ \mbox{kg}/{\mbox{m}}^3$ & $\mbox{kg}/{\mbox{m}}^3$ & $\mbox{kg}/({\mbox{m}}\; \mbox{s}^{-1})$ & ${\mbox{m}}/\mbox{s}^2$ & ${\mbox{m}}^2$ &$\mbox{cm}/\mbox{day}$ & $\mbox{cm}/\mbox{day}$ &\
Value & $\ 1000$ & $950$ & $1.79 \times 10^{-3}$ & $9.81$ & $3 \times 10^{-9}$ & $1.2$ & $2$ & $0.1$\
Snow cover is absent and no melt water is assumed at the initial time (i.e. $w(\mathbf{x},t_0)=0 \quad \forall \mathbf{x}$). As said before, we aim to simulate the summer time evolution of sea ice, so our $t_0$ is to be considered June 1st and, in view of this, refreezing of meltwater is not accounted for. We ran each simulation for $\approx 30$ days. A visualization of the distribution of ponds corresponding to day $20$ from the beginning of the simulation is shown in figure \[fig:snap\]
![Configuration of the depth field $w(\mathbf{x},t)$ showing the melt ponds distribution over the sea ice surface, for FYI after 20 simulated days (a $200 \times 200 {\mbox{m}}^2$ region at the centre of the simulated domain is taken). White color corresponds to bare ice and blue color indicates the presence of a pond, the darker the blue the deeper the pond (deepest ponds have $w \approx 2 {\mbox{m}}$).[]{data-label="fig:snap"}](snap-melt-ponds)
In order to extract statistical informations on the melt pond coverage of the sea ice, we first need to identify individual ponds. To do this, for each time $t$ we define a pond as any connected subset of points on the lattice such that $w(\mathbf{x},t)>0$; the full pond configuration is determined by a cluster analysis (for which we employ the so called Hoshen-Kopelman algorithm [@HK]) over the whole system. The area of the $i$-th pond is then $A_i = n_i \Delta_x \Delta_y$, $n_i$ being the number of points in the $i$-th cluster.
Melt pond areas evolution: role of the turbulent heat flux scaling inside the pond
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In figure \[fig:amean\] we plot the time evolution of the mean pond area $$\langle A \rangle_{\alpha}(t) = \frac{1}{N(t)}\sum_{i=1}^{N(t)} A_i(t)$$ (where $N(t)$ is the total of ponds detected at time $t$) for a FYI and assuming Malkus and $2/7$ scaling for the turbulent heat flux, respectively, that is, with reference to Eq. (\[eq:gmrate\]), with $\alpha=0$ (red squares, equivalent to the study in [@Luethje]) and $\alpha=-1/7$ (blue circles). The mean pond area grows and reaches a maximum faster when $\alpha=0$: after $13$ days, e.g., the $2/7$-model gives a prediction for $\langle A \rangle_{\alpha}$ approximately seven times smaller than it is for the constant flux case; this suggests how an apparently minor assumption at the level of fluid dynamic processes within the single pond may lead to bad estimates on climatologically relevant indicators, such as the September sea ice extension.
![Mean pond area vs time for the $1/3$ (red squares) and $2/7$ (blue circles) laws.[]{data-label="fig:amean"}](amean-rev)
For the same two runs, with $\alpha=0,-1/7$, we measured the probability distribution functions (PDFs) of pond areas, $P_{\alpha}(A,t)$, after $13$ days; one can see from figure \[fig:pdfs-eqtime\] that the two PDFs differ, although both seem to show a power law behaviour.
![Probability distribution functions of pond areas for the $1/3$ and $2/7$ laws at $14$th June.[]{data-label="fig:pdfs-eqtime"}](pdfs-eqtime-rev)
Nevertheless, if we consider PDFs with [*equal mean*]{}, instead of [*equal time*]{} PDFs, interestingly, the two sets of points (for $\alpha=0$ and $\alpha = -1/7$) collapse onto each other, as shown in figure \[fig:pdfs-eqmean\]. There we plot $P_{\alpha=0}(A,t_1)$ and $P_{\alpha=-1/7}(A,t_2)$, where $t_1$ and $t_2$ are such that $\langle A\rangle_{\alpha=0} (t_1) = \langle A\rangle_{\alpha=-1/7} (t_2)$; with reference to figure \[fig:amean\], this occurs, for instance, if we pick $t_1 - t_0 = 13$ days and $t_2 - t_0 = 20$ days, i.e. on June $14$th for $\alpha=0$ and June $21$st for $\alpha=-1/7$.
![PDFs of pond areas after $13$, for $\alpha=0$, and $20$ days, for $\alpha=-1/7$: notice that the two sets of points basically overlap. The dashed and solid lines correspond to the power law $A^{1.5}$ and $A^{1.8}$, respectively.[]{data-label="fig:pdfs-eqmean"}](pdfs-eqmean-rev)
The two PDFs nicely follow the scaling $P_{\alpha}(A) \sim A^{1.5}$ for relatively small areas ($A < 20 {\mbox{m}}^2$), with a steeper fall-off for larger values, $P_{\alpha}(A) \sim A^{1.8}$. Such functional forms agree with available observational data, as those collected by means of aerial photography [@Perovich2002aerial] during the SHEBA (Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean) [@MoritzEtAl; @MoritzPerovich] and HOTRAX ([*Healy–Oden*]{} TRans Arctic EXpedition) [@PerovichEtAl2009] campaigns. Remarkably, the same power-laws for the PDFs were found in recent theoretical/numerical works based on statical models (in the spirit of equilibrium statistical mechanics) [@Ising; @Popovic]. We would like to highlight, at this point, that this is a striking aspect of the melt-pond-sea-ice system: the melt pond system on large scales is robust with respect to area distribution (and pond geometry, as we shall see later on) against changes of certain physical parameters controlling the dynamics. So robust that even simple models, that do not account for the physics of the melt pond formation and evolution at all, can capture such statistical fingeprints. We will focus, then, on an aspect of melt pond configuration that one might expect to be affected by details of the evolution, namely their morphology.
Morphology of melt ponds: role of lateral melting
-------------------------------------------------
Characterizing the morphology of the global ponds configuration and understanding how it emerges can be of great relevance also for large scale models of sea ice (in GCMs). There, in fact, a major limitation is due to the difficulty to relate properly the sea ice topography with the redistribution of meltwater; ideally, one would wish to know how much ice area is covered by water, and how deeply (since these two quantities determine, basically, the absorbance of incident radiation).
![Scatter plot of perimeter and area for all melt ponds on $21$st June. The dashed and solid lines indicate the power law $A^{1/2}$ and $A$, corresponding to perimeter fractal dimensions $d_p=1$ (smooth shapes) and $d_p=2$ (fractal), respectively; the transition between the two regimes occur at $A \approx 100 {\mbox{m}}^2$.[]{data-label="fig:PvsA"}](P_vs_A)
Analyzing aerial images from two different Arctic expeditions, SHEBA [@MoritzEtAl; @MoritzPerovich] and HOTRAX [@PerovichEtAl2009], Hohenegger and coworkers [@Hohenegger] looked at the scatter plot of perimeter $p$ and area $A$ of a multi-pond configuration; such a plot is known to contain informations on the fractal geometry of the manifold (embedded in a two-dimensional space) considered [@Mandelbrot; @ChengMatGeo]. The two quantities are, in fact, related by $$\label{eq:PvsA}
p \sim A^{d_p/2},$$ where $d_p$ is the so called perimeter fractal dimension: for a smooth curve $d_p = 1$, while for a fractal, in the strict sense, $d_p>1$. It was observed that surfaces of small ponds tend to be of roundish shape, while large ones, that typically stem from aggregation of several small ponds, display features of clusters in percolating systems and appear fractal-like [@Hohenegger]. This transition to a fractal geometry is supposedly connected with the way melt ponds grow over the sea ice surface; it is natural to ask, then, whether the explicit modelling of the physical mechanisms leading to such in-plane growth has any impact on the final global morphology. This amounts to test the model in presence of what we called lateral melting, i.e. with a melting rate given by Eqs. (\[eq:f\]), with $\chi=1$, and (\[eq:latmelt\]).
![Generalized fractal (or Renyi’s) dimensions for the melt pond distribution after $70$ days from three simulations: FYI without lateral melting (red squares), FYI without lateral melting (blue dots) and MYI without lateral melting (green triangles).[]{data-label="fig:Dq"}](Dq)
To this aim, we ran the same simulation, for the FYI, as discussed above, with the lateral melting term switched on. In figure \[fig:PvsA\] we show $p$ vs $A$ scatter plot after $20$ days for two simulations with (blue asterisks) and without (red bullets) lateral melting (symbols relative to the two data sets are shifted from each other by a factor $3$ for the sake of clarity, otherwise they would overlap). The two power laws, $p \sim A^{1/2}$, for $A < A_c$, and $p \sim A$, for $A>A_c$, are reasonably well followed in both cases; the only minor effect of the presence of lateral melting seems to be a slightly clearer scaling behaviour (especially for large $A$). The transition to the fractal geometry occurs at $A_c \approx 100 {\mbox{m}}^2$, in agreement with the observations [@Hohenegger]. This same phenomenology was captured also by the above mentioned statistical models [@Ising; @Popovic], underlining further the robustness of the melt-pond-covered sea ice system as far as geometry is concerned.\
To get a deeper insight on this aspect of melt pond configuration over the sea ice surface, we performed an analysis of the [*generalized fractal dimensions*]{} (GFD), or Rényi’s $q$-entropies, $D(q)$ [@Grassberger], which provide a more detailed description of the geometry of the fractal manifold. Let us call $\mu_i(\varepsilon)$ the measure of ponds within the $i$-th element of a regular tessellation of the domain in squares of side $\varepsilon$ (i.e. the fractional area of the $\varepsilon$-square occupied by meltwater), and $N(\varepsilon)$ the total number of squares into which the domain is partitioned; we can then define the following quantity: $$\label{eq:Iqe}
I(q,\varepsilon) = \frac{1}{1-q}\log \left(\sum_{i=1}^{N(\varepsilon)} \mu_i(\varepsilon)^q\right),$$ for any positive $q \neq 1$. The GFD are then computed as $$\label{eq:Dq}
D(q) = \lim_{\varepsilon \rightarrow 0} \frac{I(q,\varepsilon)}{\log(1/\varepsilon)};$$ for $q=0$, $I(0,\varepsilon)$ equals the number of non-void elements of the tessellation, therefore $D(q=0) \equiv D_0$ coincides with the Haussdorf, or box-counting, dimension, which is an estimate of the fractal dimension of the set [@Mandelbrot]. It is clear, then, in which sense the $D(q)$ are generalized fractal dimensions. For “ordinary” fractals, all the GFD are equal, i.e. $D(q)$ is constant with $q$. In general, though, it might be a non-increasing function of the order $q$: if this is the case, one talks about a [*multifractal*]{} set, that is a fractal whose dimension vary in space. In figure \[fig:Dq\] we show the $D(q)$ computed from numerical data from three simulations, namely: FYI without lateral melting, FYI with lateral melting and MYI. The plot tells us that melt ponds on FYI lay on a fractal manifold, as suggested also by the perimeter-area relation, since $D_0 < 2$, whereas those on MYI do not $D(q) = 2 \; \forall q$; however, we observe a modest decrease of $D(q)$ with $q$, indicating a weak multifractality, with very minor (if any) differences between the run with lateral melting and the one without. These results are a first attempt to show that the morphology of the melt pond system can be even more complicated than what can be captured with the perimeter-area relations, which are known to give sometimes biased estimates of the actual fractal dimension for the areas [@ChengMatGeo].
Conclusions and perspectives {#sec:concl}
============================
We have proposed a continuum [*mesoscale*]{} model that describes the evolution of Arctic sea ice, in presence of a coverage of meltwater ponds, that alter the sea ice thermodynamics (in terms of melting rates). The model consists of two coupled partial differential equations, for the ice thickness and pond depth fields. The physics of sea ice was kept at a very basic level in order to focus on the effect of dynamic processes occurring at the single pond level on the large scale configurations of the melt pond system and on sea ice evolution. Numerical simulations of the model showed that a minimal variation of the scaling exponent of the turbulent heat flux, within the pond, with the surface temperature impacts the time evolution of the mean pond size (shifting the maximum by few days), hence of the average melting rate. We stress that the assumption made in this work, that the melt rate in ponds (deeper than $w_{max}$) is a weakly decreasing function of the water layer depth rather than a constant is supported by a vast amount of studies on turbulent heat transfer. Therefore, our study suggests that a thorough knowledge and parametrization of melt pond hydrodynamics is needed in order to not get wrong estimates of observables of climatological relevance. On the other hand, statistical and geometrical properties of the melt pond system, such as the probability distribution function of pond surface areas and fractal dimensions, appeared to be robust against heat flux scaling variations as well as against the inclusion or not of an explicit modelling of lateral melting inside the pond. In particular, our results agreed well with observation for what concerns the power law decay of the PDFs and the perimeter-area relation, and the corresponding perimeter fractal dimension, for ponds. Finally, we have extended the study of melt ponds geometry to the analysis of generalized fractal dimensions, which showed a clear dependence on the initial ice topography, with melt ponds on first-year ice displaying even a weak multifractality, while those on multi-year ice being essentially smooth. This dependence on the initial condition suggests that, for future, studies, it would be of great interest to initialize the numerical model with conditions taken by field measurements. The study of the effect of wind stresses at the ice surface on global melting as well as on melt pond distribution and morphology will be a first extension of the present study. A further step forward that might be taken, within this approach, is the inclusion of a proper description of mechanical processes and rheology of sea ice, specially focusing on the effect of the presence of accumulation of meltwater on the local deformation properties of the pack.
AS and DM acknowledge financial support from the National Group of Mathematical Physics of the Italian National Institute of High Mathematics (GNFM-INdAM). EC acknowledge supports form the French National Agency for Research (ANR) under the grant SEAS (ANR-13-JS09-0010).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, we investigate the vacuum bosonic currents in the geometry of a compactified cosmic string in the background of the de Sitter spacetime. The currents are induced by magnetic fluxes, one running along the cosmic string and another one enclosed by the compact dimension. In order to develop this analysis we calculate the complete set of normalized bosonic wave-functions obeying a quasiperiodicity condition. In this context, we show that the vacuum charge and the radial component of the current density vanish. It remains only azimuthal and axial currents. Due to the quasiperiodicity condition, the quantum number associated with the compactification of the string along its axis becomes discrete, and we use the Abel-Plana summation formula to evaluate the non-vanishing current densities. We show that these quantities are explicitly decomposed into two contributions: one corresponds to the geometry of a straight uncompactified cosmic string and the other is induced by the compactification. We also compare the results with the literature in the case of a massive fermionic field in the same geometry.'
author:
- |
E. A. F. Bragança$^1$[^1] , E. R. Bezerra de Mello$^2$[^2] and A. Mohammadi $^3$[^3]\
\
*$^{1,3}$Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco,*\
*52171-900, Recife-PE, Brazil*\
\
*$^{2}$Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal da Paraíba*\
*58.059-970, Caixa Postal 5.008, João Pessoa, PB, Brazil*
title: Vacuum bosonic currents induced by a compactified cosmic string in dS background
---
PACS numbers: 98.80.Cq, 11.10.Gh, 11.27.+d, 04.62.+v, 03.70.+k
Introduction {#Int}
============
De Sitter (dS) is a curved spacetime which has been most analyzed in the context of quantum field theory. The main reason is due to its degree of symmetry which allows that many physical problems to be exactly solvable.[^4] In addition, the importance of these theoretical analyses increased by the appearance of the inflationary cosmological scenario for the Universe expansion in its early stages [@Linde90]. During an inflationary epoch, quantum fluctuations in the inflaton field introduced inhomogeneities and may affect the transition toward the true vacuum. These fluctuations play important role in the generation of cosmic structures from inflation.
Cosmic strings are linear gravitational topological defects which may have been created as a consequence of phase transitions in the early Universe and are predicted in the context of the standard gauge field theory of elementary particle physics [@VS; @hindmarsh; @Hyde:2013fia]. Although the observations of anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) by COBE, WMAP and more recently by the Planck Satellite have ruled out cosmic strings as the primary source for primordial density perturbations [@Ade:2013xla], this topological deffect can give rise to a number of interesting physical effects such as the doubling images of distant objects or even gravitational lensing, the emission of gravitational waves and the generation of high-energy cosmic rays (see, for instance, [@Damo00; @Batta; @BereAndHnatyk]).
The geometry of the spacetime associated with an idealized cosmic string, i.e., infinitely long and straight, is locally flat but topologically conical. It presents a planar angle deficit given by $\Delta\phi=8\pi G\mu_0$ [^5] on the two-surface orthogonal to the string. This object was first introduced in the literature as being created by a Dirac-delta type distribution of energy and axial stress. It can also be described by classical field theory where the energy-momentum tensor associated with the Maxwell-Higgs system, investigated by Nielsen and Olesen in [@Nielsen197345], couples to the Einstein’s equations. This coupled system was first investigated in [@PhysRevD.32.1323] and [@Linet1987240]. In these papers, the authors have studied a planar angle deficit, $\Delta\phi $, arising on the two-surface perpendicular to a string, as well as a magnetic flux running through the string core.
It is well known that the vacuum in quantum field theory depends crucially on the presence of a background gauge field, and also on the topology and geometry of the spacetime where the theory is being defined. As a consequence, many physical observables may provide relevant informations about the structure of the physical system under investigation. In the present paper we consider the combined effects of the geometry and topology on the vacuum current densities induced by linear magnetic fluxes. As a background geometry we consider de Sitter (dS) spacetime and the topological effects are induced by two types of sources. The first one corresponds to a planar angle deficit due to the presence of a cosmic string and the second one comes from the compactification of the spatial dimension along the string. The compact spatial dimensions are an inherent feature of most high-energy theories of fundamental physics, including supergravity and superstring theories. An interesting application of field theoretical models that present compact dimensions can be found in nanophysics. The long-wavelength description of the electronic states in graphene can be formulated in terms of the Dirac-like theory in three-dimensional spacetime, with the Fermi velocity playing the role of the speed of light (see, e.g., [@RevModPhys.81.109]). The corresponding effective $(2+1)-$ dimensional field theory, in addition to Dirac fermions, involves scalar and gauge fields originated from the elastic properties and describing disorder phenomena, like the distortion of graphene lattice and structural defects [@Jackiw:2007rr; @Oliveira:2010hq].
Due to its lack of global flatness, the cosmic string spacetime modifies the vacuum fluctuations associated with quantum fields. In this sense it has been shown a non-vanishing results for the renormalized vacuum expectation value (VEV) of physical observables, like the energy-momentum tensor, considering scalar and fermionic quantum fields in [@PhysRevD.35.536; @escidoc:153364; @GL; @DS; @PhysRevD.46.1616] and [@PhysRevD.35.3779; @LB; @Moreira1995365; @BK], respectively. Moreover, if we take into consideration the presence of a magnetic flux running along the string’s core, additional contributions to the above VEVs associated with charged fields takes place. (See references in [@PhysRevD.36.3742; @guim1994; @SBM; @SBM2; @SBM3; @Spinelly200477; @SBM4].) In addition, the magnetic flux induces vacuum current densities, $\langle j^\mu\rangle$. This phenomenon has been investigated for massless and massive scalar fields in [@LS] and [@SNDV], respectively. In these papers, the authors have shown that induced vacuum current densities along the azimuthal direction arise if the ratio of the magnetic flux by the quantum one has a nonzero fractional part. The calculation of induced bosonic and fermionic currents in higher-dimensional cosmic string spacetime in the presence of a magnetic flux has been developed in [@Eduardo; @ERBM]. The induced fermionic current by a magnetic flux in $(2+1)$-dimensional conical spacetime and in the presence of a circular boundary has also been analyzed in [@PhysRevD.82.085033]. In all the above mentioned calculations the cosmic string was considered as an ideal linear object, i.e., without inner structure. The analysis of the scalar and fermionic vacuum current densities induced by a magnetic flux in a cosmic string considering a non-vanishing core has been developed in [@Mello15] and [@mikael], respectively. Also, the calculation of the VEV of fermionic energy-momentum tensor appeared in [@mikael2].
In general, the analysis of quantum effects associated with matter fields in a cosmic string spacetime, assume this defect in a flat background geometry. For a cosmic string in a curved background, quantum effects associated with a scalar field have been discussed in [@Davi88] for special values of the planar angle deficit. The vacuum polarization in Schwarzschild space-time pierced by an infinite straight cosmic string was investigated in [@Otte10; @Otte11]. More recent publications investigated the vacuum polarization effects induced by a cosmic string in a dS spacetime for scalar [@Beze09], and fermionic fields [@Beze10]. Similar analysis induced by a cosmic string in anti-de Sitter spacetime, have been developed in [@Beze12] and [@Beze13] for massive scalar and fermionic fields, respectively. The calculation of vacuum fermionic current induced by a magnetic flux and the VEV of the energy-momentum tensor in dS spacetime in the presence of a compactified cosmic string, has been developed in [@mohammadi] and [@Braganca2019a]. Therefore, in the current paper we continue the same line of analysis by calculating the induced scalar current in the corresponding geometry. We also compare the results with the ones for a massive fermionic field obtained in [@mohammadi] in the same geometry.
This paper is organized as follows. In section \[Wightman\] we describe the background geometry and construct the positive frequency Wightman function for a massive charged scalar quantum field in dS spacetime in the presence of a cosmic string presenting a magnetic flux along its axis. Moreover, we consider that the $z$-axis along the string is compactified to a circle and carries an extra magnetic flux. By using the Wightman function, in section \[current\], we evaluate the renormalized vacuum current density induced by the magnetic fluxes and the compactification. The only nonzero components of the current densities correspond to the azimuthal and axial ones. These quantities are investigated in sections \[azimuthal\] and \[axial\]. For the azimuthal current density, it is possible to decompose it into two parts: one of them corresponds to the expression in the absence of the compactification, and the other is the contribution due to the compactification itself. Due to the compactification, there appears a non-vanishing axial current. The most relevant conclusions of the paper are summarized in section \[conclusion\]. We have also dedicated an Appendix to provide some important expressions used for the development of our study for the induced current densities. Throughout the paper we use natural units $G=\hbar =c=1$.
Wightman function {#Wightman}
=================
Let us consider a charged massive scalar field in a $(3+1)$ de Sitter spacetime dimension with an ideal cosmic string. We assume that the direction along the string is compactified to a circle with the length $L$. The geometry associated with the corresponding background spacetime is given by the following line element $$ds^{2}=dt^{2}-e^{2t/\alpha }(dr^{2}+r^{2}d\phi+dz^2)\ . \label{ds1}$$ The coordinates take values in the intervals $-\infty< t < +\infty$, $r\geq 0$, $0\leq\phi\leq \phi_0=2\pi/q$ and $0\leqslant z\leqslant L$. The parameter $q\geq 1$ encodes the deficit angle due to the conical structure of the cosmic string, knowing that the minimum value $q=1$ shows its absence. The parameter $\alpha$ is related to the cosmological constant and Ricci scalar through the expression, $R=4\Lambda =12/\alpha ^{2}$. For further analysis, in addition to the synchronous time coordinate $t$, it is more convenient to introduce the conformal time $\tau $ according to [@Beze09] $$\tau =-\alpha e^{-t/\alpha }\ ,\ -\infty <\ \tau \ <\ 0\ .$$leading to the following line element $$ds^{2}=(\alpha /\tau)^{2}(d\tau^{2}-dr^{2}-r^{2}d\phi^{2}-dz^2)\ . \label{ds2}$$
In this paper we are interested in calculating the induced vacuum current density, $\langle j^{\mu}\rangle$, associated with a charged scalar quantum field, $\varphi (x)$, in the presence of magnetic flux running along the core of the string. The equation which governs the quantum dynamics of a charged bosonic field with mass $m$, interacting with an electromagnetic potential vector, $A_\mu$, in a curved background reads $$\left({\cal D}^2+m^{2}+\xi R\right) \varphi (x)=0 \ ,
\label{eq02}$$ where the differential operator above is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}^2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\, D_\mu\left(\sqrt{|g|}\,g^{\mu\nu}D_\nu\right) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ being $D_{\mu}=\partial_{\mu}+ieA_{\mu}$ and $g={\rm det}(g_{\mu\nu})$. In we also considered the presence of a non-minimal coupling, $\xi$, between the scalar field and the geometry represented by the Ricci scalar $R$. Here, we are mainly interested in two specific values of the curvature coupling, $\xi=0$ and $\xi=\frac{D-1}{4D}$ with the spatial dimension $D=3$, which correspond to the minimal and conformal coupling, respectively.
The compactification along the $z$-axis is achieved by imposing the quasiperiodicity condition on the matter field, $$\varphi (t,r,\phi,z+L)=e^{2\pi i\beta}\varphi(t,r,\phi,z) \ ,
\label{eq03}$$ with a constant phase $\beta $, $0\leqslant \beta \leqslant 1$, where $\beta =0$ and $\beta =1/2$ correspond to the untwisted and twisted fields, respectively, along the $z$-direction. For the rotation around the $z$-axis we adopt the periodic boundary condition $$\varphi (t,r,\phi +\phi _{0},z)=\varphi(t,r,\phi,z) \ . \label{eq03a}$$
In addition, we consider the existence of the following constant vector potential $$A_{\mu}=(0,0,A_{\phi},A_{z})\ ,
\label{eq05}$$ with $A_{\phi}=-q\Phi_\phi/(2\pi)$ and $A_{z}=-\Phi_z/L$, being $\Phi_\phi$ and $\Phi_z$ the corresponding magnetic fluxes. In quantum field theory the condition changes the spectrum of the vacuum fluctuations compared with the case of uncompactified dimension ($L \to \infty$) and, as a consequence, the induced vacuum current densities are dependent on the compactification parameter $L$, in general.
The positive energy solution of obeying the boundary conditions and can be found in a similar way as it was calculated in [@Beze09] where the geometry of a straight cosmic string in dS spacetime, although without the magnetic flux and compactification, was considered. In the geometry we consider here, the complete set of solutions generalizes to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sol1}
\varphi_\sigma(x)=C_\sigma\tau^{3/2}H_\nu^{(1)}(\lambda\tau)J_{q|n+a|}(pr) e^{inq\phi+ik_zz} \ , \end{aligned}$$ where $J_{\mu }(x)$ and $H_{\mu}^{(1)}(x)$ are the Bessel and Hankel functions [@Abra], respectively, and $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda=\sqrt{p^2+{\tilde{k}}_z^2} \ , \ {\rm with } \ {\tilde{k}}_z=k_z+eA_z \ , \ p\geq 0 \ .
\label{eq09}\end{aligned}$$ The parameters in the order of Hankel and Bessel functions are $$\begin{aligned}
\nu=\frac12\sqrt{9-48\xi-4m^2\alpha^2} \, , \quad \quad a=\frac{eA_\phi}{q}=-\frac{\Phi_\phi}{\Phi_0}
\label{parama}\end{aligned}$$ with $\Phi_0=2\pi/e$ being the quantum flux.
The quasiperiodicity condition results in a discretization of the quantum number $k_z$ as shown below $$k_z=k_l=\frac{2\pi}{L}(l+\beta) \quad {\rm with} \quad l=0\ ,\pm 1,\pm 2,... \ ,
\label{eq11}$$ which gives $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{k}}_z={\tilde{k}}_l=\frac{2\pi}{L}(l+\tilde{\beta}) \quad {\rm with}
\quad \tilde{\beta}=\beta+\frac{eA_zL}{2\pi}=\beta-\frac{\Phi_z}{\Phi_0} \ .
\label{eq13}\end{aligned}$$ As a result, the positive-energy solution is characterized by the set of quantum numbers, $\sigma=\{p,n,l\}$. The normalization constant, $C_\sigma$, can be obtained by the orthonormalization condition $$i\int d^4x\sqrt{|g|}\left[\varphi_{\sigma'}^{*}(x)\partial_\tau
\varphi_{\sigma}(x)-\varphi_{\sigma}(x)\partial_\tau\varphi_{\sigma'}^{*}(x)
\right]=\delta_{\sigma,\sigma'} \ ,
\label{eq14}$$ knowing that the delta symbol on the right-hand side is understood as Dirac delta function for the continuous quantum number $p$ and delta Kronecker for the discrete ones, $n$ and $l$. From one finds the following normalization constant $$|C_\sigma|^2=\frac{qpe^{i\pi/2(\nu^*-\nu)}}{8 L\alpha^2} \ .
\label{eq15}$$
In order to find the induced bosonic current densities we need first to calculate the Wightman function which describes the properties of the vacuum state. The positive frequency Wightman function is given by $W(x,x')=\left\langle 0|{\hat{\varphi}}(x){\hat\varphi}^{*}(x')|0 \right\rangle$, where $|0 \rangle$ stands for the vacuum state and $\hat{\varphi}(x)$ the field operator. For the evaluation of the Wightman function, we use the mode sum formula $$W(x,x')=\sum_{\sigma}\varphi_{\sigma}(x)\varphi_{\sigma}^{*}(x') \ ,
\label{eq17}$$ where the above compact notation for $\sum_{\sigma}$ is defined as $$\sum_{\sigma }=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{+\infty} \ \int_0^\infty
\, dp \ \sum_{l=-\infty }^{+\infty} \ . \label{Sumsig}$$ The set $\{\varphi_{\sigma}(x), \ \varphi_{\sigma}^{*}(x')\}$ represents a complete set of normalized mode functions satisfying the quasiperiodicity condition .
Substituting and into the sum , and after several intermediate steps we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
W(x,x')&=\frac{2q(\tau\tau')^{3/2}e^{-ieA_z(z-z')}} {(2\pi\alpha)^2 L} \int_0^\infty dp \, p \sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}e^{\frac{2\pi}Li(l+\tilde{\beta)}(z-z')}\nonumber\\
&\times\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}e^{iqn(\phi-\phi')}J_{q|n+a|}(pr)J_{q|n+a|}(pr')
K_\nu(i\lambda\tau')K_\nu(-i\lambda\tau) \ .
\label{eq18}\end{aligned}$$ To obtain the above expression we have used the relation between the Hankel function, $H_\nu^{(1)}(z)$, and the modified Bessel function with imaginary argument, $K_\mu(-iz)$ [@Abra]. In order to simplify the summation over $l$, we have introduced an exponential function $e^{-ieA_z(z-z')}$ to replace the exponent factor $\beta$ by $\tilde{\beta}$, using relation , in the summation over the quantum number $l$.
With the objective to develop the summation over the quantum number $l$ we apply the Abel-Plana summation formula [@PhysRevD.82.065011] in the form below $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{l=-\infty }^{\infty }g(l+\tilde{\beta} )f(|l+\tilde{\beta}|)&=\int_{0}^{\infty }du\,
\left[ g(u)+g(-u)\right] f(u) \notag \\
& +i\int_{0}^{\infty }du\left[ f(iu)-f(-iu)\right] \sum_{\chi =\pm
1}\frac{g(i\chi u)}{e^{2\pi (u+i\chi \tilde{\beta} )}-1} \ .
\label{sumform}\end{aligned}$$
For the case under investigation, we consider $u\equiv \frac{L}{2\pi}k_z$ as well as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gf}
g(l+\tilde{\beta} )&=&e^{\frac{2\pi}Li(l+\tilde{\beta)}(z-z')} \nonumber\\
f(|l+\tilde{\beta} |)&=&K_\nu(i\lambda\tau')K_\nu(-i\lambda\tau) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\lambda=\lambda_l=\sqrt{\left({2\pi}(l+\tilde{\beta})/L)\right)^2+p^2} \ .$$ At this point, we can express the Wightman function as the sum of two terms as shown below, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w-tot}
W(x,x')=W_{s}(x,x')+W_c(x,x') \ , \end{aligned}$$ where the first contribution, $W_{s}(x,x')$, represents the Wightman function in dS spacetime in the presence of an uncompactified cosmic string, and the second, $W_{c}(x,x')$, is induced by the compactification. Let us call the former and the latter, the string and the compactified Wightman functions, respectively.
Substituting into , and also substituting the result into we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wightcs}
W_{s}(x,x')&=&\frac{2q(\tau\tau')^{3/2}e^{-ieA_z(z-z')}} {(2\pi)^3\alpha^2}\int dk_z \ e^{ik_z \Delta z}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}e^{iqn(\phi-\phi')}\int_0^\infty dp \, p \nonumber\\
&&\times \, J_{q|n+a|}(pr)J_{q|n+a|}(pr')
K_\nu\left(i\tau'\sqrt{p^2+k_z^2}\right)K_\nu\left(-i\tau\sqrt{p^2+k_z^2}\right) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ the string Wightman function, originating from the first term on the right hand side of .
The string Wightman function can be expressed in terms of a more workable integral representation in a similar way as developed in the Appendix A of [@Beze09]. The final expression is, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wightcs1}
W_{s}(x,x')&=&\frac{q(\tau\tau')^{3/2}e^{-ieA_z\Delta z}} {2\pi^{5/2}\alpha^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty e^{iqn\Delta\phi}\int_0^\infty dx \,
x^{1/2}e^{-{\cal{V}} x}\nonumber\\
&&\times \, I_{q|n+a|}(2xrr')K_\nu(2\tau'\tau x) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{V}}=(z-z')^2+r^2+r'^2-(\tau^2+\tau'^2) \ .\end{aligned}$$
As to the compactified Wightman function, it is given by the second term on the right hand side of . In Appendix \[compacified\] we show that $W_c(x,x')$ can be expressed in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wight2}
W_c(x,x')&=&\frac{2q(\tau\tau')^{3/2}e^{-ieA_z\Delta z}} {(2\pi\alpha)^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty}e^{iqn(\phi-\phi')}\int_0^\infty dp \, p \,
J_{q|n+a|}(pr)J_{q|n+a|}(pr')\nonumber\\
&&\times \, \int_0^\infty\frac{d\gamma\, \gamma}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}}\left[K_\nu(\tau'\gamma)I_{-\nu}(\tau\gamma)+
I_\nu(\tau'\gamma)K_\nu(\tau\gamma)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\times \, \sum_{l=1}^\infty e^{-lL\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}}\cos\left(2\pi l\tilde{\beta}-i\Delta z\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}\right) \ .\end{aligned}$$ With the Wightman functions and in hands, we are in position to evaluate the induced current densities.
Bosonic current {#current}
===============
The bosonic current density operator is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{j}_{\mu }(x)&=&ie\left[{\hat\varphi} ^{*}(x)D_{\mu }{\hat\varphi} (x)-
(D_{\mu }{\hat\varphi})^{*}{\hat\varphi}(x)\right] \nonumber\\
&=&ie\left[{\hat\varphi}^{*}(x)\partial_{\mu }{\hat\varphi} (x)-\varphi(x)
(\partial_{\mu }{\hat\varphi}(x))^{*}\right]-2e^2A_\mu(x)|{\hat\varphi}(x)|^2 \ .
\label{eq20}\end{aligned}$$ Its vacuum expectation value (VEV) can be evaluated in terms of the positive frequency Wightman function as follows $$\left\langle j_{\mu}(x) \right\rangle=ie\lim_{x'\rightarrow x}
\left\{(\partial_{\mu}-\partial_{\mu'})W(x,x')+2ieA_\mu W(x,x')\right\} \ .
\label{eq21}$$
Due to the decomposition , the current density can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j_{\mu}(x) \right\rangle=\left\langle j_{\mu}(x) \right\rangle_{s}+\left\langle j_{\mu}(x) \right\rangle_c \ ,\end{aligned}$$ the string and the compactification contributions. As we will see shortly, the non-vanishing components of the current density are periodic functions of the magnetic fluxes $\Phi_\phi$ and $\Phi_z$ with the period equal to the quantum flux. This can be observed easily writing the parameter $a$ in in the form $a = n_{0}+a_{0} \ {\rm with} \ |a_{0}|<\frac{1}{2}$, where $n_{0}$ is an integer number. In this case the VEV of the current density depends on $a_{0}$ only.
Charge and radial current densities
-----------------------------------
Let us start the calculation with the $\mu=0$ component, the charge density. Due to the fact that $A_0=0$, we have $$\left\langle j_{0}(x) \right\rangle= ie\lim_{x' \rightarrow x}
(\partial_{\tau}-\partial_{\tau'})W(x,x') \ .
\label{chargedensity}$$ Let us first analyze the contribution coming from the $W_{s}(x,x')$, considering $\Delta z=\Delta\phi=0$ and $r'=r$ in , however keeping $\tau'\neq \tau$. As we will see below, under these circumstances $W_{s}(x,x')$ is divergent when $\tau'= \tau$. In order to obtain a finite expression we have to regularize it first by introducing a cutoff function $e^{-\lambda x}$ in the integrand, with the cutoff parameter $\lambda>0$. At the end of the calculation of the charge density we take the limit $\lambda\to 0$. The regularized Wightman function reads, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w_charge}
W_{s}^{reg}(x,x')&=&\frac{q(\tau\tau')^{3/2}}{2\pi^{5/2}\alpha^2} \int_0^\infty dx \,x^{1/2}e^{-(2r^2-\tau^2-\tau'^2)x}e^{-\lambda x}\nonumber\\
&\times&{\cal{I}}(q,a_0,2xr^2)K_{\nu}(2\tau\tau' x) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal{I}}(q,a_0,w)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty I_{q|n+a|}(w)=
\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty I_{q|n+a_0|}(w) \ .
\label{sum1}\end{aligned}$$ In [@Eduardo], it has been shown that can be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sumform1}
{\cal{I}}(q,a_{0},w)&=&\frac{e^w}{q}-\frac{1}{\pi}
\int_{0}^{\infty}dy\frac{e^{-w\cosh y}f(q,a_0,y)}{\cosh(qy)-\cos(\pi q)}\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{2}{q}\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\cos(2k\pi a_0)e^{w\cos(2k\pi/q)} \ ,
\label{sum2}\end{aligned}$$ where $[q/2]$ represents the integer part of $q/2$, and the prime on the sign of the summation means that in the case $q=2p$ the term $k=q/2$ should be taken with the coefficient $1/2$. Obviously, if $q<2$ the summation term must be omitted. Moreover, the function $f(q,a_0,y)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
f(q,a_0,y)=\sin[(1-|a_0|)\pi q]\cosh(|a_0| qy)+
\sin(|a_0|\pi q)\cosh[(1-|a_0|)qy] \ .
\label{func}\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into three different contributions appear which are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ww}
W_{s}^{reg}(x,x')&=\frac{(\tau\tau')^{3/2}}{2\pi^{5/2}\alpha^2} \int_0^\infty dx \,x^{1/2}e^{(\tau^2+\tau'^2)x}e^{-\lambda x}K_{\nu}(2\tau\tau' x) \nonumber\\
&+\frac{(\tau\tau')^{3/2}}{\pi^{5/2}\alpha^2}\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\cos(2k\pi a_0) \int_0^\infty dx \,x^{1/2}e^{(\tau^2+\tau'^2)x}e^{-4r^2x\sin^2(k\pi/q)} e^{-\lambda x}K_{\nu}(2\tau\tau' x) \nonumber\\
&-\frac{q(\tau\tau')^{3/2}}{2\pi^{7/2}\alpha^2} \int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{f(q,a_0,y)}{\cosh(qy)-cos(\pi q)}\nonumber\\
&\times\int_0^\infty dx \,x^{1/2}e^{(\tau^2+\tau'^2)x}e^{-4r^2x\cosh^2(y/2)}e^{-\lambda x} K_\nu(2\tau'\tau x) \ .\end{aligned}$$ The final result can be provided by evaluating the integrals using the formula below [@gradshteyn2000table], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{int1}
\int_0^\infty dx x^{1/2}e^{-\alpha x}K_\nu(\beta x)&=& \frac{\sqrt{\pi}(2\beta)^\nu}{(\alpha+\beta)^{3/2+\nu}}\ \frac{\Gamma(3/2+\nu) \, \Gamma(3/2-\nu)}{\Gamma(2)}\nonumber\\
&\times&F(3/2+\nu,\nu+1/2;2;(\alpha-\beta)/(\alpha+\beta)) \ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $F(a,b;c;z)$ represents the hypergeometric function; however two requirements $|\textrm{Re}(\nu)|<3/2$ and $\textrm{Re}(\alpha+\beta)>0$ must be satisfied.
Substituting the above results into , we get a long regularized Wightman function. As we can see, the first contribution does not depend on the radial coordinate, $r$. Moreover, the cutoff function has been introduced to provide $\lambda-(\tau'-\tau)^2>0$. For points with $r\neq 0$ the factors $e^{-4r^2x\sin^2(k\pi/q)}$ and $e^{-4r^2x\cosh^2(y/2)}$ in the second and the third terms reinforce the convergence of both integrals in accordance with $\textrm{Re}(\alpha+\beta)>0$. So, taking into account the above comments we can promptly take the time derivative of the regularized Wightman function followed by the coincidence limit resulting in $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\tau'\to\tau}(\partial_\tau-\partial_{\tau'})W_{s}(x,x')= 0 \ . \end{aligned}$$
As to the compactified part of the Wightman function, $W_c(x',x)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
W_c(x',x)&=&\frac{2q(\tau'\tau)^{3/2}}{(2\pi\alpha)^2}\sum_{l=1}^\infty\cos(2\pi l{\tilde{\beta}}) \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \int_0^\infty dp\, p \, J^2_{q|n+a|}(pr)\nonumber\\&\times&\int_0^\infty \frac{d\gamma \, \gamma}{\sqrt{{p^2+\gamma^2}}}[K_\nu(\tau'\gamma)I_{-\nu}(\tau\gamma)+I_\nu(\tau'\gamma)K_\nu(\tau\gamma)]\, e^{-lL\sqrt{p^2+\gamma^2}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ considering $\Delta z=\Delta\phi=0$ and $r'=r$ limit. Due to the presence of the exponential factor, the cutoff function is not required in this part. In this case we can explicitly verify that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\tau'\to\tau}(\partial_\tau-\partial_{\tau'})W_{c}(x,x')= 0 \ .
\end{aligned}$$ So we conclude that there is no induced charge density in this model, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{0}(x) \right\rangle=0 \ .
\end{aligned}$$
Adopting a similar procedure as exhibited above, we can also prove that there is no induced radial current density, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\langle j^r(x)\rangle=0 \ .
\end{aligned}$$ It was shown that the same two components are zero in the case of a fermionic field in the same geometry [@mohammadi].
Azimuthal current {#azimuthal}
-----------------
The VEV of the azimuthal current density is given by $$\left\langle j_{\phi}(x) \right\rangle = ie \lim_{x '\rightarrow x}
\left\{(\partial_{\phi}-\partial_{\phi '})W(x,x')+2ieA_{\phi}W(x,x')\right\} \ .
\label{jphi}$$ The above expression can be decomposed in the following form $$\left\langle j_{\phi}(x) \right\rangle =\left\langle j_{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{s} +\left\langle j_{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_c,
\label{jphi_decomp}$$ where the first term corresponds to the contribution of an uncompactified cosmic string in dS spacetime, while the second one is the contribution induced by the compactification. Let us start with the first contribution. Substituting into as well as taking the derivative and coincidence limit, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j_{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{s}&=&-\frac{q^2e\tau^3}{\pi^{5/2}\alpha^2}
\int_0^\infty dx \, x^{1/2}e^{-2(r^2-\tau^2)x}K_\nu(2\tau^2x)\mathcal{J}(q,a_0,2xr^2)\ ,
\label{jphics1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\mathcal{J}(q,a_0,2xr^2)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty(n+a_0)I_{q|n+a_0|}(2xr^2)\ .$$ The summation above has been developed in [@Eduardo]. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{J}(q,a_0,w)&=\frac{2w}{q^2}\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\sin(2k\pi/q)\sin(2k\pi a_0)
e^{w\cos(2k\pi/q)}+\frac{w}{q\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \sinh y\frac{e^{-w\cosh y}g(q,a_0,y)}{\cosh(qy)-\cos(q\pi)}\ ,\nonumber\\
\label{Summation2}\end{aligned}$$ with $$g(q,a_0,y)=\sin(q\pi a_0)\sinh[(1-|a_0|)qy]-\sinh(qya_0)\sin[(1-|a_0|)q\pi].$$ In the expression , $[q/2]$ means the integer part of this ratio and the prime in the summation symbol means that in the case of $q/2$ is an integer, the term should be taken with the coefficient $1/2$.
Taking into account , the Eq. becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j_{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{s}&=&-\frac{e}{2^{1/2}\pi^{5/2}}\left(\frac{r}{\alpha\tau}\right)^2
\int_0^\infty dz \,z^{3/2}K_\nu(z)\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\sin(2k\pi/q)\sin(2k\pi a_0)
\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.\times e^{-\left(\frac{2r^2s_k^2}{\tau^2}-1\right)z}+\frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{\sinh (2y)g(q,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)}
e^{-\left(\frac{2r^2c_y^2}{\tau^2}-1\right)z}\right],
\label{jphics2}\end{aligned}$$ where we have introduced $z=2\tau^2x$ and defined $$s_k\equiv\sin(k\pi/q) \ \ \ {\rm and} \ \ \ c_y\equiv\cosh(y).$$ The integral over $z$ can be evaluated with the help of the formula [@Beze09] $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^\infty dx \,x^{(\mu-3)/2}e^{-cx}K_\nu(\beta x)&=&\frac{2^{1-\mu}\sqrt{\pi}}{\Gamma(\mu/2)(\beta/2)^{(\mu-1)/2}}
\Gamma\left(\frac{\mu-1}{2}-\nu\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{\mu-1}{2}+\nu\right)\nonumber\\
&&\times \,F\left(\frac{\mu-1}{2}+\nu,\frac{\mu-1}{2}-\nu,\mu/2;\frac{1}{2}-\frac{c}{2\beta}\right),\end{aligned}$$ with $F(a,b,c;x)$ being the hypergeometric function. After the evaluation of the integral over $z$ the final expression for the azimuthal current induced by the cosmic string in dS background is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{s}&=&\frac{e}{(4\pi)^{2}\alpha^4}
\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\sin(2k\pi/q)\sin(2k\pi a_0) \, \mathcal{B}_{0}\left(r/\tau,s_k\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{\sinh (2y)g(q,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)} \, \mathcal{B}_{0}\left(r/\tau,c_y
\right)\right],
\label{jphicsFinal}\end{aligned}$$ which is an odd function of the magnetic flux $a_0$ and depends on the ratio $r/\tau$. This ratio is the proper distance from the string in units of the dS curvature ratio $\alpha$. In addition, we have used the definition $$\mathcal{B}_{l}(u,v)\equiv \Gamma\left(\frac{5}{2}+\nu\right)\Gamma\left(\frac{5}{2}-\nu\right)\,
F\left(\frac{5}{2}+\nu,\frac{5}{2}-\nu;3;1-u^2v^2-\frac{l^2L^2}{4\tau^2}\right),
\label{Fdefinition}$$ with $l=0$. The above definition will also be useful in the rest of the calculations. Notice that the parameter $\nu$, defined in , is related to the mass of the scalar field and can be a real or an imaginary quantity.
Now, let us analyze some asymptotic cases of the azimuthal current density. To study $r/\tau\ll1$ limit, regions near the string, we consider the Eq. . In this region, the main contribution to the integral over $z$ comes from large values of the argument of the Macdonald function. Using the corresponding expansion for the Macdonald function [@Abra], the azimuthal current density induced by the string in the absence of the compactification becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{s}&\approx&\frac{e}{8\pi^2}\left(\frac{\tau}{\alpha r}\right)^4
\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\frac{\sin(2k\pi/q)\sin(2k\pi a_0)}{s_k^4}
+ \, \frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{\sinh (2y)g(q,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)}
c_y^{-4}\right],\nonumber\\
\label{jphicsSmallR}\end{aligned}$$ which presents a divergence on the string with the inverse fourth power of the proper distance matching exactly with the result for the fermionic field studied in [@mohammadi].
On the other hand, considering large distances from the string, $r/\tau \gg 1$, the main contribution to the integral over $z$ in comes from small values of the argument of the Macdonald function. By considering the corresponding expansion of the Macdonald function for small arguments and $\nu$ as imaginary, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{s}&\approx\frac{e}{8\pi^{5/2}\alpha^4}\left(\frac{\tau}{r}\right)^{5}
\left\{\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\frac{\sin(2k\pi/q)\sin(2k\pi a_0)}{s_k^{5}} \,
{\rm Re}\left[\left(\frac{2rs_k}{\tau}\right)^{2\nu}\Gamma(\nu)\Gamma(5/2-\nu)\right]\right.\nonumber\\
&\left. + \, \frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{\sinh (2y)g(q,a_0,2y)c_y^{-5}}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)}
\, {\rm Re}\left[\left(\frac{2rc_y}{\tau}\right)^{2\nu}\Gamma(\nu)\Gamma(5/2-\nu)\right]\right\}.
\label{jphicsLargeR}\end{aligned}$$ From the above expression we note an oscillatory behavior at large distances from the string when $\nu$ is imaginary. As can be seen, for large distances the string contribution of the azimuthal current density tends to zero with the fifth power of $\tau/r$. If $\nu$ is real, we have the same equation, \[jphicsLargeR\], with the coefficient $1/2$. However, knowing that for the case of a minimal coulpling $(\xi=0),$ $0\le m\alpha \le 3/2$ for real $\nu$, depending on the mass of the bosonic field, the decay behavior for large distances can be really different. As $\nu$ becomes closer to the maximum value (as mass decreases to zero), the decay in $\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{s}$ becomes slower. It tends to zero with the second power of $\tau/r$ for the massless field. In contrast, $\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{s}$ for the fermionic field in the same geometry decays with the fourth power of $\tau/r$ independent of the mass, and while decaying oscillates as it was shown in [@mohammadi]. However, in the massless limit the oscillating behavior disappears. Now, in the case of a conformal coulpling, $\xi=1/6$ resulting in $0\le m\alpha \le 1/2$ for real $\nu$, the azimuthal current density goes to zero with the fourth power of $\tau/r$ in the massless limit, similar to the fermionic case.
In Fig. \[fig01\] we plot the string part of the azimuthal current density (in the absence of the compactification) as a function of $r/\tau$ considering different values of $q$ and a minimal coupling ($\xi=0$). In the left plot, the parameter $\nu$ is real and in the right one is imaginary. In the latter case we show the oscillatory behavior of the azimuthal current density at large distances from the string. In Fig. \[fig02\] the behavior of the string part of the azimuthal current density as a function of $m\alpha$ (left plot) and $a_0$ (right plot) is shown for a minimal coulping. We can see that it decreases as mass increases and goes to zero for large mass. Moreover, we notice that it is a periodic function of $a_0$.
Now, for the evaluation of the azimuthal current density induced by the compactification, we need to start again with the Eq. . Substituting this equation into , after taking the derivatives and the coincidence limit, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j_{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{c}&=&-\frac{4eq^2\tau^3}{(2\pi\alpha)^2}\sum_{l=1}^\infty
\cos(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty(n+a_0)\int_0^\infty dp \, p \, J^2_{q|n+a|}(pr)\nonumber\\
&&\times\int_0^\infty d\gamma \, \gamma \, \frac{e^{-lL\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}}}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}}
K_\nu(\tau\gamma)[I_\nu(\tau\gamma)+I_{-\nu}(\tau\gamma)].\end{aligned}$$ We can use the following representation (see also [@PhysRevD085002]) $$\frac{e^{-lL\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}}}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}
\int_0^\infty ds \, e^{-(\gamma^2+p^2)s^2-l^2L^2/(4s^2)},$$ which allows us to evaluate the integrals over $p$ and $\gamma$ [@gradshteyn2000table]. The expression obtained is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j_{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{c}&=&-\frac{2eq^2\tau^3}{\alpha^2\pi^{5/2}}\sum_{l=1}^\infty
\cos(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})\int_0^\infty dx \, x^{1/2}e^{-(l^2L^2+2r^2-2\tau^2)x}\nonumber\\
&&\times \, K_\nu(2\tau^2x)\mathcal{J}(q,a_0,2r^2x),\end{aligned}$$ where $x=1/(4s^2)$. In the above equation, it is not difficult to see that in the limit $L\to \infty$ the contribution of the current originated from the compactification vanishes which is the expected result. By using the representation and after the integration over $x$, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{c}&=&\frac{2e}{(4\pi)^2\alpha^4}\sum_{l=1}^\infty
\cos(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\sin(2k\pi/q)\sin(2k\pi a_0) \, \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,s_k\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\, \frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{\sinh (2y)g(q,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)} \, \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,c_y
\right)\right],
\label{jphicompFinal}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the definition . The above expression is an even function of the magnetic flux enclosed by the compactification and an odd function of the magnetic flux running along the string.
Some asymptotic cases can be studied for the current density induced by the compactification. Considering small distances from the string, we can use the following expression for the hypergeometric function [@Abra] $$\begin{aligned}
F(a,b,c;z)&=&\frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(b-a)}{\Gamma(b)\Gamma(c-a)}
\frac{F\left(a,c-b,a-b+1;\frac{1}{1-z}\right)}{(1-z)^a}\nonumber\\
&&+\, \frac{\Gamma(c)\Gamma(a-b)}{\Gamma(a)\Gamma(c-b)}
\frac{F\left(b,c-a,b-a+1;\frac{1}{1-z}\right)}{(1-z)^b}.
\label{formulaF}\end{aligned}$$ For the case where the parameter $\nu$ is imaginary, in the leading term we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{c}&\approx&\frac{eq\sin(q\pi a_0)}{(2\pi)^3\alpha^4}
\left(\frac{\tau}{r}\right)^{2(1-q|a_0|)}\Gamma(1-q|a_0|)\sum_{l=1}^\infty\cos(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})\nonumber\\
&&\times \, {\rm Re}\left[\frac{\Gamma(2\nu)\Gamma\left(\frac{3}{2}+q|a_0|-\nu\right)}
{\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}+\nu\right)}
\left(\frac{2\tau}{lL}\right)^{2(q|a_0|-1-\nu)+5}\right].
\label{jCompSmallR}\end{aligned}$$ If $\nu$ is real, the leading contribution comes from the second term on the right-hand side of where the result is $1/2$ of the imaginary $\nu$ case. In this limit, the VEV of the azimuthal current density induced by the compactification diverges on the string if $|a_0|\leq1/q$ and is finite on the string if $|a_0|>1/q$, unlike the fermionic case where the threshold value is $|a_0|=(1-1/q)/2$ [@mohammadi]. Now, in the limit where $L/\tau \gg 1$ and $r/\tau$ fixed, again we can use and for $\nu$ being imaginary one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{c}&\approx&\frac{e}{2\pi^2\alpha^4}\left(\frac{\tau}{L}\right)^5
\sum_{l=1}^\infty\cos(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\sin(2k\pi/q)\sin(2k\pi a_0)\,
\mathcal{G}_l(r/L,s_k)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\, \frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{\sinh (2y)g(q,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)} \, \mathcal{G}_{l}\left(r/L,c_y
\right) \right],
\label{jphicLargL}\end{aligned}$$ where we use the notation $$\mathcal{G}_l(u,v)\equiv{\rm Re}\left[\frac{\Gamma(2\nu)\Gamma(5/2-\nu)}{\Gamma(1/2+\nu)}
\left(\frac{L}{\tau}\right)^{2\nu}\left(\frac{l^2}{4}+u^2v^2\right)^{\nu-5/2}\right].$$ Clearly, the compactification contribution of the azimuthal current density tends to zero when $L\to \infty$.
In Fig. \[fig03\], taking into consideration a minimal couping, we plot the VEV of the azimuthal current density induced by the compactification. In the left plot we have the induced current as a function of $r/\tau$ for three different values of $q$. Note that the the left plot shows both cases where the azimuthal current density diverges or not on the string depending on the value of $q$. Moreover, when $r/\tau\to \infty$ it goes to zero. In the right plot of Fig. \[fig03\] the azimuthal current density induced by the compactification is shown as a function of $\tilde{\beta}$ for the same values of the parameter $q$. It exhibits the periodic behavior in $\tilde{\beta}$, as expected.
We note that taking into account the Eqs. and is possible to write the total azimuthal current density as $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle&=&\frac{2e}{(4\pi)^2\alpha^4}\sideset{}{'}\sum_{l=0}^\infty
\cos(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\sin(2k\pi/q)\sin(2k\pi a_0) \, \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,s_k\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\, \frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{\sinh (2y)g(q,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)} \, \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,c_y
\right)\right].
\label{jphitotal}\end{aligned}$$ The term $l=0$ has to be taken with the coefficient $1/2$ and give us the azimuthal current density induced by the uncompactified string and the curvature of the dS spacetime. In the absence of the string, $q=1$, the above equation simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle_{q=1}&=\frac{2e}{(2\alpha)^4\pi^3}\sideset{}{'}\sum_{l=0}^\infty
\cos(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})
\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{\sinh (2y)g(1,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2y)+1} \, \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,c_y
\right).
\label{jphiq1}\end{aligned}$$ For a massless scalar field and considering the conformal coupling $(\xi=1/6)$, we have $\nu=1/2$. For this case, by using the properties of the hypergeometric function [@Abra], the total azimuthal current reads $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{\phi}(x) \right\rangle&=&\frac{4e}{\pi^2L^4}\left(\frac{\tau}{\alpha}\right)^4
\sideset{}{'}\sum_{l=0}^\infty\cos(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\frac{\sin(2k\pi/q)\sin(2k\pi a_0)}
{\left(l^2+\frac{4r^2s^2_k}{\tau^2}\right)^2}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.+\, \frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{\sinh (2y)g(q,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)} \,
\frac{1}{\left(l^2+\frac{4r^2c^2_y}{\tau^2}\right)^2}\right].
\label{jphiMassless2}\end{aligned}$$ This result matches exactly to the one for the flat space in the presence of a compactified cosmic string [@Eduardo] times the conformal factor $(\tau/\alpha)^4$ which is the expected result.
Axial current {#axial}
-------------
Now, we focus on the axial current density, which its VEV is given by $$\left\langle j_{z}(x) \right\rangle = ie \lim_{x '\rightarrow x}
\left\{(\partial_{z}-\partial_{z '})W(x,x')+2ieA_{z}W(x,x')\right\} \ .
\label{jz}$$ Replacing the Wightman function in the above equation, after taking the derivatives and the coincidence limit we note that this contribution vanishes. Therefore, we have $$\left\langle j_{z}(x) \right\rangle_{s} = 0.$$
The contribution of the axial current density induced by the compactification after several intermediate steps, similar to the ones done in the last sections, is given in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j_{z}(x) \right\rangle_{c}&=&-\frac{eq\tau^3}{(\pi\alpha)^2}
\sum_{l=1}\sin(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty
\int_0^\infty dp \, p J^2_{q|n+a|}(pr)\int_0^\infty d\gamma \, \gamma K_\nu(\nu\gamma)\nonumber\\
&\times&[I_\nu(\tau\gamma)+I_{-\nu}(\tau\gamma)]e^{-lL\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}}.
\label{jzc1}\end{aligned}$$ The integral representation $$e^{-lL\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}}=\frac{lL}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_0^\infty ds \, s^{-2}\, e^{-(\gamma^2+p^2)s^2-l^2L^2/(4s^2)}.$$ allows us to perform the integration over $p$ and $\gamma$ in the expression where the result is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j_{z}(x) \right\rangle_{c}&=&-\frac{4eqL\tau^3}{\alpha^2\pi^{5/2}}
\sum_{l=1}^\infty l\sin(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})\int_0^\infty dx \, x^{3/2}e^{-(l^2L^2+2r^2-2\tau^2)x}K_{\nu}(2\tau^2x)
\nonumber\\
&& \, \times\mathcal{I}(q,a_0,2r^2x),\end{aligned}$$ with $x \equiv 1/(4s^2)$. Taking into account and after the integration over $x$, the final expression for the axial current density is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{z}(x)\right\rangle_{c}&=&\frac{eL}{2(2\pi)^2\alpha^4}\sum_{l=1}^\infty l\sin(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})
\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=0}^{[q/2]}\cos(2k\pi a_0) \, \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,s_k\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left. \, -\frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{f(q,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)} \, \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,c_y
\right)\right].
\label{jzc2}\end{aligned}$$
For the case of a massless scalar field and considering a conformal coupling $\nu=1/2$. By similar considerations done for the azimuthal current, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{z}(x)\right\rangle_{c}&=&\frac{4e}{\pi^2L^3}\left(\frac{\tau}{\alpha}\right)^4
\sum_{l=1}^\infty l\sin(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})
\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=0}^{[q/2]}\frac{\cos(2k\pi a_0)}{\left(l^2+\frac{4r^2s^2_k}{\tau^2}\right)^2}\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left. \, -\frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{f(q,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)}
\frac{1}{\left(l^2+\frac{4r^2c^2_y}{\tau^2}\right)^2}\right].
\label{jzcMassless16}\end{aligned}$$ The above axial current density, in the massless limit, matches to the result for the Minkowski spacetime times the conformal factor $(\tau/\alpha)^4$ (the sign of the axial current obtained in [@Eduardo] should be corrected to the opposite one).
Considering the term $k=0$ of the Eq. we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{z}(x) \right\rangle_{c}^{(0)}&=&\frac{eL}{\pi^2(2\alpha)^4}\sum_{l=1}^\infty l\sin(2\pi l\tilde{\beta}) \,
\mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,s_0\right).
\label{jzk0}\end{aligned}$$ This expression is the VEV of the axial current density with no dependence on $q$ and $a_0$. It is a purely topological term being dependent only on the compactification of the $z-$axis and obviously goes to zero in the limit $L\to \infty$. The remaining in , magnetic flux and planar angle deficit contribution, in the axial current density is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{z}(x) \right\rangle_{c}^{(q,a_0)}&=&\frac{eL}{2(2\pi)^2\alpha^4}\sum_{l=1}^\infty l\sin(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})
\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]}\cos(2k\pi a_0) \, \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,s_k\right)\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-\frac{q}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{f(q,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)} \, \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,c_y
\right)\right].
\label{jzc3}\end{aligned}$$ This expression is finite on the string. Besides that, it is an odd function of the magnetic flux enclosed by the compactification along the string axis and an even function of the magnetic flux along the string’s core.
Some particular cases of the above expression can be considered. In the absence of the string, $q=1$, the equation reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{z}(x) \right\rangle_{c}^{(1,a_0)}&=&-\frac{eL}{(2\pi)^3\alpha^4}\sum_{l=1}^\infty l\sin(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})
\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{f(1,a_0,2y)}{\cosh(2y)+1} \, \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,c_y
\right).
\label{jzq1}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, in the absence of the magnetic flux running along the string, the result in \[jzc3\] simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle j^{z}(x) \right\rangle_{c}^{(q,0)}&=\frac{eL}{2(2\pi)^2\alpha^4}\sum_{l=1}^\infty l\sin(2\pi l\tilde{\beta})
\left[\sideset{}{'}\sum_{k=1}^{[q/2]} \mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,s_k\right)
-\frac{q\sin(q\pi)}{\pi}\int_0^\infty dy \, \frac{\mathcal{B}_{l}\left(r/\tau,c_y
\right)}{\cosh(2qy)-\cos(q\pi)}\right]
\label{jza0}\end{aligned}$$ We can note that in the case of $L/\tau \gg 1$ by using , the axial current goes to zero, as expected, with the fourth power of $\tau/L$. The behavior of the axial current density is shown in Fiq. \[fig04\] as a function of $r/\tau$ (left plot) and as a function of the magnetic flux enclosed by the compactification along the string axis (right plot) considering a minimal coulpling. Comparing the left plot with the result in the fermionic field case studied in [@mohammadi], it is easy to see that they have opposite signs. This is not characteristic of the dS spacetime due to the fact that this also happens in the Minkowski spacetime studied in [@Eduardo] and [@Saha]. The right plot in Fiq. \[fig04\] shows the expected periodic behavior of $\left\langle j^{z}(x)\right\rangle_{c}$ in $\tilde \beta$. In both references the sign of the final axial currents should be corrected to the opposit one.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper we have studied the VEVs of the induced bosonic currents in dS spacetime considering the presence of a compactified cosmic string. These currents are induced by the presence of magnetic fluxes, one along the string’s core and another one enclosed by the compactified dimension. In order to perform our analysis, we constructed the positive frequency Wightman function associated with a massive scalar field considering that the field obeys the quasiperiodicity condition , with a constant arbitrary phase $\beta$, and that the dimension along the $z$-direction is compactified to a circle with lenght $L$. The quasiperiodicity condition imposes that the quantum number related with the compactified string becomes discrete, and in order to consider the summation over this quantum number, we have employed the Abel-Plana summation formula . By using this formula, the Wightman function and consequently the induced currents, are decomposed into two contributions: one induced by a cosmic string in dS spacetime with no compactification, Eq. , and another one induced by the compactification, Eq. . Taking into account these functions, we have shown that the renormalized charge and radial current densities vanish. The only non-zero contributions are the azimuthal and axial current densities, the same as the case of the fermionic field in the same geometry.
The string part of the azimuthal current density was obtained by substituting the Wightman function into . Its final expression is given by and is an odd function of the magnetic flux along the string’s core. In addition, the azimuthal current depends on the ratio $r/\tau$, which is the proper distance from the string measured in units of the dS curvature scale $\alpha$. Some particular asymptotic cases of are considered. For regions near the string, $r/\tau \ll 1$, the azimuthal current density diverges on the string with a fourth power of the proper distance, as can be seen in . This behavior matches exactly with the result obtained for the fermionic case. On the other hand, considering $r/\tau \gg 1$ the leading term of the azimuthal current induced by an uncompactified string, considering $\nu$ imaginary, is given by . From this expression we note that for large distances from the string, the azimuthal current density besides decaying with the fifth power in $\tau/r$, has an oscillatory behavior if the parameter $\nu$ is imaginary. The parameter $\nu$ is related to the mass of the scalar field. If $\nu$ is real, we have the same equation, but with the coefficient $1/2$. However, depending on the mass of the bosonic field, the decay behavior for large distances can be very different. Considering a minimal coulpling, $\xi=0$, as mass tends to zero the string contribution of the azimuthal current density goes to zero with the second power of $\tau/r$. This is in contrast with the result for the fermionic field in the same geometry. In the fermionic field case the current decays with the fourth power of $\tau/r$ independent of the mass, and while decaying oscillates. However, in the massless limit the oscillation disappears. In the case of a conformal coupling and a massless scalar field, the azimuthal current density goes to zero with the fourth power of $\tau/r$, the same as for the fermionic field. These results for the bosonic field are shown in Fig. \[fig01\] where we have shown the string contribution of the azimuthal current density as a function of $r/\tau$ considering just the case of a minimal coupling. In Fig. we have plotted the same quantity, but as functions of $m\alpha$ and $a_0$. We have shown that the current density decreases as mass increases and goes to zero for large mass. Besides that, one could notice that it is a periodic function of $a_0$.
For the azimuthal current density induced by the compactification, we have used the Wightman function and obtained the Eq. . This expression is an odd function of the magnetic flux along the string and an even function of the magnetic flux enclosed by the string axis. For regions close to the string, $r/\tau \ll 1$, and considering that the parameter $\nu$ is imaginary, the leading term of the azimuthal current induced by the compactification is given by the . This expression presents a divergence on the string if $|a_0|\leq 1/q$ and is finite on the string if $|a_0|> 1/q$, in contrast with the fermionic case where the threshold value is $|a_0|=(1-1/q)/2$. We have also considered the case of $L/\tau \gg 1$, for $r/\tau$ fixed, where the leading contribution is given by . As one expects, in this regime, the azimuthal current density goes to zero with the fifth power of $\tau/L$. The behavior of the azimuthal current density induced by the compactification as functions of $r/\tau$ and the magnetic flux enclosed by the string axis has been shown in the Fig. \[fig03\] for a minimal coupling ($\xi=0$). The expression for the total azimuthal current density is presented in and considering this expression, we studied particular cases, in the absence of the cosmic string as well as for a massless scalar field considering a conformal coupling($\xi=1/6$), resulting in the Eqs. and , respectively. This result in the latter case matches the Minkowski one with the same geometry, found in [@Eduardo], times the fourth power of the conformal factor $\tau/\alpha$.
Our next step was to consider the axial current density. We have shown that the only non-zero contribution for the axial current is due to the compactification. The total axial current density is given by . In the limit of a massles scalar field and a conformal coupling $\xi=1/6$ the axial current density is given by . As in the case of azimuthal current density, the result matches with the one found for the axial current density in the same geometry in the flat spacetime times the fourth power of the conformal factor $\tau/\alpha$, found in [@Saha]. In addition, the axial currrent denstiy was decomposed into two contributions. The first one is given by which is a purely topological contribution being dependent only on the compactification along the string axis. The other contribution for the azimuthal current density, given by , is induced by the planar angle deficit, the magnetic flux and also the compactification. This contribution is an odd function of the magnetic flux enclosed by the compactified string and an even function of the magnetic flux running along the string’s core. Besides that, this contribution is finite on the string. We have also considered some particular cases in the axial current density expression. Expression for the axial current in the absence of the cosmic string as well as the magnetic flux along the string are given in Eqs. and , respectively. In Fig. \[fig04\] we have plotted the axial current induced by the compactification as functions of $r/\tau$ and $\tilde{\beta}$ considering a minimal coupling $(\xi=0)$, for several values the parameter $q$ (left plot) and several values of the magnetic flux along the string’s core (right plot). We have shown that the induced axial current densities considering bosonic and fermionic fields have opposite signs which is a shared characteristic with the Minkowski spacetime. Moreover, in the limit where $L/\tau \gg1$, both the azimuthal and axial current densities induced by the compactification go to zero, as one expects.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
E.A.F. B and A.M. would like to thank the Brazilian agency CAPES for the financial support. A.M. also thanks the Brazilian agency CNPq and Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Edital Qualis A for financial support.
Integral representation for the compactified Wightman function {#compacified}
==============================================================
Here, we develop the intermediate steps in the calculation of the compactified Wightman function . In order to obtain this function, we substitute into , and also substitute the result into . From the second term on the right hand side of , the compactified Wightman function is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wcom}
W_c(x,x')&=&\frac{2iq(\tau\tau')^{3/2}e^{-ieA_z\Delta z}}{(2\pi)^3\alpha^2} \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty e^{iqn\Delta\phi}
\int_0^\infty dp p J_{q|n+a|}(pr)J_{q|n+a|}(pr')\nonumber\\
&&\times \int_0^\infty dk_z\left[K_\nu(i\tau'\sqrt{(ik_z)^2+p^2})K_\nu(-i\tau\sqrt{(ik_z)^2+p^2})\right.\nonumber\\
&&\left.-K_\nu(i\tau'\sqrt{(-ik_z)^2+p^2})
K_\nu(-i\tau\sqrt{(-ik_z)^2+p^2})\right]\sum_{\lambda=\pm 1}\frac{e^{-\lambda k_z\Delta z}}{e^{Lk_z+2\pi i\lambda{\tilde{\beta}}}-1},
\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ defining $u\equiv \frac{L}{2\pi}k_z$. The integral over $k_z$ must be considered in two different situations as follows
- For $p>k_z$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ident1}
\sqrt{(\pm ik_z)^2+p^2}=\sqrt{p^2-(k_z)^2} \ .
\end{aligned}$$
- For $p<k_z$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ident2}
\sqrt{(\pm ik_z)^2+p^2}=e^{\pm i\frac{\pi}{2}}\sqrt{(k_z)^2-p^2} \ .
\end{aligned}$$
The integral over the segment $[0, \ p]$ vanishes in contrast with the segment $[p, \ \infty)$. In fact in the latter interval the integrand reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ident3}
K_\nu(e^{i\pi}\tau'\sqrt{(k_z)^2-p^2})K_\nu(\tau\sqrt{(k_z)^2-p^2})
-K_\nu(\tau'\sqrt{(k_z)^2-p^2}) K_\nu(e^{-i\pi}\tau\sqrt{(k_z)^2-p^2}) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Now using the the identity [@Abra], $$\begin{aligned}
K_\nu(z e^{im\pi})=e^{-im\nu\pi}K_\nu(z)-i\pi\sin(m\nu\pi)\csc(\nu\pi)I_\nu(z) \ , \end{aligned}$$ for $m$ integer, using the well-known relation involving the modified Bessel functions, $K_\nu(z)=\frac\pi 2 (I_{-\nu}(z)-I_\nu(z))/\sin{\nu\pi}$ as well as defining a new variable $\gamma^2=k_z^2-p^2$, Eq. can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{wcom1}
W_c(x,x')&=&\frac{2q(\tau\tau')^{3/2}e^{-ieA_z\Delta z}}{(2\pi\alpha)^2}\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty e^{iqn\Delta\phi}
\int_0^\infty dp \, p J_{q|n+a|}(pr)J_{q|n+a|}(pr')\nonumber\\
&&\times\int_0^\infty \frac{d\gamma \, \gamma}{\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}}\left[K_\nu(\tau'\gamma) I_{-\nu}(\tau\gamma)
+I_\nu(\tau'\gamma)
K_\nu(\tau\gamma)\right]\nonumber\\
&&\times\sum_{l=1}^\infty e^{-lL\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}}\cos(2\pi l{\tilde{\beta}}-i\Delta z\sqrt{\gamma^2+p^2}),\end{aligned}$$ where we have also used the expansion $(e^{u}-1)^{-1}=\sum_{l=1}^\infty e^{-lu}$.
[10]{}
N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, [*Quantum fields in curved space*]{}, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K. (1982).
A. Linde, [*Particle physics and inflationary cosmology*]{}, Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur Switzerland (1990).
A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard, [*[Cosmic strings and other topological defects]{}*]{}. Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1994.
M. Hindmarsh and T. Kibble, [*[Cosmic strings]{}*]{}, [*Rept. Prog. Phys.*]{} [ **58**]{}, 477–562 (1995).
J. M. Hyde, A. J. Long, and T. Vachaspati, [*[Dark Strings and their Couplings to the Standard Model]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**89**]{}, 065031 (2014).
Collaboration, P. Ade et al., [*[Planck 2013 results. XXV. Searches for cosmic strings and other topological defects]{}*]{}, (2013).
T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, [Gravitational Wave Bursts from Cosmic Strings]{}, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} **85**, 3761 (2000).
P. Battacharjee and G. Sigl, [*Origin and propagation of extremely high-energy cosmic rays*]{}, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} **327**, 109 (2000).
V. Berezinski, B. Hnatyk, and A. Vilenkin, [*Gamma ray bursts from superconducting cosmic strings*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **64**, 043004 (2001).
H. B. Nielsen and P. Olesen, [*[Vortex Line Models for Dual Strings]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**61**]{}, 45–61 (1973).
D. Garfinkle, [*[General Relativistic Strings]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**32**]{}, 1323–1329 (1985).
B. Linet, [*[A Vortex Line Model for Infinite Straight Cosmic Strings]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Lett. A*]{} [**124**]{}, 240–242 (1987).
A. H. [Castro Neto]{}, F. [Guinea]{}, N. M. R. [Peres]{}, K. S. [Novoselov]{}, and A. K. [Geim]{}, [*[The electronic properties of graphene]{}*]{}, [*Reviews of Modern Physics*]{} [**81**]{}, 109–162 (2009).
R. Jackiw and S.-Y. Pi, [*[Chiral gauge theory for graphene]{}*]{}, [ *Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**98**]{}, 266402 (2007).
O. Oliveira, C. Cordeiro, A. Delfino, W. de Paula, and T. Frederico, [ *[Vortex and gap generation in gauge models of graphene]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. B*]{} [**83**]{}, 155419 (2011).
B. Linet, [*[Quantum Field Theory in the Space-time of a Cosmic String]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**35**]{}, 536–539 (1987).
B. Allen and E. P. S. Shellard, [*[On the evolution of cosmic strings]{}*]{}, in [*[The formation and evolution of cosmic strings : proceedings of a workshop supported by the SERC and held in Cambridge, 3-7 July, 1989]{}*]{} (G. W. Gibbons, S. W. Hawking, and T. Vachaspati, eds.), (Cambridge), pp. 421–448, Cambridge University Press, 1990.
M. Guimarães and B. Linet, [*[Selfinteraction and quantum effects near a point mass in three-dimensional gravitation]{}*]{}, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**10**]{}, 1665–1680 (1993).
P. Davies and V. Sahni, [*[Quantum gravitational effects near cosmic strings]{}*]{}, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**5**]{}, 1 (1988).
T. Souradeep and V. Sahni, [*[Quantum effects near a point mass in (2+1)-Dimensional gravity]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**46**]{}, 1616–1633 (1992).
V. P. Frolov and E. Serebryanyi, [*[Vacuum Polarization in the Gravitational Field of a Cosmic String]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**35**]{}, 3779–3782 (1987).
B. Linet, [*[Euclidean spinor Green’s functions in the space-time of a straight cosmic string]{}*]{}, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**36**]{}, 3694–3703 (1995).
E. S. Moreira Júnior, [*[Massive quantum fields in a conical background]{}*]{}, [ *Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**451**]{}, 365–378 (1995).
V. B. Bezerra and N. R. Khusnutdinov, [*[Vacuum expectation value of the spinor massive field in the cosmic string space-time]{}*]{}, [ *Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**23**]{}, 3449–3462 (2006).
J. Dowker, [*[Vacuum Averages for Arbitrary Spin Around a Cosmic String]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**36**]{}, 3742 (1987).
M. Guimarães and B. Linet, [*[Scalar Green’s functions in an Euclidean space with a conical-type line singularity]{}*]{}, [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**165**]{}, 297–310 (1994).
J. Spinelly and E. R. Bezerra de Mello, [*[Vacuum polarization of a charged massless scalar field on cosmic string space-time in the presence of a magnetic field]{}*]{}, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**20**]{}, 873–888 (2003).
J. Spinelly and E. R. Bezerra de Mello, [*[Vacuum polarization by a magnetic field in the cosmic string space-time]{}*]{}, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. A*]{} [**17**]{}, 4375–4384 (2002).
J. Spinelly and E. R. Bezerra de Mello, [*[Vacuum polarization of a charged massless fermionic field by a magnetic flux in the cosmic string space-time]{}*]{}, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D*]{} [**13**]{}, 607–624 (2004).
J. Spinelly and E. R. Bezerra de Mello, [*[Vacuum polarization by a magnetic flux in a cosmic string background]{}*]{}, [*Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.*]{} [**127**]{}, 77–83 (2004).
J. Spinelly and E. R. Bezerra de Mello, [*[Spinor Green function in higher-dimensional cosmic string space-time in the presence of magnetic flux]{}*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} [**0809**]{}, 005 (2008).
L. Sriramkumar, [*[Fluctuations in the current and energy densities around a magnetic flux carrying cosmic string]{}*]{}, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**18**]{}, 1015–1025 (2001).
Y. Sitenko and N. Vlasii, [*[Induced vacuum current and magnetic field in the background of a cosmic string]{}*]{}, [*Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**26**]{} (2009).
E. A. F. Bragança, H. F. Santana Mota and E. R. Bezerra de Mello, [*Induced vacuum bosonic current by a magnetic flux in a higher-dimensional compactified cosmic string spacetime*]{}, [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D*]{} [**24**]{}, 1550055 (2015).
E. R. Bezerra de Mello, [*[Induced fermionic current densities by magnetic flux in higher dimensional cosmic string spacetime]{}*]{}, [ *Class. Quant. Grav.*]{} [**27**]{}, 095017 (2010).
E. R. Bezerra de Mello, V. Bezerra, A. Saharian and V. Bardeghyan, [ *[Fermionic current densities induced by magnetic flux in a conical space with a circular boundary]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**82**]{}, 085033 (2010).
E. R. Bezerra de Mello, V. B. Bezerra, A. A. Saharian and H. H. Harutyunyan, [*Vacuum currents induced by a magnetic flux around a cosmic string with finite core*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**91**]{}, 064034 (2015).
M. S. Maior de Sousa, R. F. Ribeiro and E. R. Bezerra de Mello, [*Induced fermionic current by a magnetic tube in the cosmic string spacetime*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**93**]{}, 043545 (2016).
M. S. Maior de Sousa, R. F. Ribeiro and E. R. Bezerra de Mello, [*Fermionic vacuum polarization by an Abelian magnetic tube in the cosmic string spacetime*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**95**]{}, 045005 (2017).
P. C. W. Davies and V. Sahni, [*Quantum gravitational effects near cosmic strings*]{}, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} **5**, 1 (1988).
A. C. Ottewill and P. Taylor, [*Vacuum polarization on the Schwarzschild metric threaded by a cosmic string*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} **82**, 104013 (2010).
A. C. Ottewill and P. Taylor, [*Renormalized vacuum polarization and stress tensor on the horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole threaded by a cosmic string*]{}, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} **28**, 015007 (2011).
E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. A. Saharian, [*Vacuum polarization by a cosmic string in de Sitter spacetime*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} **04**, 046 (2009).
E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. A. Saharian, [*Fermionic vacuum polarization by a cosmic string in de Sitter spacetime*]{}, [*JHEP*]{} **08**, 038 (2010).
E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. A. Saharian, [*Vacuum polarization induced by a cosmic string in anti-de Sitter spacetime*]{}, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.*]{} **45** 115402 (2012).
E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. A. Saharian, [*Fermionic vacuum polarization by a cosmic string in anti-de Sitter spacetime*]{}, [*Class. Quantum. Grav.*]{} **30**, 175001 (2013).
A. Mohammadi, E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. A. Saharian, [*Induced fermionic currents in de Sitter spacetime in the presence of a compactified cosmic string*]{}, [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**32**]{}, 135002 (2015).
E. A. F. Bragança, E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. Mohammadi, [*Induced fermionic vacuum polarization in dS spacetime with a compactified cosmic string*]{}, arXiv:1910.04888 (2019).
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, *Handbook of Mathematical Functions* (Dover, New York, 1972).
S. Bellucci, A. Saharian, and V. Bardeghyan, [*[Induced fermionic current in toroidally compactified spacetimes with applications to cylindrical and toroidal nanotubes]{}*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**82**]{}, 065011 (2010).
I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, [*Table of integrals, series, and products*]{}. Academic Press, 1980.
S. Bellucci, E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. A. Saharian, [*Finite temperature fermionic condensate and currents in topologically nontrivial spaces*]{}, [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**89**]{}, 085002 (2014).
E. R. Bezerra de Mello and A. A. Saharian, [*Fermionic current induced by magnetic flux in compactified cosmic string spacetime*]{}, [*Eur. Phys. J. C*]{} [**73**]{}, 2532 (2013).
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^3]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^4]: De Sitter space enjoys the same number of degrees of symmetries as the Minkowski one [@BD].
[^5]: $G$ is the Newton’s gravitational constant and $\mu_0$ is the linear mass density of the string.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We develop a generalized Ginzburg-Landau theory for second harmonic generation (SHG) in magnets by expanding the free energy in terms of the order parameter in the magnetic phase and the susceptibility tensor in the corresponding high-temperature phase. The non-zero components of the SHG susceptibility in the ordered phase are derived from the symmetries of the susceptibility tensor in the high-temperature phase and the symmetry of the order parameter. In this derivation, the dependence of the SHG susceptibility on the order parameter follows naturally, and therefore its nonreciprocal optical properties. We examine this phenomenology for the magnetoelectric compound Cr$_2$O$_3$ as well as for the ferroelectromagnet YMnO$_3$.'
address:
- 'Institut für Physik, Universität Dortmund, 44221 Dortmund, Germany'
- 'Fachbereich Physik, University of the Saarland, 66041 Saarbrücken, Germany'
author:
- 'Debanand Sa[@e-dsa]'
- 'R. Valentí and C. Gros'
title: ' A Generalized Ginzburg-Landau Approach to Second Harmonic Generation '
---
[2]{} Second Harmonic Generation (SHG) is a very useful technique to study the nonlinear optical properties [@sh] in magnetic materials. The recent observation [@kri; @fie] of nonreciprocal optical effects (i.e., not invariant under time reversal operation) in the magnetoelectric material Cr$_2$O$_3$ below the Néel temperature $T_N$ has been of great importance in the study of antiferromagnetic (AFM) ordering by light. With the help of SHG, photographs of the antiferromagnetic domains [@fie; @fie1] in Cr$_2$O$_3$ were obtained what confirms that these experiments can distinguish between the two magnetic states that are related to each other by the time reversal operation, and therefore its nonreciprocity. These observations can be explained by an interference effect between a time-symmetric magnetic dipole contribution and a time-antisymmetric electric dipole contribution [@fie]. Soon after these experiments were done, a microscopic theory was proposed [@mut] which could explain quantitatively the non-reciprocal effects observed in Cr$_2$O$_3$. It was shown that the electric dipole contributions were linearly proportional to the antiferromagnetic order parameter giving rise to the time-antisymmetric character to the electric dipole tensor. The study of this dependence is of crucial importance in order to understand the non-reciprocal character of the SHG tensors. The derivation of a micoscopic theory for a specific effect, in our case SHG, can be rather complicated depending on the properties of the material under study [@mut; @tanabe]. Concrete information of the SHG process in materials where a transition takes place, i.e. paramagnet-antiferromagnet or paraelectric- ferroelectric, can be obtained at a simpler level, i.e. by considering only the symmetry arguments. In particular, we are interested in investigating the dependence of the SHG susceptibilities in the ordered phase on the order parameter.
A powerful phenomenological theory suitable to describe phase transitions is the Ginzburg-Landau theory. The Ginzburg-Landau approach is based on the existence of an order parameter in the ordered phase and on symmetry considerations [@ginzburg]. Pershan in 1963 [@per] showed that the tensors for nonlinear electro- and magneto-optic effects could be derived from a phenomenological time-averaged free energy. It is our purpose in this paper to extend the formulation of Pershan by including the order parameter explicitly in the expansion of the free energy for SHG. We shall show that the non-zero components of the SHG susceptibility tensor in the ordered phase are naturally obtained from the symmetry of the susceptibility tensor in the high-temperature phase and the symmetry of the order parameter. Once the dependence of the SHG susceptibility tensor on the order parameter is known, the non-reciprocal optical properties below the transition temperature follow. We explicitly verify this formulation in the magnetoelectric compound Cr$_2$O$_3$ as well as the hexagonal ferroelectric-antiferromagnetic material YMnO$_3$.
A convenient starting point in order to describe the optical nonlinearities is given by a time-averaged free energy $F$ as proposed by Pershan [@per]. A dipole expansion of the induced current ${\bf J}=\partial{\bf P}/\partial t + c\nabla\times{\bf M}
-\partial(\nabla\cdot{\bf Q})/\partial t+\dots$, where [**P**]{}, [**M**]{} and [**Q**]{} are respectively the electric dipole polarization, the magnetization and the electric quadrupole polarization, leads to [@per]
$$F = - 2Re\sum_{\nu=1}^{n}\left[\,
{\bf {E^\ast}}(\omega_{\nu})\cdot {\bf P}(\omega_
{\nu})+ {\bf {H^\ast}}(\omega_{\nu}) \cdot {\bf M}(\omega_{\nu})
\,\right]~,
\label{F}$$
where we have discarded the electric quadrupole and higher-order terms and a constant contribution. Here ${\bf E}(\omega_\nu)$, ${\bf P}(\omega_\nu)$, ${\bf H}(\omega_\nu)$ and ${\bf M}(\omega_\nu)$ are respectively the Fourier components of the electric field, electric dipole polarization, magnetic field and the magnetization and $\nu$ denotes the number of partial waves. The usual relations
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bf P}(\omega_{\nu}) = - \partial{F} / \partial{\bf {E^\ast}}(\omega_{\nu})
\nonumber \\
{\bf M}(\omega_{\nu}) = - \partial{F} / \partial{\bf {H^\ast}}(\omega_{\nu})
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
are fullfilled. The electric dipole polarization and the magnetization are, in general, nonlinear functions of [**E**]{} (and [**H**]{}) which may be expanded into a power series in [**E**]{} (and [**H**]{}). The second order term for the electric dipole polarization is
$$\begin{aligned}
P_i (2\omega) =
\chi_{ijk}^{(ED)}(2\omega,\omega,\omega) \> E_j(\omega) \> E_k(\omega)\end{aligned}$$
which corresponds to the SHG electric dipole contribution (ED). The corresponding free energy is then (see Eq. (\[F\])):
$$\begin{aligned}
F^{(ED)} = -\left[\,\chi_{ijk}^{(ED)}(2\omega,\omega,\omega)
\> E_i^\ast (2\omega) \> E_j(\omega) \> E_k(\omega)
\nonumber \right.\\ \left.
+{\chi^{*}_{ijk}}^{(ED)}(2\omega,\omega,\omega)
\> E_i (2\omega) \> E_j^\ast (\omega) \> E_k^\ast (\omega)
\,\right] \label{F_ED}\end{aligned}$$
Summation over repeated indices is implicit in the above formulas.
As a second example, we consider the magnetic dipole contribution (MD) to SHG,
$$\begin{aligned}
M_i (2\omega) =
\chi_{ijk}^{(MD)} (2\omega,\omega,\omega)\> E_j(\omega) \> E_k(\omega)~,\end{aligned}$$
leading to
$$\begin{aligned}
F^{(MD)} = -\left[\,\chi_{ijk}^{(MD)}(2\omega,\omega,\omega)
\> H_i^\ast (2\omega) \> E_j (\omega) \> E_k (\omega)
\nonumber \right.\\ \left.
+{\chi^{*}_{ijk}}^{(MD)}(2\omega,\omega,\omega)
\> H_i (2\omega) \> E_j^\ast (\omega) \> E_k^\ast (\omega)
\,\right]~. \label{F_MD} \end{aligned}$$
$F^{(MD)}$ is the free energy corresponding to the MD contribution to SHG. Both the ED and the MD contribute to the source term S, i.e., as $\mu_0 [(\partial^{2}{P}/ \partial{t^2})
+ \nabla \times (\partial{M}/ \partial{t})]$ in the wave equation for the electric field, derived from the Maxwell’s equations in classical electrodynamics [@fie]. The measured output intensity in a nonlinear optical experiment is $I \propto {\mid S \mid}^2$ and once the SHG susceptibility in the ordered phase is known, possible non-reciprocal properties of the system may be derived.
In the context of the antiferromagnetic Cr$_2$O$_3$ it has been observed [@fie] that $\chi_{ijk}^{(ED)}$ exists only in the ordered phase ($T<T_N$) and it has been shown [@mut; @tanabe] that it is linearly proportional to the antiferromagnetic order parameter, as it should be if we had defined a Ginzburg-Landau free energy for the ordered phase. In the framework of the classical Ginzburg-Landau approach to phase transitions the allowed terms contributing to the free energy follow from the symmetry of the order-parameter and from the symmetry of the lattice [@ginzburg; @tol]. It is therefore of interest to ask oneself whether one can combine the standard Ginzburg-Landau approach for the magnetic properties of e.g. Cr$_2$O$_3$ with the expressions Eq. (\[F\_ED\]) and Eq. (\[F\_MD\]) in order to obtain a more general formulation for the nonlinear magneto-optical properties of a given compound.
In order to generalize the Ginzburg-Landau formulation to study the nonlinear optical properties in antiferromagnets we first note that the (generalized) Ginzburg-Landau functional has to obey the symmetry of the high-temperature phase, as the (spontaneous) breaking of this symmetry is inherent in the solution which is a minimum of the Ginzburg-Landau functional. As an illustration, we consider a hypothetical magnetic dipole contribution to SHG which is only present in the ordered phase. Let us assume the following symmetries for the order parameter. i) it is a c-tensor, i.e. antisymmetric under the time reversal operation and ii) it is a (real) [*[axial]{}*]{} tensor of first rank ( a pseudovector), i.e. $O_l$. In this case
$$\begin{aligned}
F = -\left[\,\chi_{ijkl}(T>T_N) \> H_i^\ast \> E_j \> E_k \> \right.
\nonumber \\ \left.
+\ \chi^\ast_{ijkl}(T>T_N) \> H_i \> E_j^\ast \> E_k^\ast
\,\right] \> O_l \label{example}\end{aligned}$$
would be a valid expression for the combined free-energy, where $\chi_{ijkl}(T>T_N)$ is the susceptibility tensor in the paramagnetic phase. The expression in the parenthesis indicates that the susceptibility is above the transition temperature $T_N$. It should be noted here that the free energy is a i-scalar, i.e., a scalar invariant under the time reversal operation. This implies that the susceptibility tensor in the paramagnetic phase has to be a polar i-tensor of fourth rank. Now, comparing Eq. (\[example\]) with Eq. (\[F\_MD\]), one would obtain the following relation between the SHG susceptibility and the order parameter:
$$\chi_{ijk}^{SHG}(T<T_N) = \chi_{ijkl}(T>T_N)\> O_{l}$$
It is clear from the above expression that from the knowledge of the order parameter and the symmetries of the susceptibility tensor [@bir] in the paramagnetic phase, it is possible to obtain all the non-zero components of the SHG susceptibility in the ordered phase. Moreover, the SHG susceptibility tensor below the transition temperature becomes directly proportional to the order parameter, which will ultimately manifest in the non-reciprocal optical effects in the system. In what follows, we examine this in detail for the cases of the magnetoelectric compound Cr$_2$O$_3$ and of the ferroelectric-antiferromagnetic material YMnO$_3$.
Cr$_2$O$_3$, in its paramagnetic phase (above $T_N\approx 307$ K), crystallizes in the centrosymmetric point group $\overline{3}m$. The unit cell contains four Cr$^{3+}$ ions, which occupy equivalent c-positions along the optical axis. This structure has a centre of inversion and parity considerations allow only axial i-tensors of odd rank and polar i-tensors of even rank. Thus, above $T_N$, SHG electric dipole effects are forbidden but magnetic dipole effects are allowed. Below $T_N$, the four spins in the unit cell order along the optical axis in a non-centrosymmetric AFM structure (the spin order being, up, down, up, down) which leads to two types of domains transformed into each other by time reversal symmetry. Both, space and time reversal symmetry operations are separately broken by the spin ordering but the combination of both the symmetries remains a symmetry of the crystal. The magnetic point group of Cr$_2$O$_3$ being $\underline{\overline{3}m}$ allows new tensors, i.e., polar c-tensors of odd rank and axial c-tensors of even rank. Thus, electric dipole effects due to polar c-tensors of odd rank are allowed below $T_N$.
In order to construct the nonlinear free energy for SHG, one needs to know the order parameter in Cr$_2$O$_3$. This can be achieved following Dzialoshinskii’s [@dzi] derivation for the Landau theory of second order phase transitions [@tol]. We assign a mean spin ${\bf S}_\beta$ ($\beta=1,2,3,4$) to each of the four Cr$^{3+}$ ions. Out of the ${\bf S}_\beta$ one can form the following linear combinations ${\bf m }$, ${\bf l_1}$, ${\bf l_2}$ and ${\bf l_3}$:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bf m} = {\bf S_1} + {\bf S_2} + {\bf S_3} + {\bf S_4} \nonumber \\
{\bf l_1} = {\bf S_1} - {\bf S_2} - {\bf S_3} + {\bf S_4} \nonumber \\
{\bf l_2} = {\bf S_1} - {\bf S_2} + {\bf S_3} - {\bf S_4} \nonumber \\
{\bf l_3} = {\bf S_1} + {\bf S_2} - {\bf S_3} - {\bf S_4} \end{aligned}$$
The components of the vectors ${\bf m}$ and ${\bf l_\alpha}$ ($\alpha=1,2,3$) can be classified according to the irreducible representations of the paramagnetic group $\overline{3}m$ as given in Table \[Table1\][@tol; @tinkham]. The components $m_z$, $l_{1z}$, $l_{2z}$, $l_{3z}$ transform according to the one-dimensional representations $A_{2g}$, $A_{1g}$, $A_{1u}$, $A_{2u}$ of the point group $\overline{3}m$. The $x$ and $y$ components of the vectors ${\bf m}$ and ${\bf l_1}$ transform according to the two-dimensional representation $E_g$; and the $x$ and $y$ components of the vectors ${\bf l_2}$ and ${\bf l_3}$ transform according to $E_u$. We make now the following key observation:
[*The order parameter of a magnet is given by that irreducible representation of the paramagnetic point group which is invariant under the symmetries of the magnetic group.*]{}
This statement can be considered as a generalization of von Neumann’s principle (see [@bir]) and follows from the observation that the thermodynamic expectation value of any combination of the constituent spins ${\bf S}_\beta$ which is not invariant under the magnetic group, i.e.$\underline{\bar3m}$ for the case of Cr$_2$O$_3$, can be shown to vanish identically. For Cr$_2$O$_3$ the irreducible representation which is invariant under $\underline{\bar3m}$ is $A_{1u}$, i.e. $l_{2z}$.
Thus, the order parameter for Cr$_2$O$_3$, which is the staggered magnetization constructed from $l_{2z}$ is a c-axial scalar. The description given by $l_{2z}$ corresponds to a collinear ordering (up,down,up,down) which is the spin ordering in Cr$_2$O$_3$. Now, we can write down the free energy due to the electric dipole contribution as,
$$\begin{aligned}
F = -\left[\,\chi_{ijk}(T>T_N)\> E_i^\ast \> E_j \> E_k \right.
\nonumber \\ \left.
+\ \chi^\ast_{ijk}(T>T_N)\> E_i \> E_j^\ast \> E_k^\ast
\,\right]\> l_{2z}
\label{f1} \end{aligned}$$
and therefore the SHG susceptibility tensor can be obtained as,
$$\chi_{ijk}^{SHG}(T<T_N) =\chi_{ijk}(T>T_N)\> l_{2z}~.
\label{chishg}$$
i.e. a c-polar tensor of third rank is obtained from the tensorial product of an i-axial tensor of third rank with a c-axial scalar (or pseudoscalar). Since the susceptibility tensor $\chi_{ijk}$ above $T_N$ is an i-axial tensor of third rank, we know all the non-zero components from the symmetry analysis [@bir]. Thus, using Eq. (\[chishg\]), one obtains all the non-zero components of the SHG $\chi$, which are, $\chi_{yyy}= -\chi_{yxx}= -\chi_{xyx}
=-\chi_{xxy}$. Furthermore, the symmetry of $\chi(T>T_N)$ in the paramagnetic phase dictates that $\chi^{SHG}(T<T_N)$ is linearly dependent on the order parameter, which is the reason why one observes the AFM domains through SHG in Cr$_2$O$_3$.
The second example we want to illustrate is YMnO$_3$. YMnO$_3$ is a ferroelectromagnetic material whose crystal structure above the Curie temperature $T_c\approx 913 K$ is presumably centrosymmetric and described by the point group $6/mmm$. The elementary unit cell contains six Mn$^{3+}$ ions. Below $T_c$, YMnO$_3$ orders ferroelectrically and the charge ordering breaks inversion symmetry. The YMnO$_3$ structure is then described by the non-centrosymmetric point group $6mm$. The vector ${\bf P}^{(SP)}=(0,0,{P_z}^{(SP)})$ of spontanous polarization is directed along the six-fold z-axis. The magnetic properties of YMnO$_3$ arise from the manganese ions Mn$^{3+}$ in the high spin state $S=2$. Below the Néel temperature, $T_N\approx 74 K$, the spins of the six Mn$^{3+}$ ions in the unit cell are ordered antiferromagnetically in a triangular structure perpendicular to the polar axis. The crystallographic, magnetic and electric properties of the hexagonal YMnO$_3$ and the other rare-earth manganites were studied in the sixties and the related data are available in [@lan]. New data concerning dielectric, magnetic, infrared and Raman studies have been also reported recently [@hua; @ili].
In the electric dipole approximation, SHG is allowed in YMnO$_3$ below $T_c$ due to the inversion symmetry breaking by the ferroelectric ordering of charges [@fro]. Thus, from the symmetry of the susceptibility tensor in the paraelectric phase and that of the order parameter which is the spontaneous polarization $P_z^{(SP)}$ along the six-fold axis, one should be able to write down a free energy like Eq. (\[f1\]). $6/mmm$ is centrosymmetric, which implies that in the paraelectric phase only polar tensors of even rank and axial tensors of odd rank are allowed. $P_z^{(SP)}$ is an i-polar first rank tensor (vector) directed along $z$. Therefore, in order to obtain an i-polar third rank tensor in the ferroelectric phase which should describe the SHG electric dipole contribution, only contractions of the $6/mmm$ symmetry polar tensors with odd powers of the order parameter are allowed. In the lowest order, the free energy can be written as,
$$\begin{aligned}
F = -\left[\,\chi_{ijkz}(T>T_c) \> E_i^\ast \> E_j \> E_k
\label{F_YMO_FE} \right. \\ \left.
+\chi^\ast_{ijkz}(T>T_c) \> E_i \> E_j^\ast \> E_k^\ast
\,\right] \> P_z^{(SP)}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
such that the SHG susceptibility tensor in the ferroelectric phase is obtained as,
$$\chi_{ijk}^{SHG}(T_c>T>T_N) = \chi_{ijkz}(T>T_c) \> P_z^{(SP)}~.
\label{chi_YMO_FE}$$
Here the susceptibility tensor $\chi_{ijkl}$ above the Curie temperature $T_c$, i.e. in the paraelectric phase, is an i-polar tensor of fourth rank. Now, from the symmetry analysis [@bir] of this tensor, one gets the non-zero components of $\chi(T>T_c)$ in the paraelectric phase which when contracted with the order parameter give rise to all the non-zero components of $\chi^{SHG}$ in the ferroelectric phase, i.e., $\chi_{zzz}$ and $\chi_{xxz}(3) = \chi_{yyz}(3)$ ((3) denotes all possible permutations of the 3 indices). Moreover, it follows from the above expression that the SHG susceptibility in the ferroelectric phase is a linear function of the ferroelectric order parameter.
As already mentioned earlier, YMnO$_3$ belongs to the crystal class $6mm$ in the ferroelectric phase. Below $T_N$, the six magnetic ions in the unit cell order antiferromagnetically and perpendicular to the six-fold axis, i.e. three spins are arranged in a triangular structure on planes normal to the six-fold axis and separated from each other by a distance equal to half the lattice period along the hexagonal axis. The magnetic ordering in this material is non-collinear but coplanar and can be determined from the exchange interactions among the spins only, similar to that in Cr$_2$O$_3$. The corresponding magnetic group is $\underline{6}m\underline{m}$. Following Nedlin [@ned] and Pashkevich [*[et al.]{}*]{} [@pas], we consider the following linear combinations of spins:
$$\begin{aligned}
{\bf s} = {\bf S_1} + {\bf S_2} + {\bf S_3} + {\bf S_4} + {\bf S_5} +
{\bf S_6} \nonumber \\
{\bf l} = {\bf S_1} + {\bf S_2} + {\bf S_3} - {\bf S_4} - {\bf S_5} -
{\bf S_6} \nonumber \\
{\bf \tau_1} = {\bf S_1} - \omega^{\ast} {\bf S_2} - \omega {\bf S_3}
- {\bf S_4} + \omega^{\ast} {\bf S_5} + \omega {\bf S_6} \nonumber \\
{\bf \tau_2} = - {\bf \tau_1}^{\ast} \nonumber \\
{\bf \sigma_1} = {\bf S_1} - \omega^{\ast} {\bf S_2} - \omega {\bf S_3}
+ {\bf S_4} - \omega^{\ast} {\bf S_5} - \omega {\bf S_6} \nonumber \\
{\bf \sigma_2} = {\bf \sigma_1}^{\ast}~,
\label{sde}\end{aligned}$$
where $\omega^{\ast}$ is the complex conjugate of the phase factor $\omega= e^{i\pi/3}$. The magnetic irreducible representations are given by some linear combinations $\psi$ of the spin components (see Table \[Table2\]). Since the spin ordering is coplanar, $\psi$ may easily be expressed in terms of the components of the vectors ${\bf s}$, ${\bf l}$, ${\bf \tau}$ and ${\bf \sigma}$ written in the cyclic coordinate frame [@ned; @pas] as follows.
$${\bf s} = e^{-} s^{+} + e^{+} s^{-} + e_z s^z~,$$
where $s^{\pm} = s^{x}\pm i s^{y}$ and similarly for ${\bf l}$, ${\bf \tau}$ and ${\bf \sigma}$. Here the ${e_i}$’s are the unit vectors along the axes of the crystal coordinate frame (the z-axis coincides with the six-fold axis of the crystal lattice).
From Table \[Table2\] we learn that $\psi_1, \cdots,\psi_4$ transform according to the one-dimensional representations $A_1$, $A_2$, $B_1$ and $B_2$ whereas $\psi_5$ and $\psi_6$ transform according to the two-dimensional irreducible representations $E_1$ and $E_2$ of the paramagnetic and ferroelectric group $6mm$. The irreducible representation which remains invariant under all symmetry elements of the magnetic group $\underline{6}m\underline{m}$ is B$_1$, therefore $\psi_3$ is a good candidate to be defined as the antiferromagnetic order parameter [@pas] for YMnO$_3$.
$\psi_3$ is a complicated combination of the spin components of the six ions in the unit cell. Let us build a more intuitive object which belongs to the same $B_1$ irreducible representation and where not only spin components but also vector components are introduced, whose physical interpretation may be that of a local field on each Mn$^{3+}$ ion. Thus, similar to the spins ${\bf S_1}
\cdots {\bf S_6}$, one can introduce i-polar vectors ${\bf V_1}
\cdots {\bf V_6}$ (which might correspond to local planar displacements of the Mn$^{3+}$ ions) and form the linear combinations ${\bf p}$, ${\bf q}$, ${\bf \eta}$ and ${\bf \rho}$ analogous to ${\bf s}$, ${\bf l}$, ${\bf \tau}$ and ${\bf \sigma}$ in Eq. (\[sde\]). These linear combinations of the i-polar vectors also follow the irreducible representations of the spatial group $6mm$ . From the direct product representations of the spin pseudovectors and that of the i-polar vectors (which of course is reducible), one obtains the following combination $\Lambda=\sigma_1^{+}\eta_2^{-} +
\sigma_2^{-}\eta_1^{+}$ which becomes invariant under all the symmetry operations of the magnetic group. Thus $\Lambda$ should be equivalent to $\psi_3$ in the sense that they belong to the same irreducible one dimensional representation. Furthermore, from the generating matrices of the magnetic group, one can also construct an invariant c-axial quantity in lowest order, which in the present case is a tensor of rank three, $R_3$ (in $\underline{6}m\underline{m}$, all the c-axial tensors of rank smaller than three vanish). Now expanding the free energy in terms of $R_3$ one obtains in lowest order,
$$\begin{aligned}
F = -\left[\,\chi_{ijklmn}(T>T_N) \> E_i^\ast \> E_j \> E_k
\nonumber \right.\\ \left.
+\ \chi^\ast_{ijklmn}(T>T_N) \> E_i \> E_j^\ast \> E_k^\ast
\,\right] \> R_{lmn} \end{aligned}$$
and thus the SHG susceptibility tensor can be obtained as,
$$\chi_{ijk}^{SHG}(T<T_N) = \chi_{ijklmn}(T>T_N)\> R_{lmn}
\label{SHG_YMO}$$
It should be noted that the c-axial tensor $R_3$ has only one independent component, i.,e., $R_{yyy}=-R_{xxy}(3)$ which can be identified as the order parameter discussed above. Performing the sum over $l$, $m$ and $n$ in Eq. (\[SHG\_YMO\]) explicitly we then obtain an alternative expression for the allowed matrix elements contributing to SHG in the antiferromagnetic phase as
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{ijk}^{SHG}(T<T_N)\ =\qquad\qquad \label{ED_YMO} \\
\left[\, \chi_{ijkyyy}(T>T_N)-\chi_{ijkxxy}(T>T_N)
\nonumber \right.\\ \left.
-\chi_{ijkxyx}(T>T_N)
-\chi_{ijkyxx}(T>T_N)\, \right]\> \psi_3 \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
Thus, from the symmetry properties of the sixth rank i-axial tensor $\chi_{ijklmn}$ above $T_N$ [@fies], together with Eq. (\[ED\_YMO\]), we get all the non-zero components of the SHG susceptibility tensor for $T<T_N$, which are, $\chi_{xxx}^{SHG}=-\chi_{yyx}^{SHG}
=-\chi_{yxy}^{SHG}=-\chi_{xyy}^{SHG}$ (as one can easily verify, see [@fies]).
Since YMnO$_3$ is characterized by two order parameters, one for the paraelectric-ferroelectric transition and the other for the paramagnetic-antiferromagnetic transition, it is natural to ask about the coupling between them. We observe here that the SHG tensor in the antiferromagnetic phase, as given by Eq. (\[ED\_YMO\]), is directly proportional to the even-rank i-axial tensor $\chi_{ijklmn}$ which is not allowed in the high-temperature group $6/mmm$ for $T>T_c$, which is centrosymmetric. $\chi_{ijklmn}$ need therefore to be proportional to the ferroelectric order parameter (compare Eq. (\[F\_YMO\_FE\]) and Eq. (\[chi\_YMO\_FE\])):
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{ijklmn}(T>T_N)\ =\ \chi_{ijklmnz}(T>T_c)
\> P_z^{(SP)}~, \label{coupling} \end{aligned}$$
where $\chi_{ijklmnz}$ is an i-axial tensor of rank seven which is allowed in $6/mmm$. Comparing Eq. (\[coupling\]) with Eq. (\[ED\_YMO\]) we find immediately:
$$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{ijk}^{SHG}(T<T_N) = \chi_{ijklmnz}(T>T_c)
\> R_{l,m,n} \> P_z^{(SP)} \ = \nonumber\\
\left[\, \chi_{ijkyyyz}(T>T_c)-\chi_{ijkxxyz}(T>T_c)
\qquad\qquad\nonumber \right.\\ \left.
-\chi_{ijkxyxz}(T>T_c)
-\chi_{ijkyxxz}(T>T_c)\, \right]\> \psi_3\>P_z^{(SP)}~.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
It is therefore possible to derive all the components of the SHG susceptibility tensor below $T_N$ from the non-zero components of $\chi_{ijklmno}$ together with both the order parameters. It is also clear from the above equation that the SHG susceptibility below $T_N$ is directly proportional to the bilinear combination of both order parameters which in principle, could be verified from experiments.
The method described in the present manuscript to study the nonreciprocal optical effects in the magnetic materials through SHG is purely phenomenological and based on symmetry considerations. Therefore, it should be possible to generalize this phenomenology to other hexagonal rare-earth manganites RMnO$_3$ where R=Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu etc.
In conclusion, we summarize the main findings of the present paper. A phenomenological Ginzburg-Landau theory has been developed for second harmonic generation in materials which undergo one or more phase transitions by expanding the free energy in terms of the order parameter/s and the susceptibility tensor in the high-temperature phase. We have shown how to obtain explicitly the SHG susceptibility components as a function of certain susceptibility tensors allowed in the high-temperature phase and of the order-parameter. We have carried through this prescription for the magnetoelectric compound Cr$_2$O$_3$ as well as for the ferroelectric-antiferromagnetic material YMnO$_3$. We also argue that this analysis can be extended to the other hexagonal rare-earth manganites.
The authors would like to acknowledge several discussions with D. Fröhlich, R. V. Pisarev, St. Leute, Th. Lottermoser, C. Reimpell and M. Fiebig. This work is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Graduiertenkolleg “Festkörperspektroskopie”.
E-mail: [email protected]
Y. R. Shen, [*“The Principles of Non-linear Optics”*]{}, Wiley, New York (1984).
B. B. Krichevtsov, V. V. Pavlov, R. V. Pisarev and V. N. Gridnev, J. Phys. Cond. Matter [**5**]{}, 8233, (1993).
M. Fiebig, D. Fröhlich, B. B. Krichevtsov, and R. V. Pisarev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 2127, (1994).
M. Fiebig, D. Fröhlich and G. Sluyterman v. L., Appl. Phys. Lett. [**66**]{}, 2906, (1995).
V. N. Muthukumar, R. Valenti and C. Gros, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 2766, (1995), Phys Rev. [**B 54**]{}, 433, (1996).
Y. Tanabe, M. Muto and E. Hanamura, Solid State Comm. [**102**]{}, 643 (1997); M. Muto, Y. Tanabe, T. Iizuka-Sakano and E. Hanamura, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 9586 (1998).
V. L. Ginzburg and L. D. Landau, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**20**]{}, 1064 (1950).
P. S. Pershan, Phys. Rev. [**130**]{}, 919, (1963).
J. C. Tolédano and P. Tolédano, [*“The Landau Theory of Phase Transitions”*]{}, World Scientific, Singapore (1987).
R. R. Birss, [*“Symmetry and Magnetism”*]{}, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1966). I. E. Dzialoshinskii, Sov. Phys. JETP, [**5**]{}, 1259, (1957).
M. Tinkham, [*“Group Theory and Quantum Mechanics”*]{}, McGraw-Hill (1964).
Landolt-Börnstein, [*“Numerical data and Functional Relationships, New Series, III/16a”*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1981).
Z. J. Huang, Y. Cao, Y. Y. Sun, Y. Y. Xue and C. W. Chu, Phys. Rev. [**B 56**]{}, 2623, (1997).
M. N. Iliev, N. -G. Lee, V. N. Popov, M. V. Abrashev, A. Hamed, R. L. Meng and C. W. Chu, Phys. Rev. B [**56**]{}, 2488, (1997).
D. Fröhlich, St. Leute, V. V. Pavlov and R. V. Pisarev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3239, (1998).
G. M. Nedlin, Sov. Phys. Sol. St. [**6**]{}, 2156, (1965).
Yu. G. Pashkevich, V. L. Sobolev, S. A. Fedorov and A. V. Eremenko, Phys. Rev. [**B 51**]{}, 15898, (1995).
R. Fieschi and F. G. Fumi, Nouvo Cimento [**10**]{}, 865, (1953).
$$\begin{array}{r|c|}
&\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Irreducible \>\> Representations}\\
%\cline{2-4}
%& z & y & x \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
A_{2g}\ &
\begin{array}{c} {m_z}
\end{array} \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
A_{1g}\ &
\begin{array}{c} {l_{1z}}
\end{array} \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
A_{1u}\ &
\begin{array}{c} {l_{2z}}
\end{array} \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
A_{2u}\ &
\begin{array}{c} {l_{3z}}
\end{array} \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
E_g\ &
\left(\begin{array}{c} {m_x}, {m_y} \\
{l_{1x}}, {l_{1y}}
\end{array}\right) \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
E_u\ &
\left(\begin{array}{c} {l_{2x}}, {l_{2y}} \\
{l_{3x}}, {l_{3y}}
\end{array}\right) \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
$$\begin{array}{r|c|c|}
&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Irreducible \>\> Representations}\\
%\cline{2-4}
%& z & y & x \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
A_1\ &
\begin{array}{c} \psi_1 = -(\tau_1^{-}+\tau_2^{+})
\end{array} \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
A_2\ &
\begin{array}{c} \psi_2 = (\tau_1^{-} - \tau_2^{+}) \\
\psi_2^\prime = s^z
\end{array} \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
B_1\ &
\begin{array}{c} \psi_3 = (\sigma_1^{-} + \sigma_2^{+}) \\
\psi_3^\prime = l^z
\end{array} \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
B_2\ &
\begin{array}{c} \psi_4 = (-\sigma_1^{-} + \sigma_2^{+})
\end{array} \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
E_1\ &
\begin{array}{c} ({\psi_{5,I} = s^{+},
\psi_{5,II} = s^{-}}) \\
({\psi_{5,III} = \sigma_2^{-},
\psi_{5,IV} = \sigma_1^{+}}) \\
({\psi_{5,V} = \tau_1^z,
\psi_{5,VI} = -\tau_2^z})
\end{array} \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
E_2\ &
\begin{array}{c} ({\psi_{6,I} = l^{+},
\psi_{6,II} = l^{-}}) \\
({\psi_{6,III} = -\tau_2^{-},
\psi_{6,IV} = \tau_1^{+}}) \\
({\psi_{6,V} = \sigma_1^z,
\psi_{6,VI} = -\sigma_2^z})
\end{array} \\
%& \phantom{,}& & \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'A.V.Dodin, S.A.Lamzin'
date: ' *Sternberg Astronomical Institute of Lomonosov Moscow State University, Universitetskij pr. 13, Moscow, 119992 Russia [^1]* '
title: 'On the nature of veiling of classical T Tauri stars spectra in the near-IR spectral band.'
---
PACS numbers: 97.10.Ex; 97.10.Qh; 97.21.+a; 97.82.Jw
Keywords: stars – individual: BP Tau, CW Tau – T Tauri stars – spectra – infrared excess.
Abstract {#abstract .unnumbered}
========
It is shown that the existence of a hot accretion spot on the surface of classical T Tauri stars allows to explain observed veiling of their photospheric spectrum not only in the visible but also in the near infrared spectral band.
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
Classical T Tauri stars (CTTS) are young ($t<10^{7}$ yr), low mass $(M\leqslant 3\,M_\odot)$ stars at the stage of gravitational contraction towards the main-sequence, activity of which is caused by magnetospheric accretion of protoplanetary disc matter. It has long been known that the depths and equivalent widths of photospheric lines in the optical and ultraviolet spectra of T Tauri stars are smaller than that of main-sequence stars of the same spectral types. Recently this effect has been found in the near-infrared (NIR) spectral band – see Fischer et al. (2011) and references therein.
It is widely accepted that the veiling is caused by an additional continuous emission, which is formed in accretion hot spot on stellar surface due to heating of CTTS’s atmosphere by X-ray and EUV radiation of accretion shock. However Fischer et al. (2011) found that commonly used hot spot models of Calvet & Gullbring (1998), which assumed that the spot radiates in continuum only, cannot simultaneously explain the veiling at visible and NIR wavelengths because spot’s continuum emission flux dereases too rapidly if wavelength increasing. According to Muzerolle et al. (2003) emission of dust component of protoplanetary disk gives noticeable excess relative to the photospheric radiation only at wavelengths $\lambda > 2$ $\mu$m, so to explain observed veiling near 1 $\mu$m Fischer et al. (2011) have suggested that there is an additional source of the continuum emission with temperature 2500-5000 K.
Gahm et al. (2008) found from the analysis of highly veiled CTTS’s spectra that emission lines, which are formed in the accretion spot along with continuum, contribute significantly to decreasing of photospheric line’s depth. Dodin & Lamzin (2012) confirmed this discovery by theoretical modeling and also demonstrated that “veiling by lines” is important for both CTTS with high and small veiled spectra. Moreover they found that at given effective temperature of the star $T_{ef}$ the relative contribution of lines to veiling increases with decreasing of accretion flux, which is defined by the relation $F_{ac}=\rho_0 V_0^3/2,$ where $\rho_0$ and $V_0$ are pre-shock gas density and velocity respsectively.
Intensity of hot spot’s continuum emission in Dodin & Lamzin (2012) model decreases when one moves from visible to NIR spectral band as well as in the models of Calvet & Gullbring (1998). However wavelenght dependence of veiling by lines should be different, because it depends on gas temperature and density distribution in the stellar atmosphere heated by accretion shock radiation, as well as on parameters of individual lines, rather than on hot spot’s effective temperature. As the result dependence of the total (lines+continuum) veiling on wavelength in optical band becomes non-monotonic instead of monotonic in the case of veiling by continuum only – see Fig.7 in Dodin & Lamzin (2012).
If near-IR veiling is caused mostly by lines then it would allow to explain observed CTTS’s veiling at wavelengths near 1 $\mu$m, not involving an additional source of continuum emission. The aim of our work is to test this hypothesis.
The dependence of veiling on $\lambda$ at high and low accretion fluxes in the frame of homogeneous spot model. {#the-dependence-of-veiling-on-lambda-at-high-and-low-accretion-fluxes-in-the-frame-of-homogeneous-spot-model. .unnumbered}
===============================================================================================================
We will consider in this paper spectra of the system “star+round homogeneous spot”, calculated by methods, described by Dodin & Lamzin(2012). The only difference is that we consider here not only visible but also NIR spectral band, more precisely from 0.45 to 1.2 $\mu$m, i.e. up to maximum wavelength for which atomic data for spectral lines are aviable in the ATLAS package that we use. The expression “homogeneous spot” means that $V_0$ and $\rho_0$ values are assumed to be constant across the accretion flow. In what follows we will use pre-shock gas number density rather than gas density: $N_0\approx\rho_0/2.2\times10^{-24}.$
Remind that it is used to characterize the veiling by the quantity $$r_\lambda = {EW_0 \over EW}-1,$$ where $EW$ and $EW_0$ are equivalent widths of some photospheric line in spectra of CTTS and template star of the same spectral type respectively. To characterize veiling in some spectral region one presents $r_\lambda$-value avaraged over all absorption lines of this band.
[|c c|c c|c c|]{} & $\lambda$, [Å]{} & & $\lambda$, [Å]{}& & $\lambda$, [Å]{}\
TiI, MgI & 4783.3 & FeI & 6173.3 & FeI & 9173.2\
NiI, CrI & 4829.2 & CrI & 6330.1 & TiI & 9599.6\
FeI & 4903.3 & FeI, FeI & 6400.1 & TiI & 9832.1\
CrI, FeI & 4942.5 & CaI & 6462.6 & FeI & 9889.0\
TiI, FeI & 4991.1 & NiI & 6643.6 & TiI & 10003\
FeI, FeI & 5027.2 & TiI & 6743.1 & FeI & 10155\
FeI, CrI & 5139.5 & FeI & 6806.8 & FeI & 10167\
FeI, FeI & 5273.2 & AlI, CoI & 7084.9 & FeI & 10341\
FeI & 5391.5 & FeI & 7292.8 & CrI & 10486\
FeI & 5476.6 & CaI & 7326.2 & FeI & 10532\
CaI & 5598.5 & TiI, FeI & 7440.8 & TiI & 10662\
FeI, CrI & 5682.5 & FeI & 7583.8 & TiI & 10677\
FeI, FeI & 5762.7 & NiI & 7727.6 & TiI & 10775\
CrI, FeI & 5791.0 & TiI, TiI & 7978.8 & CrI & 11157\
CaI & 5857.5 & FeI & 8075.2 & CrI & 11339\
FeI & 5916.3 & MgI, FeI & 8310.9 & CrI & 11398\
FeI, TiI & 5952.9 & FeI & 8616.3 & FeI & 11422\
FeI & 6027.1 & CrI & 8976.9 & FeI & 11595\
TiI & 6085.2 & FeI & 9070.4 & TiI & 11797\
CaI & 6122.2 & CaI & 9099.1 & CaI & 11956\
We will demonstrate the contribution of emission lines to the total veiling on the example of two models: with relatively high and relatively low accretion flux $F_{ac}.$ These models reproduce (see Dodin et al., 2013 for details) 0.47-0.80 $\mu$m spectra of CW Tau and BP Tau with reasonable accuracy, such as it is the same spectra that Fischer et al. (2011) used for optical veiling measurements. They were observed on 2006 November 30 and were taken from Keck Observatory Archive http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu/koa/public/koa.php.
In the case of CW Tau the parameters of the model were the following: the effective temperature and the gravity of the star were $T_{ef}=4750$ K and $\log g = 4.0$, respectively; $N_0=10^{12}$ cm$^{-3}$, $V_0=350$ kms$^{-1}$, the relative area of the spot $f=0.20,$ the angle between spot’s symmetry axis and the line of sight $\alpha=0.$ This model is the example of a large spot (it occupies 40% of [*visible*]{} stellar hemisphere) with relatively low infall gas density $N_0$ and low accretion flux $\log F_{ac}\approx 10.7.$
We will see below (see also Dodin & Lamzin, 2012) that $r_\lambda$ strongly varies from one line to another, and therefore lines, used for veiling measurements, should be always specified. Unfortunately until now nobody does it, interpreting the scatter of $r_\lambda$-values of individual lines in the considered spectral band as a “random error” of measurements. We have choosen for our veiling measurements deep absorption lines (without any signs of emission core) from our model spectrum which practically coincides with observed one. The list of these lines is presented in the Table.
The dependence $r_\lambda (\lambda)$ that we calculated from CW Tau model spectrum is shown on Fig.\[lowfacc\]. As far as theoretical and observed spectra coincide in the optical band our $r_\lambda$-values in this range should be identical to that of Fischer et al. (2011) up to the choice of spectral lines used for veiling measurements, and they indeed do as can be seen from the figure. At the same time the NIR veiling [*predicted*]{} by the model is also practically coinsides with Fischer et al. data, who have measured the NIR veiling from the IR spectrum, observed simultaneously with the optical one.
![The veiling as function of wavelength in the model with the following parameters: $T_{ef}=4750$ K, $\log g = 4.0,$ $N_0=10^{12}$ cm$^{-1}$, $V_0=350$ kms$^{-1}$, $f=0.20$, $\alpha=0^o.$ The dots indicate the total veiling in the lines from the Table, while the solid line indicates the veiling due to the hot continuum only. The diamonds represent veiling measurements of CW Tau spectrum by Fisher et al. (2011). []{data-label="lowfacc"}](nirveilfig1.eps)
In addition to the total (line+continuum) veiling of the individual lines we plotted on the figure the curve, which indicates the veiling of photospheric lines caused by spot’s continuum emission only. It can be seen that in the considered case contribution of lines in decreasing of depth of photospheric lines is much larger than that of emission continuum, and it explains why values of $r_\lambda$ at 5000 [Å]{} and at 1 $\mu$m are practically the same in CW Tau spectrum.
We would like to pay attention to the important feature of the veiling by lines, which in fact consists of two components: 1) superposition of emission lines onto respective absorption lines of CTTS’s photosphere; 2) decreasing of surface of undisturbed photosphere due to the presence of a spot (cold or hot does not matter) or even due to eclipse of some part of stellar disk, for example by opaque dust cloud. The second effect is caused by the fact that the observed flux is the result of integration of radiation specific intensity over visible stellar hemisphere.
The removal of any part of the stellar surface from the integration region leads not only to decreasing of observed flux, but also to deformation of line’s profiles and to changing of their equivalent width due to differences in the limb darkening low in lines and continuum. For example we found that if to equate the intensity of spot’s radiation to zero in the CW Tau model, i.e. to replace the hot spot by the absolutely cold one, then the veiling for various lines will vary chaotically from -0.15 to +0.05 in the blue and from -0.05 to +0.25 in the IR spectral bands. Thus the radiations from the spot and the star should be summed up accurately, especially in the case of low veiling or in the case of possible presence of large cold or hot spots.
![ The veiling as function of wavelength in the model with the following parameters: $T_{ef}=4000$ K, $\log g = 3.5,$ $N_0= 10^{13}$ cm$^{-1}$, $V_0=350$ kms$^{-1}$, $f=0.01$, $\alpha=0^o.$ The dots indicate the total veiling of the lines from the Table, while the solid line indicates the veiling due to the hot continuum only. The diamonds represent veiling in BP Tau spectrum measured by Fisher et al. (2011). []{data-label="highfacc"}](nirveilfig2.eps)
As the second example consider the model with larger $F_{ac}$ value, which well reproduces the visual spectrum of BP Tau. The parameters of the model are the following: $T_{ef}=4000$ K, $\log g=3.5,$ $N_0=10^{13}$ cm$^{-3}$, $V_0=350$ kms$^{-1}$, $f=0.01,$ $\alpha=0^o.$ This model is the example of a small spot (it occupies only 2% of the [*visible*]{} stellar hemisphere), but with large pre-shock gas density $N_0$ and large accretion flux $\log F_{ac}\approx 11.7.$
It can be seen from Fig.\[highfacc\] that the model well reproduces the observed veiling in the range from 0.47 to 1.2 $\mu$m. Note that the IR spectrum of BP Tau, in which Fischer et al. have measured the veiling, was observed simultaneously with the optical one. In the case of BP Tau the veiling is caused predominantly by continuum emission, and therefore $r_\lambda$ almost monotonically decreases with wavelength. It would seem that Calvet & Gullbring (1998) model, which assumes that hot spot radiates in continuum only, could explain BP Tau observations, and therefore it is unclear why Fischer et al. (2011) who used this model, could not agree theory with observations.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
We have shown that if to calculate accretion hot spot spectrum taking into account not only continuum but also line emission and properly sum up contributions of the spot and undisturbed stellar photosphere then the observed veiling of CTTS spectra in the near-IR band can be explained without additional sources of veiling continuum.
Fischer et al. (2011) found that the shapes of $r_\lambda(\lambda)$ dependences in CTTS spectra can be very different. It follows from our consideration of homogeneous accretion spot models that in the case of a large spot with low $F_{ac}$ an average value of $r_\lambda$ is almost constant from 0.5 to 1.2 $\mu$m, and in the case of a small spot with high $F_{ac}$ the veiling drops rapidly with wavelength increasing. It means that models with inhomogenious distribution of $N_0$ and $V_0$ parameters across the spot can produce various shapes of $r_\lambda(\lambda)$ curves: from the almost flat veiling up to the veiling, which concentrated almost complitely in UV and visual spectral bands. Note that the real spots should certainly be inhomogeneous (Romanova et al., 2004).
We would like to note that neglecting with contribution of lines in veiling should lead to an error in estimation of interstellar extinction. Indeed to compensate hypothetical additional continuum emission it is necessary to increase its extinction. Apparently it is why Fisher et al. (2011) found that the extinction determined from IR spectra is systematically larger than that determined from optical ones.
We thank Dr. L.Ingleby and her colleagues, who drew your attention to the problem of near-IR veiling. This research has made use of the Keck Observatory Archive, which is operated by the W.M. Keck Observatory and the NASA Exoplanet Science Institute (NExScI), under contract with the the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. S.Dahm is the principal investigator of BP Tau and CW Tau observations, used in this paper. The work was supported by the Program for Support of Leading Russian Scientific Schools (NSh-5440.2012.2).
Calvet N. & Gullbring E. Astrophys. J. [**509**]{}, 802 (1998).\
\[0.15cm\]
Dodin A.V. & Lamzin S.A., Astron. Lett. [**38**]{}, 649 (2012)\
\[0.15cm\]
Dodin A.V., Lamzin S.A., Sitnova T.M., Astron. Lett. [**39**]{}, in press (2013) = arXiv:1302.1825\
\[0.15cm\]
Fischer W., Edwards S., Hillenbrand L., Kwan J. Astrophys. J. [**730**]{}, 73 (2011).\
\[0.15cm\]
Gahm G.F., Walter F.M., Stempels H.C., Petrov P.P., Herczeg G.J. Astron. Astrophys. [**482**]{}, L35 (2008).\
\[0.15cm\]
Muzerolle J., Calvet N., Hartmann L., D’Alessio P. Astrophys. J., [**597**]{}, 149 (2003).\
\[0.15cm\]
Romanova M.M., Ustyugova G.V., Koldoba A.V., Lovelace R.V.E. Astrophys. J., [**610**]{}, 920 (2004).
[^1]: Send offprint requests to: A. Dodin e-mail: dodin\[email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) is an 8-m optical ground-based telescope being constructed on Cerro Pachón in Chile. LSST will survey half the sky every few nights in six optical bands. The data will be transferred to NCSA and within 60 seconds they will be reduced using difference imaging techniques and detected transients will be announced to the community in the VOEvent format. Annual data releases will be made from all the data during the 10-year mission, with unprecedented depth of coadds and time resolution of catalogs for such a large region of sky. In this paper we present the current status of the data processing software, and describe how to obtain it.'
author:
- 'Tim Jenness,$^1$ for the LSST Data Management Team'
title: 'The LSST Data Processing Software Stack: Summer 2015 Release'
---
The Science Pipelines Software “stack”
======================================
The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope [LSST; @2008arXiv0805.2366I] will take about 15TB of image data per night and after ten years of operations will have 15petabytes of catalog data for the final data release and 0.5exabytes of image data[^1]. We are writing a suite of software packages to enable these data products to be created with sufficient quality and performance to meet the established science goals [@2009arXiv0912.0201L].
The science pipeline software will enable two key components of the data management system. The Alert Production pipelines (also known as *Level 1*) process the data from the telescope and publish alerts to the community within 60 seconds of data acquisition [@2014htu..conf...19K]. Data Release Production (*Level 2*) is responsible for the annual data releases which reprocess all the data each year to generate the best possible catalogs. Both these systems will be integrated with the Calibration Products Production that continuously calculates the best calibrations for the pipelines. The software will also provide a toolkit for user-supplied code that can be used to efficiently and effectively analyze LSST data as part of *Level 3* processing or their own pipelines. Full details of the data management applications design are detailed elsewhere [@O3-1_adassxxv; @LDM-151].
The LSST data management science pipelines software system, commonly referred to as the “stack”, is a collection of about 40 separate packages providing functionality such as data access libraries, data models representing exposures and catalogs, source detection algorithms, astrometry fitting, and photometry and measurement algorithms. The software is written in a mixture of Python and C++[^2], where the latter is used for CPU-intensive algorithms, or when the algorithms require access to complex data structures. The codebase consists of approximately 100,000 lines of Python and 110,000 lines of C++ (not including comment or blank lines and not counting expanded SWIG [see e.g. @beazley2003automated] interface code).
The science pipeline packages are namespaced (with an `lsst.`root) and grouped by their functionality. The core namespaces are defined as follows:
**daf**
: The Data Access Framework is responsible for mediating between the archive resources and the application writer. The pipeline code has a completely abstract view of file I/O and only has to know how to deal with data objects representing fundamental types such as exposures and tables. Currently FITS is the internal format but the system is designed such that the internal format could be changed to HDF5, for example, and no changes would have to be made to the science pipeline code. This abstraction of the files from the code protects us against shifts in community preferences such as those discussed in @2015ASPC..495...11M.
**afw**
: The Astronomy FrameWork provides the core classes for manipulating exposures and catalogs, including detecting sources and world coordinate handling.
**ip**
: These are the image processing classes, including packages for instrument signature removal and image differencing.
**meas**
: The measurement packages include code for determining source properties and correcting astrometry and photometry.
**obs**
: These classes provide instrument-specific knowledge to the software system, providing information to the data access framework to teach it how to interpret data from a range of optical cameras. The `obs` packages currently support data from some instruments on Subaru and CFHT, in addition to simulated LSST data. Work is ongoing to add support for DECam.
**pipe**
: Pipeline infrastructure and tasks. A task is the name for a core processing component that can be chained with other tasks to build a pipeline.
More details concerning the history behind the development of the LSST software can be found in @2010SPIE.7740E..15A.
Summer 2015 release
===================
Whilst the software is open source[^3] and can be installed at any time, LSST makes formal releases of the science pipeline software at the end of each six month development cycle in the spring and autumn. The most recent release covered the summer development cycle and was labeled *Summer 2015* and released in September 2015. Detailed release notes can be found online;[^4] here we provide a summary.
#### Multi-band processing for coadds
New command-line tasks have been added for consistent multi-band processing of coadds. This new data processing flow carefully combines source measurements taken in multiple bands to guarantee consistent deblending across all bands, including when carrying out forced photometry, thereby enabling reliable color measurement, and ensuring that all sources are measured in each band, regardless of the bands where they are detected.
#### Upgraded astrometry calculation
Previously astrometry was calculated using astrometry.net code [@2010AJ....139.1782L ascl:1208.001] and related catalogs distributed by LSST. To improve flexibility in the code the astrometry fitter is now pluggable and now includes an alternative implementation.
#### Support for PSFEx
PSFEx (ascl:1301.001) is currently the state of the art external package for point spread function (PSF) determination, used in projects such as DES [@2011ASPC..442..435B]. LSST wrappers were created such that PSFEx could be used as a plugin in place of the built in PSF determiner.
#### More efficient handling of large footprints
A footprint defines the pixels associated with a particular source or blended sources. This release saw significant improvements in performance when using very large footprints.
#### Enable use of deblended heavy footprints in coadd forced photometry
Given the new multi-band processing for coadds we now have a reference catalog that is consistent across all bands. This catalog allows the use of the source’s heavy footprints[^5] to replace neighbors with noise in forced photometry, thus providing deblended forced photometry and consistent deblending across all bands. This provides much better colors for blended objects as well as measurements for drop-out objects that do not get detected in the canonical band. This functionality has been enabled for forced coadd photometry.
#### Significant improvements in the table class
The AFW package has a native C++ implementation of a class for manipulating table data for handling the results of detection and measurement algorithms. This release comes with some major enhancements to the internals of `afw.table` and, in particular, much better support for compound fields (such as Right Ascension/Declination tuples).
#### Device independent displays
DS9 [@2011ASPC..442..633J ascl:0003.002] is no longer hard-wired into the software and the choice of display tool is now user configurable. The intention is for the next release to include support for the Firefly visualization tool [@O10-1_adassxxv].
Obtaining the software
======================
The software is known to work on CentOS 6 and 7, recent Debians and Mac OS X Yosemite and Mavericks (this release is known not to work on Mac OS X El Capitan due to interactions between library path environment variables and the new System Integrity Protection feature; this has been fixed in the current development version), with a C++11 compatible compiler such as GCC 4.8.3 or later, or Apple `clang` 6 . The recommended way to install the software from source is to use the `eups` distribution installation system [@EUPS]. Experimental binary releases have also been made available using a CernVM File System [CernVM-FS; @2015JPhCS.608a2031M]. Full details on both these options are available on the release notes page.
The Summer 2015 release of the LSST software stack is the result of the efforts of the many people who are part of the Data Management Team at LSST, as well as outside contributors. This material is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation through Cooperative Support Agreement (CSA) Award No. AST-1227061 under Governing Cooperative Agreement 1258333 managed by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA), and the Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515 with the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. Additional LSST funding comes from private donations, grants to universities, and in-kind support from LSSTC Institutional Members.
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, T., [Kantor]{}, J., [Lupton]{}, R. H., & [Pierfederici]{}, F. 2010, in Software and Cyberinfrastructure for Astronomy, edited by N. M. Radziwill, & A. Bridger, vol. 7740 of Proc. SPIE, 15
Beazley, D. M. 2003, Future Generation Computer Systems, 19, 599
, E. 2011, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, edited by I. N. [Evans]{}, A. [Accomazzi]{}, D. J. [Mink]{}, & A. H. [Rots]{}, vol. 442 of ASP Conf. Ser., 435
, Z., et al. 2008, ArXiv e-prints.
, W. 2011, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XX, edited by I. N. [Evans]{}, A. [Accomazzi]{}, D. J. [Mink]{}, & A. H. [Rots]{}, vol. 442 of ASP Conf. Ser., 633
Juric, M., et al. 2013, [LSST Data Management Applications Design]{}, LDM-151, <http://ls.st/LDM-151>
— 2016, in ADASS XXV, edited by N. P. F. Lorente, & K. Shortridge (San Francisco: ASP), vol. TBD of ASP Conf. Ser., TBD
, J. 2014, in The Third Hot-wiring the Transient Universe Workshop, edited by P. R. [Wozniak]{}, M. J. [Graham]{}, A. A. [Mahabal]{}, & R. [Seaman]{}, 19
, D., [Hogg]{}, D. W., [Mierle]{}, K., [Blanton]{}, M., & [Roweis]{}, S. 2010, , 139, 1782.
2009, ArXiv e-prints.
, R., [Blomer]{}, J., [Buncic]{}, P., [Ganis]{}, G., & [Heikkila]{}, S. 2015, Journal of Physics Conference Series, 608, 012031
, J., [Mann]{}, R. G., [Hanisch]{}, R., [Rots]{}, A., [Seaman]{}, R., [Jenness]{}, T., [Thomas]{}, B., & [O’Mullane]{}, W. 2015, in Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XXIV, edited by A. R. [Taylor]{}, & E. [Rosolowsky]{}, vol. 495 of ASP Conf. Ser., 11.
Padmanabhan, N., Lupton, R., & Loomis, C. 2015, [EUPS — a Tool to Manage Software Dependencies]{}, <https://github.com/RobertLuptonTheGood/eups>
Wu, X., Ciardi, D., Dubois-Felsmann, G., Goldina, T., Groom, S., Ly, L., & Roby, T. 2016, in ADASS XXV, edited by N. P. F. Lorente, & K. Shortridge (San Francisco: ASP), vol. TBD of ASP Conf. Ser., TBD
[^1]: <http://lsst.org/scientists/keynumbers>
[^2]: Currently we support Python 2.7 but intend to also support Python 3. We are also migrating the C++ codebase to C++11.
[^3]: <https://github.com/lsst>
[^4]: <https://community.lsst.org/t/268>
[^5]: A heavy footprint is a footprint that includes the pixel values.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'During the 2016 US elections Twitter experienced unprecedented levels of propaganda and fake news through the collaboration of bots and hired persons, the ramifications of which are still being debated. This work proposes an approach to identify the presence of organized behavior in tweets. The Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and Logistic Regression algorithms are each used to train a model with a data set of 850 records consisting of 299 features extracted from tweets gathered during the 2016 US presidential election. The features represent user and temporal synchronization characteristics to capture coordinated behavior. These models are trained to classify tweet sets among the categories: organic vs organized, political vs non-political, and pro-Trump vs pro-Hillary vs neither. The random forest algorithm performs better with greater than 95% average accuracy and f-measure scores for each category. The most valuable features for classification are identified as user based features, with media use and marking tweets as favorite to be the most dominant.'
author:
- 'Be[ğ]{}enilmi[ş]{}, E.[^1] and Üsküdarli, S.[^2]'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: Organized Behavior Classification of Tweet Sets using Supervised Learning Methods
---
[**Keywords:**]{} political propaganda, 2016 US presidential elections, organized behavior detection, supervised learning, social media analysis, Twitter
Acknowledgment {#sec:acknowledgment}
==============
This work is partially supported by the Turkish State Planning Organization (DPT) under the TAM Project, number 2007K120610. We thank the members of the Complex Systems Lab (SosLab) at the Computer Engineering Department of Bogazici Universitysupport for their support and constructive comments.
[^1]: Corresponding author. MS, Big Data Architect, OREDATA, Istanbul, Turkey. [email protected]. This work was done as part of his MS thesis in the Department of Computer Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
[^2]: PhD, Department of Computer Engineering and Complex Systems Research Laboratory, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
[**Is bimodality a sufficient condition for a first order phase transition existence?**]{}
[**K. A. Bugaev$^1$, A. I. Ivanytskyi$^1$, V. V. Sagun$^1$ and D. R. Oliinychenko$^2$**]{}\
[*$^1$Bogolyubov Institute for Theoretical Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine,*]{}\
[*Metrologichna str. 14$^b$, Kiev-03680, Ukraine*]{}\
[*$^2$Physical Engineering Training-and-Research Center, Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Acad.Vernadskoho Blvd. 36, Kiev-03680, Ukraine*]{}\
Introduction {#secintro}
============
During the last decade the studies of the nuclear liquid-gas phase transition (PT) stimulated both theoretical and experimental interest to the bimodal distributions [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07; @Bmodal:Lopez06; @Bmodal:Indra06; @Bmodal:Bruno08; @Bmodal:Indra09]. Moreover, some theoretical arguments [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07], although obtained approximately, which relate the bimodal distribution of a certain order parameter and the location of the Yang-Lee zeros [@YangLee:52] in a complex fugacity plane became so popular that nowadays the bimodality is considered as a signal of the first order PT in finite systems, whereas the opposite opinions [@Moretto:05; @Bmodal:Anti05; @FS:Bugaev07] are, in fact, ignored. The scheme connecting the bimodality and the Yang-Lee zeros [@Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm07] is so abstract and general that the authors failed even to discuss the physical origin of the bimodal distribution. However, in our opinion this is a crucial point, since in the nuclear physics experiments at intermediate energies one cannot get the purely statistical distributions of any observable because the process of collision is a dynamical one and, hence, we cannot account for or extract the dynamical fluctuations of the initial conditions, the fluctuations of the number of participating nucleons, or possible instabilities occurring during the course of the system expansion and/or freeze out. Moreover, it is not evident that the observed bimodal distributions are not generated by the imposed experimental cuts.
The authors of these theoretical scheme [@Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07] implicitly assumed that the measured distributions and the corresponding partition function of the dynamically evolving system produced in the nuclear reaction generated by the recipe of [@Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07] do, indeed, correspond to the equilibrium partition function of the original physical system. This assumption, however, cannot be justified without having a complete dynamical model which correctly describes the whole evolution of the system. Moreover, even, if one is able to completely account for the whole dynamical aspects of the system evolution and, thus, is able to extract the purely statistical distributions, then there is no guaranty that the suggested theoretical scheme [@Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07] will work without any additional conditions. For example, it is absolutely unclear what one should do, if the extracted statistical distributions do not correspond to the statistical ensemble of the physical system under consideration? For the macroscopic systems we do not have such a problem, since for the vast majority of systems all the statistical ensembles are equivalent and, hence, one can easily change them and choose the appropriate one. This, however, is not the case for finite or even small systems which are studied in the nuclear physics experiments.
The second typical mistake of Ref. [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07] and the similar schemes [@THill:1; @DGross:1] is that the authors of such schemes identify each local maximum of the bimodal distribution with a pure phase. Even in a famous textbook of T. Hill on thermodynamics of small systems [@THill:1] such an assumption is a corner stone of his treatment of PTs in finite systems. In contrast to the authors of the scheme [@Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07] Hill justified his assumption on bimodality by stating that due to the fact that an interface between two pure phases ’costs’ some additional energy, the probability of their coexisting in a finite system is less than for each of pure phases. We, however, should remind that the assumption on the pure phases existence in small system is taken from the examples of infinite systems, whereas for finite systems such an assumption cannot be justified. Moreover, the examples of the constrained statistical multifragmentation model (CSMM) [@Bugaev:CSMM05] and the gas of hadron bags model [@FS:Bugaev07] which are exactly solved for finite systems and which allow one to rigorously define analogs of phases for finite grand canonical systems, show that, in contrast, to assumptions of Refs. [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm07; @THill:1; @DGross:1], in finite systems the pure liquid phase cannot exist at finite pressures. Instead, it can appear only as a part of mixed phase which is represented by even number of thermodynamically metastable states [@Bugaev:CSMM05; @FS:Bugaev07].
Therefore, here we would like to give some counterexamples to the claims of Refs. [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm07; @THill:1] by considering the exact analytical solutions of the CSMM in the thermodynamic limit and for the finite volumes which lead to the bimodal fragment distributions inside of the cross-over region and inside of the gaseous phase. For this purpose we consider the CSMM with two new elements. The first of them is a more realistic equation of state for the liquid phase which, in contrast to the original SMM formulation [@SMM:Bondorf95; @SMM:Bugaev00; @Reuter:01], is a compressible one. The second important element of the present model is a more realistic parameterization for the temperature dependence of surface tension that is based on the exact analytical solution of the partition function of surface deformations [@HDM:Bugaev05; @HDM:Bugaev07]. Besides these two new elements allow us to study a realistic phase diagram of the CSMM both for finite systems and for infinite system.
The work is organized as follows. In sect. 2 we describe the new parameterization of the CSMM liquid phase pressure which repairs the two main pitfalls of the original SMM and allows one to consider the compressible liquid which has the tricritical endpoint at the phase diagram at the one third of the normal nuclear density. It is also shown that the bimodal fragment size distributions may appear at the supercritical temperatures due to negative values of the surface tension coefficient and without any PT. Sect. 3 is devoted to the analysis of finite systems using the exact solution of CSMM. In this section we demonstrate that the bimodal fragment size distribution is generated within the finite volume analog of the gaseous phase. Our conclusions are formulated in sect. 4.
CSMM with compressible nuclear liquid in thermodynamic limit {#secmodel}
============================================================
The general solution of the CSMM partition function formulated in the grand canonical variables of volume $V$, temperature $T$ and baryonic chemical potential $\mu$ is given by [@FS:Bugaev07; @Bugaev:CSMM05; @Bugaev:Thesis10; @Bugaev:Nucleation11] $$\label{EqI}
%
{\cal Z}(V,T,\mu)~ = \sum_{\{\lambda _n\}}
%
e^{\textstyle \lambda _n\, V }
%
{\textstyle \left[1 - \frac{\partial {\cal F}(V,\lambda _n)}{\partial \lambda _n} \right]^{-1} } \,,
%
%$$ where the set of $\lambda_n$ $(n=0,1,2, 3,..)$ are all the complex roots of the equation $$\label{EqII}
%
%
\lambda _n~ = ~{\cal F}(V,\lambda _n)\,,
%
%$$ ordered as $Re(\lambda_n) > Re(\lambda_{n+1})$ and $Im (\lambda_0) = 0$. The function ${\cal F}(V,\lambda)$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqIII}
%
&&\hspace*{-0.04cm}{\cal F}(V,\lambda) =
%
\left(\frac{m T }{2 \pi} \right)^{\frac{3}{2} } z_1
%
~ \exp \left\{ \frac{\mu- \lambda T b}{T} \right\} + \hspace*{-0.1cm} \sum_{k=2}^{K(V) }
%
\phi_k (T) \exp \left\{ \frac{( p_l(T,\mu)- \lambda T)b k }{T} \right\}
\,.
%\end{aligned}$$ Here $m \simeq 940$ MeV is a nucleon mass, $z_1 = 4$ is an internal partition (the degeneracy factor) of nucleons, $b = 1/ \rho_0 $ is the eigen volume of one nucleon in a vacuum ($\rho_0\simeq 0.17$ fm$^3$ is the normal nuclear density at $T=0$ and zero pressure). The reduced distribution function of the $k$-nucleon fragment in (\[EqIII\]) is defined as $$\label{EqIV}
%
\phi_{k>1} (T) \equiv \left(\frac{m T }{2 \pi} \right)^{\frac{3}{2} } k^{-\tau}\, \exp \left[ - \frac{\sigma (T)~ k^{\varsigma}}{T} \right]\,,
%$$ where $\tau \simeq 1.825$ [@Reuter:01] is the Fisher topological exponent and $\sigma (T)$ is the $T$-dependent surface tension coefficient. Usually, the constant, parameterizing the dimension of surface in terms of the volume is $\varsigma = \frac{2}{3}$, but in this work we would like to give the results for a wide range of its values, namely for $0 < \varsigma < 1$.
In (\[EqIII\]) the exponents $\exp( - \lambda b k)$ ($k=1,2,3,...$) appear due to the hard-core repulsion between the nuclear fragments [@Bugaev:CSMM05; @SMM:Bugaev00; @Bugaev:Thesis10], while $p_l(T,\mu)$ is the pressure of the liquid phase [@Bugaev:Thesis10; @Bugaev:Nucleation11]. As one can see from (\[EqIII\]) the nucleons are treated differently compared to larger fragments: they do not have the surface free energy and all the bulk free energy characteristics except for the baryonic charge which are encoded in the liquid phase pressure $p_l(T,\mu)$ (see later). In principle, the fragments with the mass below ten nucleon masses can be parameterized in a similar way [@SMM:Bondorf95; @Bugaev:Thesis10], but for the sake of simplicity we treat in this way the nucleons only. Such a treatment does not affect the properties of the phase diagram in the thermodynamic limit, since exclusion of any finite number of light fragments from the sums in (\[EqIII\]) does not affect the PT existence and its order [@Bugaev:CSMM05; @SMM:Bugaev00; @Bugaev:Thesis10].
Note also that the complex free energy density $-T {\cal F}(V,\lambda)$ [@Bugaev:CSMM05] of the present model contains neither the Coulomb energy nor the asymmetry energy. This assumption is similar to Refs. [@SMM:Bugaev00; @Reuter:01; @SMM:simple98] and allows us to study the nuclear matter properties in the thermodynamic limit. However, in contrast to Refs. [@SMM:Bugaev00; @Reuter:01; @SMM:simple98], the model free energy density $-T {\cal F}(V,\lambda)$ in (\[EqIII\]) contains the liquid phase pressure that can be chosen in a general form and the size of maximal fragment $K(V)$ that can be a desired function of the system volume $V$. However, in this section we consider the thermodynamic limit only, i.e. for $V \rightarrow \infty$ it follows $K(V) \rightarrow \infty$. Then the treatment of the model is essentially simplified, since Eq. (\[EqII\]) can have only two kinds of solutions [@SMM:Bugaev00; @Bugaev:CSMM05; @Bugaev:Thesis10], either the gaseous pole $p_g (T, \mu) = T \lambda_0 (T, \mu)$ for ${\cal F}(V,\lambda_0 - 0) < \infty$ or the liquid essential singularity $p_l (T, \mu) = T \lambda_0 (T, \mu)$ for ${\cal F}(V,\lambda_0 - 0) \rightarrow \infty$. The mathematical reason why only the rightmost solution $\lambda_0 (T, \mu) = \max \{Re(\lambda_n)\} $ of Eq. (\[EqII\]) defines the system pressure is evident from Eq. (\[EqI\]): in the limit $V \rightarrow \infty$ all the solutions of (\[EqII\]) other than the rightmost one are exponentially suppressed.
In the thermodynamic limit the model has a PT, when there occurs a change of the rightmost solution type , i.e. when the gaseous pole is changed by the liquid essential singularity or vice versa. The PT line $\mu = \mu_c (T)$ is a solution of the equation of ‘colliding singularities’ $p_g (T, \mu) = p_l (T, \mu) $ [@SMM:Bugaev00; @Bugaev:CSMM05; @Bugaev:Thesis10], which is just the Gibbs criterion of phase equilibrium. The properties of a PT are defined only by the liquid phase pressure $p_l (T, \mu)$ and by the temperature dependence of surface tension $\sigma(T)$, since the value of Fisher exponent $\tau = 1.825$ is fixed by the values of the critical indices of ordinary liquids [@Reuter:01] and by the experimental findings [@ISIS:99; @EOS:00].
In order to avoid the incompressibility of the nuclear liquid we suggest to consider the following simplest parameterization of its pressure $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqV}
%
p_l=\frac{ W(T) + \mu + a_2 ( \mu -\mu_0)^{2} + a_4 ( \mu -\mu_0)^{4}}{b} \,.
%\end{aligned}$$ Note that the above way to account for the nuclear liquid compressibility is fully consistent with the L. van Hove axioms of statistical mechanics [@VanHove; @VanHove2] and, hence, it does not lead to an appearance of the non-monotonic isotherms in the mixed phase region which are typical for the mean-field models. In [@Bugaev:Nucleation11] the liquid phase pressure was parameterized as a second order polynomial in the baryonic chemical potential. In our mind Eq. (\[EqV\]) is more favorable, since it allows one to easily get a correct value for the nuclear incompressibility factor for a normal nuclear liquid. In Eq. (\[EqV\]) $ W(T) = W_0 + \frac{T^2}{W_0}$ denotes the usual temperature dependent binding energy per nucleon [@SMM:Bondorf95; @SMM:Bugaev00] with $W_0 = 16$ MeV and the constants $\mu_0$, $a_2$ and $a_4 >0$. In principle, these constants should be fixed in the way to reproduce the properties of normal nuclear matter, i.e. at vanishing temperature $T=0$ and normal nuclear density $\rho = \rho_0$ the liquid pressure must be zero $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqVI}
W_0 + \mu_c(0) + a_2 ( \mu_c(0) -\mu_0)^{2} + a_4 ( \mu_c(0) -\mu_0)^{4} = 0\, ,
%\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu_c(0)$ is the baryonic chemical potential at the PT line taken at $T=0$. Finding the particle density of the liquid as $\rho_l=\frac{\partial p_l}{\partial\mu}$ $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqVII}
\rho_{l} (\mu)=\frac{1+ 2\, a_2\tilde \mu + 4\, a_4 \, \tilde \mu^{3}}{b}\, , \quad {\rm with} \quad \tilde \mu = \mu - \mu_0 \, ,
%\end{aligned}$$ one can get the equation for $\mu_c(0)$, i.e. from $ \rho_l (\mu_c(0)) = \rho_0$ it follows $2\, a_2\tilde \mu(0) + 4\, a_4 \, \tilde \mu(0)^{3} =0$, where the shifted chemical potential $\tilde \mu (0)$ is defined as $\tilde \mu (0) \equiv \mu_c (0) - \mu_0 $. Usually, an additional requirement to fix the nuclear liquid model parameters is related to the incompressibility factor of the normal nuclear matter [@MyEOS:93] which is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqVIII}
K_0 \equiv 9 \left( \frac{\partial p_l}{\partial \rho_l} \right)_{T=0} = \frac{9 (1+ 2\, a_2\tilde \mu(0) + 4\, a_4 \, \tilde \mu(0)^{3} )}{2\, a_2 + 12 \, a_{4}\, \tilde\mu(0)^{2}} \,.
%\end{aligned}$$ The present day experimental estimates for the incompressibility factor are $K_0^{exp} = 230 \pm 30$ MeV [@Kfactor:1; @Kfactor:2; @Kfactor:3; @Khan:2009], but the models with the typical value $K_0 = 300-360 $ MeV are also well known [@MyEOS:93; @Kfactor:3]. For instance, the Skyrme force model SIII, which is able to successfully describe the experimental properties of many nuclei [@Kfactor:3], has the value of the nuclear incompressibility factor $K_0 = 355$ MeV. Therefore, instead of describing exactly the present day values of the normal nuclear incompressibility factor and have many additional parameters, we prefer to keep the model as simple as possible, but to require that at the tricritical point the baryonic density is $\rho_{cep} = \rho_0/3$ which is typical for the liquid-gas PTs [@Stanley:71]. The latter generates the following equation for the shifted value of the baryonic chemical potential at the tricritical endpoint: $2\, a_2\tilde \mu_{cep} + 4\, a_4 \, \tilde \mu_{cep}^{3} = - \frac{2}{3}$, where $\tilde \mu_{cep} \equiv \mu_{cep} - \mu_0$.
Choosing $\mu_0 = - W_0 = - 16$ MeV, we obtain $\tilde \mu (0) = 0$ and, hence, the expressions (\[EqVI\]) and (\[EqVII\]) are essentially simplified, respectively, giving us $ \rho_l (\mu_c(0)) \equiv \rho_0$ and $K_0 = \frac{9}{2 \, a_2}$. Then, solving the phase equilibrium condition at the tricritical endpoint together with the condition on the baryonic density at this point, one can express both the coefficient $a_4$ and $\tilde \mu_{cep}$ in terms of $a_2$ and the pressure of gaseous phase $p_g (T_{cep}, \mu_{cep})$ taken at this point. Thus, one can express $K_0$, $\rho_l (\mu_c(T_{cep})) $ and $a_4$ in terms of $a_2$ and $p_g (T_{cep}, \mu_{cep})$. However, we found that for $K_0 < 350$ MeV the obtained values of the coefficient $a_4$ are negative which leads to an instability of nuclear liquid at very high baryonic densities. Therefore, in order to avoid these problems, we fixed $K_0 = 365$ MeV which leads to $a_2 \simeq 1.233 \cdot 10^{-2}$ MeV$^{-1}$ and $a_4 \simeq 4.099 \cdot 10^{-7}$ MeV$^{-3}$. Thus, the present model is able to repair the two major unrealistic features of the original SMM, namely, it provides one with a reasonable value for the nuclear liquid compressibility and with a physically motivated value for the baryonic density at the tricritical endpoint.
In addition to the new parameterization of the free energy of the $k$-nucleon fragment (\[EqIII\]) we propose to consider a more general parameterization of the surface tension coefficient $$\label{EqIX}
%
\sigma (T) = \sigma_0 \left| \frac{T_{cep} - T }{T_{cep}} \right|^\zeta {\rm sign} ( T_{cep} - T) ~,
%$$ with $\zeta = const \ge 1$, $T_{cep} =18$ MeV and $\sigma_0 = 18$ MeV the SMM [@SMM:Bondorf95]. In contrast to the Fisher droplet model [@Fisher:67] and the usual SMM [@SMM:Bondorf95], the CSMM surface tension (\[EqIX\]) is negative above the critical temperature $T_{cep}$. It is necessary to stress that there is nothing wrong or unphysical with the negative values of surface tension coefficient (\[EqIX\]), since $ \sigma (T)\, k^\varsigma$ in (\[EqIV\]) is the surface free energy of the fragment of mean volume $b \,k $ and, hence, as any free energy, it contains the energy part $e_{surf}$ and the entropy part $s_{surf}$ multiplied by temperature $T$ [@Fisher:67]. Therefore, at low temperatures the energy part dominates and the surface free energy is positive, whereas at high temperatures the number of fragment configurations with large surface drastically increases and it exceeds the Boltzmann suppression and, hence, the surface free energy becomes negative since $s_{surf} > \frac{e_{surf}}{T}$. Because of this reason the negative values of the surface tension coefficient were recently employed in a variety of exactly solvable statistical models for the deconfinement PT [@QGBSTM1; @QGBSTM2; @FWM:08; @Aleksei:11]. For the first time this fact was derived within the exactly solvable model for surface deformations of large physical clusters [@HDM:Bugaev05]. Very recently an important relation between the surface tension of large quark gluon bags and the string tension of two static color charges measured by the lattice QCD was derived [@String:10]. Based on such a relation it was possible to conclude that at high temperatures the surface tension coefficient of quark gluon bags should be negative [@String:10; @String:11].
![The phase diagram in $T-\mu$ plane. The first order PT occurs along the solid curves. Above the upper curve there exists the nuclear matter, while below the lower one there is an analog of the antinuclear matter. The vertical dashed lines show the second order PT and the black circles correspond to the tricritical endpoints marked by the digits 1 (nuclear matter) and 2 (antinuclear matter). A cross-over occurs along the dotted vertical line of the vanishing surface tension coefficient. []{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1.jpg){height="11.11"}
Furthermore, a thorough analysis of the temperature dependence of the surface tension coefficient in ordinary liquids [@KABScaling:06; @KABJGross:09] shows not only that the surface tension coefficient approaches zero, but, in contrast to the widely spread beliefs, for many liquids the full $T$ derivative of $\sigma (T)$ does not vanish and remains finite at $T_{cep}$: $\frac{d~ \sigma (T)}{d ~T} < 0$ [@KABScaling:06]. Therefore, just the naive extension of these data to the temperatures above $T_{cep}$ would lead to negative values of surface tension coefficient at the supercritical temperatures. On the other hand, if one, as usually, believes that $\sigma \equiv 0$ for $T >T_{cep} $, then it is absolutely unclear what physical process can lead to simultaneous existence of the discontinuity of $\frac{d~ \sigma}{d ~T}$ at $T_{cep}$ and the smooth behavior of the pressure’s first and second derivatives at the cross-over. Finally, the negative values of the surface tension at supercritical temperatures is the only known physical reason which prevents the condensation of smaller droplets into a liquid phase and, thus, it terminates the first order PT existence and degenerates it into a cross-over at these temperatures. Therefore, we conclude that negative values of the surface tension coefficient at supercritical temperatures are also necessary for ordinary liquids although up to now this question has not been investigated.
![ The phase diagram in $\rho-p$ plane. The grey areas show the mixed phases of the first order PTs. The isotherms are shown for $T=11, 16, 17, 18$ MeV from bottom to top. Negative density values correspond to an ‘antimatter’. For the densities $|\rho/\rho_0| \ge 1/3 $ at the isotherm $T = 18$ MeV there exists the second order PT. The tricritical endpoints are marked by the digits 1 (nuclear matter) and 2 (antinuclear matter). []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2.jpg){height="11.11"}
Similarly to the simplified SMM [@SMM:Bugaev00; @Reuter:01], for $T < T_{cep}$ the present model has the nuclear liquid-gas PT of the first order. However, as one can see from Fig. \[fig1\] in this region of temperatures the model has two first order PTs. The meaning of the second PT curve can be understood from Fig. \[fig2\]. At first glance a mathematical cause of an ‘antimatter’ appearance may look surprising since the gas pressure contains no fragments with negative baryonic charges. However, this is true for $\left| \frac{\tilde \mu}{T} \right| \ll 1$ only, while for $\left| \frac{\tilde \mu}{T} \right| \ge 1$ the main contribution in the liquid phase pressure $p_l$ in (\[EqV\]) is defined by the term $a_4 \tilde \mu^4$ and, hence its derivative with respect to $\mu$ determines a sign of the baryonic charge density of both a liquid phase and a gas of nuclear fragments. The letter can be seen from the charge density expression for the gaseous phase. Indeed, finding the $\mu$ derivative of the gaseous phase pressure $p_g = T \lambda_0 (T, \mu)$ from Eqs. (\[EqII\]) and Eqs. (\[EqIII\]), one finds the baryonic charge density of the gaseous phase as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqX}
%
&&\hspace*{-0.04cm}\rho_g = \frac{
%
\rho_0\, \left(\frac{m T }{2 \pi} \right)^{\frac{3}{2} } z_1
%
~ \exp \left\{ \frac{\mu- \lambda T b}{T} \right\} + \rho_l \, \sum_{k=2}^{\infty }
%
\phi_k (T) \, k\, \exp \left\{ \frac{( p_l(T,\mu)- p_g(T,\mu))b k }{T} \right\} }{1 +
\left(\frac{m T }{2 \pi} \right)^{\frac{3}{2} } z_1
%
~ \exp \left\{ \frac{\mu- \lambda T b}{T} \right\} + \sum_{k=2}^{\infty }
%
\phi_k (T) \, k\, \exp \left\{ \frac{( p_l(T,\mu)- p_g(T,\mu) )b k }{T} \right\}
} \,.
%\end{aligned}$$ From this expression one can see that, if the contribution of the nucleons (proportional to $z_1$) is small compared to the sum over other nuclear fragments, i.e. for $\left(\mu - b\, p_l(T,\mu) \right)/T < -1$, then the baryonic charge density of the gaseous phase is proportional to that one of liquid, i.e. ${\rm sign} \left[ \rho_g \right]= {\rm sign} \left[ \rho_l \right]$. Of course, one should not take this additional solution as a physical antinuclear matter, since the gas pressure of the present model contains only the nuclear fragments with the charges $k =1, 2, 3, ...$ that stay in front of the nonrelativistic value of the baryonic chemical potential $\mu$ and does not contain any terms with an opposite value of $\mu$. It is clear that in a relativistic treatment one would have the symmetry with respect to the charge conjugation $\mu_{rel} \leftrightarrow -\mu_{rel}$ for the relativistic baryonic chemical potential $\mu_{rel} \equiv m + \mu$. Nevertheless, it is a remarkable fact, that the simplest way to account for the nuclear liquid compressibility which is consistent with the L. van Hove axioms of statistical mechanics [@VanHove; @VanHove2] automatically leads to an appearance of an additional state that in many respects resembles the physical antinuclear matter.
![Fragment size distribution in the gaseous phase is shown for a fixed temperature $T = 13$ MeV and two values of the baryonic chemical potential $\mu$. The number of nucleons in a fragment is $k$. The larger value of $\mu$ corresponds to the gaseous state at the phase boundary with the mixed phase. The calculations were made for the largest fragment of $K(V) = k_{M}= 7000$ nucleons. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3.jpg){height="11.11"}
Also Eq. (\[EqX\]) clearly shows that at the phase equilibrium, i.e. for the same pressure, the baryonic densities of gaseous and liquid phases differ, if the sum staying both in numerator and in denominator of (\[EqX\]) is not divergent. This is possible, either for positive values of the surface tension coefficient $\sigma(T) > 0$ and any positive value $\tau >0 $ or, alternatively, for $\sigma(T) = 0$ and $\tau > 2$. In either of these two cases there is a first order PT. If, however, $\sigma(T) = 0$ and $\tau \le 2$, which is the case for the present model at $T=T_{cep}$, then for some values of the chemical potential one has $\rho_g (T_{cep}, \mu_{cep}) = \rho_l (T_{cep}, \mu_{cep}) $ and the sums in (\[EqX\]) diverge. Then at these points there exists a PT of higher order. The analysis of higher order derivatives of gaseous pressure made similarly to [@QGBSTM1] shows that for $2 \ge \tau > \frac{3}{2}$ at the critical endpoint of this model there exists a second order PT. In the present model a second order PT exists not only at the critical endpoints, but at the two lines in the $T-\mu$ plane along which the surface tension is zero (see the two vertical dashed lines in Fig. \[fig1\]). Therefore, the both critical endpoints of the present model are the tricritical endpoints. This feature is similar to the simplified SMM [@SMM:Bugaev00; @Reuter:01] and it is robust for $\tau =1.825$, whereas as one can see from Fig. \[fig2\] the second order PTs of this model are not located at the constant density as in the simplified SMM. Finally, for the supercritical temperatures the surface tension (\[EqIX\]) is negative and, hence, the phase equilibrium is not possible in this case [@SMM:Bugaev00; @Reuter:01; @Bugaev:Thesis10].
Now we would like to study the fragment size distribution in two regions of the phase diagram in order to elucidate the role of the negative surface tension coefficient. In order to demonstrate the pitfalls of the bimodal concept of Refs. [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07; @THill:1] we study only the gaseous phase and the supercritical temperature region, where there is no PT by construction. As one can see from Fig. (\[fig3\]) in the gaseous phase, even at the boundary with the mixed phase, the size distribution is a monotonically decreasing function of the number of nucleons in a fragment $k$. The found distributions are very similar to those one shown in Fig. 5 of [@SMM:12] for comparable temperatures. As one can see from Fig. \[fig3\] for small fragments the distribution is almost power-like one (notice the double logarithmic scale in Fig. \[fig3\]), while for larger fragments the deviation from a pure power law is seen. No bimodal distribution is found in this case, although in actual simulations we used $K(V) = k_{M}= 7000$ nucleons.
![Fragment size distribution in the gaseous phase is shown for a fixed baryonic chemical potential $\mu = -27.5$ MeV and three values of the temperature $T$. The legend is similar to Fig. \[fig3\]. The dotted curve in this figure corresponds to the solid curve in Fig. \[fig3\]. []{data-label="fig4"}](Fig4.jpg){height="11.11"}
![Fragment size distribution in the gaseous phase is shown for a fixed temperature $T = 20$ MeV and several values of the baryonic chemical potential $\mu$. The legend is similar to Fig. \[fig3\]. The principal difference with the distributions shown in Fig. \[fig3\] is the presence of negative surface tension coefficient. Note that the shown fragment size distributions demonstrate a nonmonotonic dependence on the baryonic chemical potential.[]{data-label="fig5"}](Fig5.jpg){height="11.11"}
However, for the supercritical temperatures one finds the typical bimodal fragment distribution for a variety of temperatures and chemical potentials as one can see from Figs. \[fig4\] and \[fig5\]. It is necessary to stress that by construction at this region the phase equilibrium is impossible due to negative surface tension coefficient, but the fragment distribution is bimodal and it very closely resembles the weighted fragment size distributions found for the lattice gas model in [@Bmodal:Gulm07] shown there in Fig. 5 and considered by the author of [@Bmodal:Gulm07] as a clear PT signal in a finite system. The bimodal distributions of the present model consist of three elements: there is a sharp peak at low $k$ values, then at intermediate fragment sizes there exists a local minimum, while at large fragment sizes there is a wide maximum. A sharp peak reflects a fast increase of the probability density of dimers compared to the monomers (nucleons), since the latter do not have the binding free energy and the surface free energy and, hence, the monomers are significantly suppressed in this region of thermodynamic parameters. On the other hand it is clear that the tail of fragment distributions in Figs. \[fig4\] and \[fig5\] decreases due to the dominance of the bulk free energy and, hence, the whole structure at intermediate fragment sizes is due a competition between the surface free energy and two other contributions into the fragment free energy, i.e. the bulk one and the Fisher one.
Let us demonstrate now that the bimodal fragment size attenuation appears due to the negative value of the surface tension coefficient, i.e. for $\sigma (T) < 0$. In the latter case the gaseous pressure exceeds that one of the liquid phase, i.e. the effective chemical potential $\nu \equiv (p_l (T, \mu) - p_g (T, \mu) )\, b < 0$ is negative [@SMM:Bugaev00; @Bugaev:Thesis10]. Then the unnormalized distribution of nuclear fragments with respect to the number of nucleons $k$ $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqXI}
%
\omega (k) = \exp \left[ - \frac{|\nu|}{T} \, k + \frac{|\sigma|}{T} k^ \varsigma - \tau \ln k \, \right] \,,
%\end{aligned}$$ has the local minimum at some value $k_{min}$ and the local maximum at $k_{max} > k_{min}$. This can be shown by inspecting the logarithmic derivative of $\omega(k)$ with respect to $k$. Thus, the extremum condition for such a derivative gives us $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqXIIa}
%
\left. \frac{\partial \ln \omega (k)}{\partial \, k}\right|_{k=k_E} = - \frac{|\nu|}{T} + \frac{|\sigma|}{T} \, \frac{ \varsigma}{k^{1-\varsigma}_E}\, - \frac{\tau}{k_E} = 0
%
\quad \Rightarrow \quad k_E = \left[ \frac{\varsigma\, |\sigma| }{|\nu| + \frac{\tau\, T}{k_E }}\right]^\frac{1}{1- \varsigma}
\,,
%\end{aligned}$$ where the extremum is reached for $k = k_E$. Let us show now that the expression for $k_E$ in (\[EqXIIa\]) has two positive solutions. In the first case we assume that the Fisher term dominates over the bulk one, i.e. $|\nu| \ll \frac{\tau}{k_E }$, which may occur only for small values of $k_E$. Then neglecting the term $|\nu|$ in the above expression for $k_E$ one finds $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqXIIIa}
%
k_{min} = k_E \simeq \left[ \frac{\tau \,T }{\varsigma\, |\sigma|}\right]^\frac{1}{\varsigma}
\,.
%\end{aligned}$$ The analysis of the second derivative of $\ln \omega(k)$ with respect to $k$ $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqXIVa}
%
\left. \frac{\partial^2 \ln \omega (k)}{\partial \, k^2}\right|_{k=k_{min}} = - \varsigma (1 - \varsigma)\, \frac{ |\sigma|}{T\,k^{2-\varsigma}_{min}}\, + \frac{\tau}{k^2_{min}} = \frac{ \varsigma \,\tau}{k^2_{min}} > 0
%
\,,
%\end{aligned}$$ shows that this derivative is always positive, i.e. there is a local minimum, for $\varsigma > 0$. Note that Eq. (\[EqXIIIa\]) allows one to roughly estimate the surface tension as $\sigma \simeq - \frac{\tau\, T}{\varsigma\, k_{min}^\varsigma}$, if the position of the local minim is known (for an exact expression see below).
In the opposite case, if the bulk free energy dominates over the Fisher term, i.e. for $|\nu| \gg \frac{\tau\, T}{k_E }$, which occurs only for large values of $k_E$, the solution for $k_E$ takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqXVa}
%
k_{max} = k_E \simeq \left[ \frac{\varsigma\, |\sigma| }{ |\nu|}\right]^\frac{1}{1-\varsigma}
\,,
%\end{aligned}$$ and, therefore, the second derivative of $\ln \omega(k)$ with respect to $k$ can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqXVIa}
%
\left. \frac{\partial^2 \ln \omega (k)}{\partial \, k^2}\right|_{k=k_{max}} = - \varsigma (1 - \varsigma)\, \frac{ |\sigma|}{T\, k^{2-\varsigma}_{max}}\, + \frac{\tau}{k^2_{max}} = - \frac{1}{k_{max}} \left[
\frac{(1 - \varsigma)\,|\nu|}{T} - \frac{\tau}{k_{max}}\right]
%
\,.
%\end{aligned}$$ Now it is clear that the second derivative (\[EqXVIa\]) is negative for $|\nu|(1 - \varsigma) > \frac{\tau \,T}{k_{max}}$. Note that the latter inequality cannot be fulfilled for $(1 - \varsigma) \ll 1$ only, whereas for the typical SMM value $\varsigma \simeq \frac{2}{3}$ the inequality $|\nu|(1 - \varsigma) > \frac{\tau \,T}{k_{max}}$ is obeyed due to adopted assumption $|\nu| \gg \frac{\tau \,T}{k_{max} }$. Thus, at $k \simeq k_{max}$ the fragment distribution (\[EqXI\]) has a local maximum. The existence of the distribution with the saddle like shape that has both a local minimum and a local maximum which are clearly seen in Figs. \[fig4\] and \[fig5\].
In fact, if the positions of both local extrema are known, i.e. $k_{min}$ and $k_{max}$ are known, for instance, from the experiment, then for a given temperature $T$ one can exactly find both $\nu$ and $\sigma$. To demonstrate this, we introduce a new variable $x$ $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqXVIIa}
%
k_E^\varsigma \equiv \frac{\tau \, T}{\varsigma\, |\sigma|}(1 +x) \,.
%\end{aligned}$$ Then in terms of this variable the extremum condition (\[EqXIIa\]) can written as $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqXVIIIa}
%
\frac{\tau \, T}{ |\nu|} x = \left[ \frac{\tau \, T}{\varsigma\, |\sigma|}(1 +x) \right]^\frac{1}{\varsigma} \,.
%\end{aligned}$$ since $k_E \equiv \frac{\tau \, T}{ |\nu|} x$. Denoting the solutions of Eq. (\[EqXVIIIa\]) as $x_1 = \frac {|\nu|}{\tau \, T}\, k_{min}$ and $x_2 = \frac{ |\nu|}{\tau \, T}\, k_{max} \equiv R\, x_1$ and dividing expression (\[EqXVIIIa\]) for $x = x_2$ by the same expression for $x=x_1$, one obtains the following equation for $x=x_1$ $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqXIXa}
%
R = \left[ \frac{1 + R \, x_1}{1 +x_1} \right]^\frac{1}{\varsigma} \quad \Rightarrow \quad x_1 = \frac{R^\varsigma-1}{R - R^\varsigma}\,, \quad x_2 = R\,\frac{R^\varsigma-1}{R - R^\varsigma} \,,
%\end{aligned}$$ if the ratio $R \equiv \frac{x_2}{x_1} \equiv \frac{k_{max}}{k_{min}}$ is known from the fragment distribution. The above results allow us to explicitly find the effective chemical potential $\nu$ and the surface tension coefficient $\sigma$ as $$\begin{aligned}
%
\label{EqXXa}
%
|\nu| = \frac{\tau\, T}{k_{min}} \cdot \frac{R^\varsigma-1}{R - R^\varsigma}\,, \quad
%
|\sigma| = \frac{\tau\, T}{\varsigma\, k_{min}^\varsigma} \cdot \left[ 1+ \frac {|\nu|}{\tau \, T}\, k_{min} \right]= \frac{\tau\, T}{\varsigma\, k_{min}^\varsigma} \cdot \frac{R-1}{R - R^\varsigma}\,.
%\end{aligned}$$ These expressions can be useful for the experimental data analysis.
From the above analysis it is evident that the bimodal distributions demonstrated in Figs. \[fig4\] and \[fig5\] have nothing to do with the PT existence, but appear due to the competition of the negative surface free energy with the positive free energy terms generated by the Fisher topological exponent and the bulk term, which, respectively, dominate at small and large values of fragment size. Thus, we give an explicit example to the widely spread belief [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07; @THill:1] that a bimodal distribution of typical order parameter (size of fragment) is an exclusive signal of a first order PT in finite systems. Together with the authors of Refs. [@Moretto:05; @Bmodal:Anti05; @FS:Bugaev07] we would like to stress that without studying the nature of the bimodal distributions one cannot claim that a PT is its only origin.
Furthermore, the existence of bimodal distributions without a PT completely breaks down the logic of T. Hill [@THill:1]. According to [@THill:1] the interface energy between two phases should essentially suppress the coexistence of two ‘pure’ phases, but the states at supercritical temperatures are, indeed, kind of the coexistence of two phases, but in an absence of a PT and, hence, without an explicit surface separating them.
Bimodal distributions at finite volumes
=======================================
In this section we would like to thoroughly analyze the second typical mistake of the approaches [@Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07; @THill:1; @DGross:1] based on bimodality properties of a first order PT in finite systems. In these approaches it is implicitly assumed that, like in infinite systems, in finite systems there exist exactly two ‘pure’ phases and they correspond to two peaks in the bimodal distribution of the order parameter. The examples given in the preceding section correspond to the thermodynamic limit, although in actual simulations we used $7\cdot 10^3$ and $10^4$ particles. We found that further increase of the size of the largest fragment $K(V)$ in (\[EqIII\]) generates the relative numerical errors below $10^{-8}$ compared to the results obtained in the thermodynamic limit. In this section, however, we consider smaller systems whose behavior is far from the thermodynamic limit.
In order to illustrate some of the results which are necessary for a discussion of bimodality in finite systems we introduce the real $R_n$ and imaginary $I_n$ parts of $\lambda _n = R_n + i I_n$ and consider Eq. (\[EqII\]) as a system of coupled transcendental equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqXXIa}
%
&&\hspace*{-0.cm} R_n = ~ \sum\limits_{k=1}^{K(V) } \phi_k (T)
%
%
~ \exp \left[ \frac{Re( \nu_n)\,k}{T} \right] \cos(I_n b k)\,,
%
\\
%
\label{EqXXIIa}
%
&&\hspace*{-0.cm} I_n = - \sum\limits_{k=1}^{K(V) } \phi_k (T)
%
~\exp \left[ \frac{Re( \nu_n)\,k}{T} \right] \sin(I_n b k)\,,
%\end{aligned}$$ where for convenience we introduced the following set of the effective chemical potentials $\nu_n $ $$\label{EqXXIIIa}
%
%
\nu_n \equiv \nu(\lambda_n ) = p_l(T,\mu) b - (R_n + i I_n) b\,T \,,
%
%$$ and the reduced distribution for nucleons $\phi_1 (T) = \left(\frac{m T }{2 \pi} \right)^{\frac{3}{2} } z_1 \exp((\mu - p_l(T,\mu) b)/T)$.
Consider the real root $(R_0 > 0, I_0 = 0)$, first. Similarly to the SMM [@SMM:Bugaev00], for $I_n = I_0 = 0$ the real root $R_0$ of the CSMM exists for any $T$ and $\mu$. Comparison of $R_0$ from (\[EqXXIa\]) with the expression for vapor pressure of the analytical SMM solution [@SMM:Bugaev00] indicates that $T R_0$ is a constrained grand canonical pressure of the mixture of ideal gases with the chemical potential $\nu_0$. Let us show that that the gas singularity is always the rightmost one. First we assume that for the same set of $T, \mu$ and $V$ there exists a complex root $R_{n>0}$ which is the rightmost one compared to $ R_0$, i.e. $R_{n>0} > R_0$ for $I_{n>0} \neq 0$. Then one immediately concludes that $Re(\nu_{n>0}) < Re(\nu_{0})$, but in this case for $n>0$ one obtains $$\label{EqXXIVb}
%
%
R_n = \sum\limits_{k=1}^{K(V) }\phi_k (T)\,
%
{\textstyle \exp \left[ \frac{Re(\nu_{n})\, k}{T} \right] \, \cos(I_n b k) } < \sum\limits_{k=1}^{K(V) }\phi_k (T) \,
%
{\textstyle \exp \left[ \frac{Re(\nu_{0})\, k}{T} \right] }= R_0 \,,
%
%$$ i.e. we arrive at a contradiction with the original assumption.
Note, however, that assuming an opposite inequality $R_{n>0} < R_0$ for $I_{n>0} \neq 0$ and $I_{0} = 0$, one cannot get a contradiction, since a counterpart of the inequality (\[EqXXIVb\]) cannot be established for $Re(\nu_{n>0}) > Re(\nu_{0})$ due to the fact that for $I_{n>0} \neq 0$ some of the $k$-values in the sum in Eq. (\[EqXXIIa\]) unavoidably would generate the inequality $\cos(I_n b k) < 1$. This means that the gas singularity is always the rightmost one. Such a fact plays a decisive role in a formulating the finite volume analogs of phases [@Bugaev:CSMM05] and it will be exploited below as well.
Since Eq. (\[EqXXIIa\]) is not changed under the substitution $I_n \leftrightarrow - I_n$ then the complex roots of the system (\[EqXXIa\]), (\[EqXXIIa\]) are coming in pairs only. This is an evident consequence of the fact that the grand canonical partition (\[EqI\]) must be real. Now it is also apparent that all the roots can be classified according to a descending order of their real parts.
A rigorous mathematical scheme to identify the analogs of phases in finite systems for the partitions (\[EqI\])-(\[EqIV\]) was worked out in [@Bugaev:CSMM05; @FS:Bugaev07; @Bugaev:Thesis10]. It is based on the number of roots of the system (\[EqXXIa\]), (\[EqXXIIa\]) for a given set of grand canonical variables $T, \mu$ and $V$. Thus, a single real solution $\lambda_0 = R_0$ with $I_0=0$ of the system (\[EqXXIa\]), (\[EqXXIIa\]) corresponds to a gaseous phase, since its pressure, indeed, looks like a pressure of a mixture of ideal gases with a single value of the effective baryonic chemical potential $\nu_0$ defined by (\[EqXXIIIa\]). If the system (\[EqXXIa\]), (\[EqXXIIa\]) has one real solution $\lambda_0$ and any natural number $ n=1, 2, 3, ...$ of complex conjugate pairs of roots $\lambda_{n\ge 1}$ then the corresponding partition (\[EqI\]) describes a mixture of a gaseous phase with a set of metastable states which are not in a true chemical equilibrium with the gas, since the real parts of their free energy $ -T V R_{n> 0}$ are larger than the corresponding value for the gaseous phase, i.e. $ -T V R_{n>0} > -T V R_0$. The absence of a true chemical equilibrium between these metastable states and the gas is also seen from that the fact the real parts of their effective chemical potential $\nu_n $ of is larger than the value of the effective chemical potential of the gaseous phase $\nu_0$, i.e. $Re(\nu_{n>0}) > \nu_0$. A finite system analog of a fluid phase corresponds to an infinite number of the complex roots of the system (\[EqXXIa\]), (\[EqXXIIa\]), but it exists at infinite pressure only.
![ The finite volume analog of the phase diagram in $T-Re(\nu_1)$ plane for given values of $K(V) = 20$ (dashed curve) and $K(V) = 100$ (solid curve). Below each of these phase boundaries there exists a gaseous phase only, but at and above each curve there are three or more solutions of the system (\[EqXXIa\]), (\[EqXXIIa\]). These solutions describe the states that can be identified as a finite volume analog of a mixed phase. The additional curves correspond to the approximation (\[EqXXIXa\]). []{data-label="fig6"}](Fig6.jpg){height="10.10"}
Using this scheme, one can build up the finite system analog of the $T-\mu$ phase diagram. Indeed, the curve $Re(\nu_1(T))$ divides the temperature-chemical potential plane into three regions: for the region $Re(\nu_n) < Re(\nu_1(T))$ there is only a single solution of the system (\[EqXXIa\]), (\[EqXXIIa\]) which describes the gaseous phase, at the curve $Re(\nu_n) = Re(\nu_1(T))$ there are exactly three roots of the system (\[EqXXIa\]), (\[EqXXIIa\]) while above for $Re(\nu_n) > Re(\nu_1(T))$ there are five or more roots of this system, which corresponds to a finite volume analog of mixed phase. Fig. \[fig6\] shows such a curve $Re(\nu_1(T))$. The principal difference with the thermodynamic limit discussed in the preceding section is that for finite volumes the effective chemical potential in the gaseous phase can be positive, i.e. for some temperatures one has $\nu_0 > 0$. Knowing the values of $Re(\nu_1(T))$ and $R_1(T)$, one can find the corresponding value of the liquid pressure, which, in its turn, allows one to determine the curve $\mu_1 (T)$ from the liquid phase equation of state (\[EqV\]). Such curves $\mu_1 (T)$ are shown in Fig. \[fig7\] for two values of the maximal fragment size $K(V)$. Comparing the $T-\mu$ phase diagrams of Fig. \[fig7\] with that ones shown in Fig. \[fig1\], one can see that for temperatures below $T_{cep}$ all the curves are quantitatively similar to each other even for a small system with $K(V) = 20$. However, in contrast to the thermodynamic limit phase diagram of Fig. \[fig1\], for considered finite systems the curves $\mu_1(T)$ for the nuclear matter and ‘antinuclear’ matter are connected with each other at temperatures about $T_{cep}$.
It is necessary to stress that, in contrast to the infinite systems, the partial pressures $T R_n$ of the states $ n=0, 1, 2, 3,..$ that belong to the same grand canonical partition of a finite system (\[EqI\]) do not coincide with each other and, therefore, in contrast to the beliefs of the authors of [@Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07; @THill:1], the statistical weights of the gaseous phase $(n=0)$ and the states with $n \ge 1$ can be quite different. Moreover, although the state with $n=0$ is a gaseous phase, the states with $n \ge 1$ cannot be identified as a ‘pure’ liquid, since they have different partial pressures and different decay/formation times defined via the imaginary part of the free energy as $\tau_n \equiv \left[ I_n b T \right]^{-1}$ [@FS:Bugaev07; @Bugaev:CSMM05; @Bugaev:Thesis10]. Furthermore, in finite systems even the gaseous phase differs from that one existing in the thermodynamic limit, since, as one can see from Fig. \[fig6\], for finite volumes $V$ the effective chemical potential can be positive, i.e. $\nu_0 > 0$, and this case corresponds to entirely different distribution of fragments.
![ The image of the finite volume analog of the phase diagram $T-Re(\nu_1)$ of Fig. \[fig6\] is shown in terms of the usual variables $T$ and $\mu$. Note that for finite $K(V)$ the solutions $\mu_1(T)$ do not exist for some temperatures $\max(T) > T_{cep}$ and, thus, the both phase equilibrium curves of Fig. \[fig1\] form a continuous phase diagram for a finite system. []{data-label="fig7"}](Fig7.jpg){height="10.10"}
![ Typical fragment size distributions existing in a finite analog of gaseous phase are shown for a fixed temperature $T = 13$ MeV and different value of the effective chemical potential $\nu_0$. For positive values of $\nu_0$ the fragment distribution has a bimodal like shape, although it is still a gas of all fragments. The maximal size of nuclear fragment is $K(V) = k_M =100$ nucleons.[]{data-label="fig8"}](Fig8.jpg){height="10.10"}
Indeed, as one can see from Fig. \[fig8\] for positive values of the effective chemical potential $\nu_0$ the fragment size distributions in a finite analog of gaseous phase acquires a bimodal like shape without any PT. Existence of such distributions is another explicit counterexample against Hill belief [@THill:1] that the bimodal distributions can be used to unambiguously characterize a PT in finite systems.
Since an existence of the states with $\nu_0 > 0$ is of principal importance for this study, here we would like to demonstrate this fact analytically. For this purpose we consider the limit $Re(\nu_n) \gg T $ for all $0 < n < N 0$ with $N \gg1$. For instance, this is a typical situation for low temperatures $T$ or it can appear at high baryonic densities existing inside of a mixed phase. It is clear, that in this limit the leading contribution to the right hand side of (\[EqXXIIa\]) corresponds to the harmonic with $k = K (V)$, and, consequently, an exponentially large amplitude of this term can be only compensated by a vanishing value of $\sin\left( I_n \, b K(V) \right)$, i.e. $I_n \, b K = \pi n + \delta_n$ with $|\delta_n| \ll \pi$ (hereafter we will analyze only the branch $I_n > 0$). Keeping the leading term on the right hand side of (\[EqXXIIa\]) and solving for $\delta_n$, one finds [@Bugaev:CSMM05; @Bugaev:Thesis10; @Bugaev:Nucleation11] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{EqXXVb}
%
%
\hspace*{-0.0cm}
%
I_n & \approx & \frac{2 \pi\, n + \delta_n}{K(V)\,b} \approx \frac{2 \pi\, n }{ K(V) \, b}\left[1 - \frac{1 }{K(V)\,b\, R_n} \right] \,, \\
%
%
\label{EqXXVIb}
%
%%%
\delta_n &\approx & - \frac{ 2 \pi n }{ K(V)\, b\, R_n} \,, \\
%
%
\label{EqXXVIIb}
%
R_n & \approx & \phi_K (T) ~ \exp \left[ \frac{Re(\nu_n )\,K(V)}{T} \right] \,,
%
%\end{aligned}$$ where the results are given for the branch of positive $R_n$ values.
Since for large volumes $V$ the negative values of $R_n$ cannot contribute to the grand canonical partition (\[EqI\]), here we analyze only values of $n$ which generate $R_n > 0$. In this case substituting the reduced distribution (\[EqIX\]) into Eq. (\[EqXXVIIb\]) one obtains the leading terms for the partial pressure of $n$-th state $$\begin{aligned}
%
T R_n & \approx & p_l(T,\mu) - \frac{ T}{ b\, K(V) }
%
\ln \left| \frac{ R_n }{ \phi_K (T) } \right| \nonumber \\
& \approx & p_l(T,\mu) - \frac{\sigma(T)}{ b\, [K(V)]^{1- \varsigma}} - T \left[ \frac{\ln |
\left(\frac{2 \pi}{ m T } \right)^{\frac{3}{2}} R_n | + \tau \ln K(V)}{b\, K(V) } \right] \,,
%
\label{EqXXVIIIa}
%\end{aligned}$$ under the inequalities $ Re( \nu ) \gg T $ and $K(V) \gg 1$. This equation clearly shows that for $K(V) \gg1 $ and $\varsigma = \frac{2}{3}$ the $n$-th state corresponds to a finite droplet of a radius of $K(V)^\frac{1}{3}$ nucleon radii having a volume pressure of an infinite liquid droplet which is corrected by the Laplace surface pressure (the second term on the right hand side of (\[EqXXVIIIa\])). In fact, such states correspond to a mixed phase dominated by a heaviest fragment. This is clearly seen from (\[EqXXVIIIa\]) at low temperatures. Indeed, for $T\rightarrow 0$ the left hand side of (\[EqXXVIIIa\]) and the last term on the right hand side of it vanish and we obtain that equations for all $R_{n>0}$ degenerate into the same expression $p_l(0,\mu_1) - \frac{\sigma(0)}{ b\, [K(V)]^{1- \varsigma}} \approx 0$, which is a condition of vanishing total pressure of the finite liquid drop, where the chemical potential $\mu_1$ corresponds to $R_1$. In other words, the vanishing total pressure of the $n$-th state is the mechanical stability condition of mixed phase, since at $T\rightarrow 0$ the gaseous phase pressure is zero. A few examples of $\mu_1 (T)$ are depicted in Fig. \[fig7\].
Also Eq. (\[EqXXVIIIa\]) obviously demonstrates that in the thermodynamic limit $K(V) \rightarrow \infty$ an infinite number of metastable states with partial pressures $T R_{n>0}\rightarrow p_l(T,\mu)$ go to the real axis of the complex $\lambda$-plane, since in this limit $I_{n>0}\rightarrow 0$ in (\[EqXXVb\]), and, hence, they form a pole of infinite order at $\lambda_{n>0} = p_l(T,\mu)/T$, i.e. they form an essential singularity of the isobaric partition function [@FS:Bugaev07; @Bugaev:CSMM05; @Bugaev:Thesis10; @Bugaev:Nucleation11] which, in contrast to a simple pole of a gaseous phase $\lambda_{0} =R_0$, describes a liquid phase.
From Eq. (\[EqXXVIIIa\]) one can get the effective chemical potentials $Re( \nu_{n>0} )$ of these $n$-states as $$\begin{aligned}
Re( \nu_{n>0} ) \approx \frac{\sigma (T)}{[K(V)]^{1- \varsigma} } + T \left[ \frac{\ln |
\left(\frac{2 \pi}{ m T } \right)^{\frac{3}{2}} R_{n>0} | + \tau \ln K(V)}{K(V) } \right] \, ,
%
\label{EqXXIXa}\end{aligned}$$ from which one can immediately deduce that for low temperatures and for $K(V) \gg1 $ the real part of $\nu_{n>0} $ is solely defined by the sign of the surface tension coefficient, i.e. from $\sigma (T) > 0$ it follows that $Re( \nu_{n>0} ) > 0$. In the thermodynamic limit $K(V) \rightarrow \infty$ Eq. (\[EqXXIXa\]) recovers the usual SMM result that the effective chemical potential vanishes only at the phase equilibrium line [@SMM:Bugaev00].
Furthermore, in the limit $T \rightarrow 0$ from (\[EqXXIXa\]) one finds that $$\begin{aligned}
Re( \nu_{1} ) \approx Re( \nu_{2} ) \approx Re( \nu_{3} ) \approx ... \approx Re( \nu_{n} ) \approx b \, p_l(0,\mu_1) \approx \frac{\sigma (0)}{[K(V)]^{1- \varsigma} } \, ,
%
\label{EqXXX}\end{aligned}$$ i.e. the real parts of all effective chemical potential states are tending to match at vanishing temperatures independently on the values of $R_{n>0}$ for $\mu = \mu_1$ introduced earlier. From (\[EqXXX\]) one can easily show that for $ \nu_{0} < Re( \nu_{1} ) $ the liquid droplet cannot exist in the limit $T \rightarrow 0$. Suppose, on the contrary, that this is possible. Then such a situation can occur only for some chemical potential $\mu^\prime$ defined as $ \nu_{0} = b \, p_l(0,\mu^\prime) $. Obviously $\mu^\prime < \mu_1$, since for the equation of state of liquid (\[EqV\]) its pressure $p_l(0,\mu) $ is a monotonically increasing function of chemical potential $\mu$. However, as we showed above the total pressure of such finite droplet is $p_l(0,\mu^\prime) - \frac{\sigma(0)}{ b\, [K(V)]^{1- \varsigma}}< 0$ and, hence, such a droplet is mechanically unstable and it cannot exist under such conditions. On the other hand, for $\mu^\prime > \mu_1$ or, equivalently, for $ \nu_{0} = b \, p_l(0,\mu^\prime) > Re( \nu_{n>0} ) \approx b \, p_l(0,\mu_1) $ the solution $R_0$ always exists which means that the finite volume analog of the gaseous phase exists together with the solutions $R_{n>0}$ describing the finite droplet. These are simple physical arguments that $Re( \nu_{1}(T)) $ is a finite volume analog of the $T-\mu$ diagram of the first order PT at $T\rightarrow 0$. More formal arguments can be found in [@FS:Bugaev07; @Bugaev:CSMM05; @Bugaev:Thesis10].
As one can see from Fig. \[fig6\] the expression (\[EqXXIXa\]) approximately reproduces the numerical solution of the system (\[EqXXIa\]), (\[EqXXIIa\]) for $Re(\nu_1)$. Moreover, this figure clearly demonstrates that at low temperatures the condition $Re(\nu_1) \gg T$ is obeyed and, hence, the approximation (\[EqXXIXa\]) works well even for a small system with $K(V) = 20$. For a larger system with $K(V) = 100$ Eq. (\[EqXXIXa\]) correctly reproduces the temperature dependence of $Re(\nu_1(T)) $ for all temperatures below 12 MeV, although in this case the inequality $Re(\nu_1(T)) \gg T$ is not obeyed.
![ The reweighted fragment size distribution for a finite analog of gaseous phase. The original fragment size distribution corresponds to the parameters $T=13 MeV$ and $\nu_0 = 1.7$ MeV (see the corresponding curve in Fig. \[fig8\]) , but for $K(V) \in [ 85; 115]$ values distributed normally with the mean value $\bar K(V) = 100$ and a dispersion $5$. []{data-label="fig9"}](Fig9.jpg){height="10.10"}
Also the above analysis demonstrates that the finite volume analog of the tricritical point with the parameters $Re(\nu) = 0$ and $\sigma(T) =0$, i.e. a state at which the gaseous phase pressure coincides with the pressure of infinite liquid droplet and the surface free energy is zero, belongs to a finite volume analog of a gaseous phase, since according to the above analysis such equalities for finite systems can be achieved only at $T=T_{cep}$ and only for $\nu_0 = Re(\nu_0) = 0$. Note that at the finite volume analog of the tricritical point the size distribution of the fragments is purely power like. It is hoped that such a feature can be helpful for an experimental identification of the tricritical point in the experiments.
An existence of the gaseous phase with $\nu_0 > 0$ in finite systems clearly indicates the principal difference between the properties of gaseous phases existing in finite and in infinite volumes. And this principal difference can be seen in the fragment distributions shown in Figs. \[fig3\] and \[fig8\]. Indeed, the fragment size distributions depicted in Fig. \[fig3\] are monotonically decreasing ones, even taken at the boundary between the macroscopic gaseous phase and macroscopic mixed phase, whereas for $\nu_0 > 0$ the fragment size distributions of Fig. \[fig8\] have a bimodal shape. The latter might not look as a canonical bimodal shape, but if one accounts for the fluctuation of the maximal number of nucleons in the system which is similar to the number of participating nucleons in the nuclear reaction, then the resulting distribution may look much more similar to those one discussed in Refs. [@Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07; @Bmodal:Lopez06]. In Fig. \[fig9\] we show such a reweighted distribution which was constructed from fifteen distributions having the same values of $T= 13$ MeV and $\nu_0 = 1.7$ MeV, but for the parameter $K(V) $ distributed normally in the range $K(V) \in [ 85; 115]$ with the mean value $\bar K(V) = 100$ and a dispersion $5$. Such a reweighting models the possible dynamical fluctuations of the impact parameter in the nuclear reaction. The example of Fig. \[fig9\] demonstrates that the observed fragment size distribution does differ from the original statistical fragment size distribution due to weak dynamical fluctuations of the impact parameter. The effect of the dynamical fluctuations of the initial temperature (which appears at the moment of thermal equilibrium) that is well-known in the high energy hadron and nuclear collisions [@Wilk:2008] can be even more dramatic and it can essentially modify the original statistical fragment size distribution. The worst is that it is entirely unclear how this cause or/and the other possible physical ones like a collective flow and its instabilities modify the original statistical fragment size distribution before it is measured by a detector. Therefore, from this example and the counterexamples given above we conclude that it is hard to believe that the theoretical schemes suggested in [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07] to manipulate with the observed data are, indeed, able to elucidate any essential PT related characteristics of the statistical distributions from the measured data.
Conclusions {#secConclusions}
===========
In the present work we gave two explicit counterexamples to the widely spread beliefs [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm07; @Bmodal:Lopez06; @THill:1] about an exclusive role of bimodality as the first order PT signal and showed that the bimodal distributions can naturally appear both in infinite and in finite systems without a PT. In the first counterexample a bimodal distribution is generated at the supercritical temperatures by the negative values of the surface tension coefficient. This result is in line with the previously discussed role of the competition between the volume and the surface parts of the system free energy [@Moretto:05; @FS:Bugaev07]. In the second considered counterexample a bimodal fragment distribution is generated by positive values of the effective chemical potential in a finite volume analog of a gaseous phase. The latter was provided by an exact analytical solution of the CSMM for finite systems [@Bugaev:CSMM05; @FS:Bugaev07] which was successfully generalized here for more realistic equations of state of the compressible nuclear liquid and for more realistic treatment of the surface tension free energy.
Also here we gave analytic results showing for the first time that for finite, but large systems, the value of the effective chemical potential on the finite volume analog of the $T-\nu$ phase diagram [@Bugaev:CSMM05; @FS:Bugaev07] is solely defined by the surface tension coefficient and by the radius of the largest fragment. The derived analytical formulas for partial pressures of the metastable states belonging to the same grand canonical partition give an explicit example that, on the contrary to the beliefs of Refs. [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07; @THill:1], in finite systems there are no two ‘pure’ phases as it is the case in the thermodynamic limit. At finite pressures the liquid-like finite droplet appears only as a part of a finite volume analog of a mixed phase. Additionally, here we demonstrated that for positive values of the effective chemical potential $\nu_0$ the properties of the gaseous phase in finite systems drastically differ from its properties in the thermodynamic limit. The bimodal fragment size distributions depicted in Figs. \[fig8\] and \[fig9\] cannot exist in the gaseous phase treated in the thermodynamic limit (see Fig. \[fig3\] for comparison).
The above results are in line with the critique [@Moretto:05; @Bmodal:Anti05; @FS:Bugaev07] of a bimodality as a reliable signal of the PT existence in finite systems. Once more we have to stress that without studying the nature of the bimodal distributions one cannot claim that a PT is its only origin. An interesting result on the bimodality absence in the systems indicating a possible PT existence in multifragment production in heavy-ion nuclear collisions was reported in [@Frankland:2004]. This is an additional counterexample to the widely spread belief on an exclusive role of bimodality as a PT signal in finite systems.
Therefore, all the counterexamples obtained in this work on the basis of an exactly solvable statistical model known as the CSMM allow us to conclude that it is rather doubtful that the theoretical schemes invented in Refs. [@Bmodal:Chomaz01; @Bmodal:Chomaz03; @Bmodal:Gulm04; @Bmodal:Gulm07] to manipulate with the observed data are, indeed, able to elucidate the reliable PT signals from the measured data.
[**Acknowledgments.**]{} We appreciate the valuable comments of I. N. Mishustin and L. M. Satarov. Also the authors acknowledge a partial support of the Program “Fundamental Properties of Physical Systems under Extreme Conditions” launched by the Section of Physics and Astronomy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine.
[99]{}
Ph. Chomaz, F. Gulminelli and V. Duflot, Phys. Rev. E [**64**]{}, 046114 (2001).
Ph. Chomaz and F. Gulminelli, Preprint GANIL-02-19 (2002). F. Gulminelli, Ann. Phys. Fr. [**29**]{}, 6 (2004) and references therein.
F. Gulminelli, Nucl. Phys. A [**791**]{}, 165 (2007).
O. Lopez and M. F. Rivet, Eur. Phys. J. A [**30**]{}, 263 (2006) and references therein.
M. Pichon et al. (INDRA and ALADIN Collaborations), Nucl. Phys. A [**779**]{}, 267 (2006).
M. Bruno et al., Nucl. Phys. A [**807**]{}, 48 (2008).
E. Bonnet et al. (INDRA and ALADIN Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 072701 (2009).
C. N. Yang and T. D. Lee, Phys. Rev. [**87**]{}, 404 (1952).
L. G. Moretto, J. B. Elliott and L. W. Phair, [ Mesoscopy and Thermodynamics]{}, proceedings of the conference [*“World Consensus Initiative III”*]{}, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas, USA, February 11-17, 2005 ([see http://cyclotron.tamu.edu/wci3/newer/chapVI\_4.pdf]{}).
O. Lopez, D. Lacroix, and E. Vient, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 242701 (2005).
K. A. Bugaev, Phys. Part. Nucl. [**38**]{}, 447 (2007).
T. L. Hill, [*Thermodynamics of small systems*]{} (Dover, New York 1994).
D. H. E. Gross, [*Microcanonical Thermodynamics: Phase Transitions in Finite Systems*]{}, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 66 (World Scientific, 2001).
K. A. Bugaev, Acta. Phys. Polon. B [**36**]{}, 3083 (2005). J. P. Bondorf et al., Phys. Rep. [**257**]{}, 131 (1995).
K. A. Bugaev, M. I. Gorenstein, I. N. Mishustin and W. Greiner, Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{}, 044320 (2000); arXiv:nucl-th/0007062 (2000); Phys. Lett. B [**498**]{}, 144 (2001); arXiv:nucl-th/0103075 (2001). P. T. Reuter and K. A. Bugaev, Phys. Lett. B [**517**]{}, 233 (2001). K. A. Bugaev, L. Phair and J. B. Elliott, Phys. Rev. E [**72**]{}, 047106 (2005).
K. A. Bugaev and J. B. Elliott, Ukr. J. Phys. [**52**]{}, 301 (2007). K. A. Bugaev, arXiv:1012.3400 \[nucl-th\].
K. A. Bugaev, A. I. Ivanitskii, E. G. Nikonov, A. S. Sorin and G. M. Zinovjev, Can We Rigorously Define Phases in a Finite System?, Chapter 18 of the Proceedings of the XV-th Research Workshop [*“Nucleation Theory and Applications"*]{}, held at JINR, Dubna, Russia, April 1- 30, 2011, edited by J. W. P. Schmelzer, G. Ropke, V. B. Priezzhev, Dubna JINR, 2011; arXiv:1106.5939 \[nucl-th\] S. Das Gupta and A.Z. Mekjian, Phys. Rev. C [**57**]{}, 1361 (1998).
L. Beaulieu et al. (ISiS Collaboration), Phys. Lett. B [**463**]{}, 159 (1999).
J. B. Elliott et al., (EOS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. C [**62**]{}, 064603 (2000).
L. Van Hove, Physica [**15**]{}, 951 (1949).
L. Van Hove, Physica [**16**]{}, 137 (1950).
M. I. Gorenstein, D. H. Rischke, H. Stocker, W. Greiner and K. A. Bugaev, J. Phys. G [**19**]{}, L69 (1993).
D. Vretenar, T. Niksic, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C [**68**]{}, 024310 (2003).
G. Colo and Nguyen Van Giai, Nucl. Phys. A [**731**]{}, 15 (2004).
V. B. Soubbotin, V. I. Tselyaev and X. Vinas, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 064312 (2004).
E. Khan, Phys. Rev. C [**80**]{}, 011307(R) (2009).
see, for instance, H. E. Stanley, [*Introduction to phase transitions and critical phenomena*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971).
M. E. Fisher, Physics [**3**]{}, 255 (1967).
K. A. Bugaev, Phys. Rev. [**C 76**]{}, 014903 (2007); and Phys. Atom. Nucl. [**71**]{}, 1615 (2008) . K. A. Bugaev, V. K. Petrov and G. M. Zinovjev, Phys. Part. Nucl. Lett. [**9**]{}, 238 (2012); arXiv:0904.4420 \[hep-ph\] (2009). K. A. Bugaev, V. K. Petrov and G. M. Zinovjev, Europhys. Lett. [**85**]{}, 22002 (2009); Phys. Rev. [**C 79**]{}, 054913 (2009). A. I. Ivanytskyi, Nucl. Phys. A [**880**]{}, 12 (2012). K. A. Bugaev and G. M. Zinovjev, Nucl. Phys. A [**848**]{}, 443 (2010).
K. A. Bugaev, A. I. Ivanitskii, E. G. Nikonov, V. K. Petrov, A. S. Sorin and G. M. Zinovjev, Phys. Atom. Nucl. [**75**]{}, 707 (2012).
J. B. Elliott, K. A. Bugaev, L. G. Moretto and L. Phair, arXiv:0608022 \[nucl-ex\]. J. Gross, J. Chem. Phys. [**131**]{}, 204705 (2009). N. Buyukcizmeci et al., arXiv:1211.5990v2 \[nucl-th\].
G. Wilk and Z. Wlodarczyk, Eur. Phys. J. A [**40**]{}, 299 (2009). J. D. Frankland [*et al.*]{} \[INDRA and ALADIN Collaborations\], Phys. Rev. C [**71**]{}, 034607 (2005).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Filtering images of more than one channel is challenging in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness. By grouping similar patches to utilize the self-similarity and sparse linear approximation of natural images, recent nonlocal and transform-domain methods have been widely used in color and multispectral image (MSI) denoising. Many related methods focus on the modeling of group level correlation to enhance sparsity, which often resorts to a recursive strategy with a large number of similar patches. The importance of the patch level representation is understated. In this paper, we mainly investigate the influence and potential of representation at patch level by considering a general formulation with block diagonal matrix. We further show that by training a proper global patch basis, along with a local principal component analysis transform in the grouping dimension, a simple transform-threshold-inverse method could produce very competitive results. Fast implementation is also developed to reduce computational complexity. Extensive experiments on both simulated and real datasets demonstrate its robustness, effectiveness and efficiency.'
author:
- Zhaoming Kong and Xiaowei Yang
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'ms.bib'
title: Color Image and Multispectral Image Denoising Using Block Diagonal Representation
---
Color image denoising, multispectral image denoising, non-local filters, transform domain techniques, block diagonal representation
Introduction
============
IMAGE denoising plays an important role in modern image processing systems. The past few decades witness great achievements in this field [@Milanfar2011A], and methods that utilize self-similarity and non-local characteristics of natural images have drawn much attention due to their simplicity and effectiveness. Recently, great achievement is made by the well-known BM3D algorithm [@Dabov2007Image] which combines the nonlocal filters [@Buades2005A] and transform domain techniques [@Yaroslavsky2001Transform]. Methods that share similar idea and procedure of BM3D are widely adopted to handle grayscale image [@Dabov2010Video; @gu2014weighted; @rajwade2013image]. When the input is color image (sRGB) or multispectral image that contains rich information and delivers more faithful representation for real scenes, directly applying the grayscale denoising algorithm to each channel [@Buades2005A] or spectral band [@yan2013nonlocal] often fails to produce satisfactory results, and therefore efforts to understand and address noise reduction issue have been made from several different perspectives.\
First, two main solutions are proposed to improve the channel-by-channel or band-by-band approach. The first strategy proposes to transform the original image into a less correlated color or band space, such that denoising in each transformed channel or band could be performed independently. the representative work is the color BM3D (CBM3D) which applies BM3D to the luminance-chrominance space [@dabov2007color]. The second strategy jointly characterizes the RGB channels or bands for better use of spectral correlation. Methods that fall into such category are widely considered with different priors and regularization. Briefly, [@dai2013multichannel] proposes a multichannel nonlocal fusion (MNLF) approach, [@tu2014collaborative] introduces color line to model the correlation among neighbouring pixels and channels, and [@zhong2013multiple] considers the spatial and spectral dependencies. Sparse and low rank priors are also adopted in several competitive methods [@xu2017multi; @he2016total; @TrilateralXu]. Besides, to avoid vectorization of image patch, some recent works incorporate tensor representation [@Kolda2009Tensor] with higher order singular value decomposition (HOSVD) [@Tucker1966Some; @Lathauwer2000A; @rajwade2013image], low rank tensor approximation (LRTA) framework [@renard2008denoising], Laplacian Scale Mixture modeling [@dong2015low] and Hyper-Laplacian regularization [@chang2017hyper].\
In addition to the design of denoising strategy, noise modeling is also important. Most of existing methods consider additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and some efficient noise estimation methods [@chen2015efficient; @Xinhao2013Single] can be employed. Besides, some non i.i.d. Gaussian denoisers are proposed for filtering Poission noise [@Zhang2008Wavelets], mixed Gaussian and impulsive noise [@Xu2016patch] and stripe noise [@chang2015anisotropic]. In fact, noise in real-world images may be multiplicative and signal dependent [@ramanath2005color], making noise modeling and estimation much more complex and challenging. [@nam2016holistic] and [@wong2016turbo] consider the non-linear processing steps in the camera pipeline in the noise model, and [@mosseri2013combining; @Luo2015Adaptive; @xu2018external] combine external and internal priors. Some methods [@Lebrun2015Multiscale; @Lebrun2015The; @chen2018denoising; @zhu2016noise], including the well-known software toolbox Neat Image (NI)[^1] are developed for noise reduction of real-world images. Apart from the conventional transform-domain approaches, many recent competitive methods [@burger2012image; @zhang2017beyond; @chang2018hsi; @Zhang2018FFDNet] are based on the advent of deep learning technique as a powerful feature extraction tool.\
In order to compare different denoising methods, several real-world color image and multispectral image datasets [@Anaya2014RENOIR; @nam2016holistic; @plotz2017benchmarking; @DatasetXu; @abdelhamed2018high; @chakrabarti2011statistics; @KongData] of various scenes are constructed, and each scene of a color image includes noisy and “ground-truth” image pairs. A simple and reasonable approach adopted by [@Anaya2014RENOIR; @nam2016holistic; @DatasetXu; @KongData] to obtain “ground-truth” image is to capture the same and unchanged scene for many times and compute their mean image. Different from the image averaging approach, [@plotz2017benchmarking] utilizes the Tobit regression to estimate the parameters of the noise process by accessing only two images, and [@abdelhamed2018high] generates a high quality smartphone image denoising dataset with careful post-processing. Interestingly, recent experiments on real-world datasets show that BM3D based methods [@dabov2007color; @Maggioni2013Nonlocal] still demonstrate the most competitive performance in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency. The implementation details are unknown and there is debate [@chatterjee2010denoising; @levin2011natural] that they may have touched the ceiling of image denoising.\
Many competitive methods [@xu2017multi; @chang2017hyper; @TrilateralXu] attempt to approach the optimal performance by modeling the redundancy and correlation at group level with some iterative strategies [@romano2017little] and a large number of similar patches. However, influence of the patch level representation is less carefully studied. Although the use of tensor representation may help preserve some structure information, the straightforward folding and unfolding operation may not fully exploit the relationship among all channels or spectral bands. In this paper, we investigate the potential and influence of patch level representation, and establish a general formulation with block diagonal matrix. We demonstrate that the combination of a proper global patch basis and local PCA can produce very competitive performance in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness. Extension to non-Gaussian noise in hyperspectral image is also discussed. Efforts have been made to reduce computational complexity, and all results reported in our paper could be reproduced very efficiently.\
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section II, related work is studied. In Section III, general formulation and the proposed denoising method are introduced. Section IV presents experiments on both simulated and real-world datasets. Conclusions are drawn in Section V.
Related Works and Formulation
=============================
Notations
---------
Tensor is a multidimensional array, also known as a multi-way array, and its *order* is defined as the number of its dimension. In this paper, we mainly adopt the mathematical notations and preliminaries of tensors from [@Kolda2009Tensor]. Vectors and matrices are first- and second- order tensors which are denoted by boldface lowercase letters $\mathbf{a}$ and capital letters $\mathbf{A}$, respectively. A higher order tensor (the tensor of order three or above) is denoted by calligraphic letters, e.g., $\mathcal{A}$. An $N$th-order tensor is denoted as $\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{I_1\times I_2\times\cdots\times I_N}$. The $n$-mode product of a tensor $\mathcal{A}$ by a matrix $\mathbf{U}\in \mathrm{R}^{P_n\times I_n}$, denoted by $\mathcal{A}\times _n\mathbf{U}$ is also a tensor. The mode-$n$ matricization or unfolding of $\mathcal{A}$, denoted by $\mathbf{A}_{(n)}$, maps tensor elements $(i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_N)$ to matrix element $(i_n,j)$ where $j=1+\sum_{k=1,k\neq n}^{N}(i_k-1)J_k$, with $J_k = \prod_{m=1,m\neq n}^{k-1}I_m$. The Frobenius norm of a tensor $\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{I_1\times I_2\times\cdots\times I_N}$ is defined as $\|\mathcal{A}\|_F = \sqrt{\sum_{i_1=1}...\sum_{i_N=1}\mathcal{A}_{i_1...i_N}^2}$.
Framework and Problem Formulation
---------------------------------
The most popular and successful framework credited to [@Dabov2007Image] follows three consecutive steps: grouping, collaborative filtering and averaging. The flowchart of this paradigm is illustrated as Fig. \[Fig\_illus\_paradigm\]. Specifically, given a reference patch $\mathcal{P}_{ref}$, the grouping step stacks some similar overlapping patches located in a local window $\Omega_{SR}$ into a group represented by matrix $\mathbf{G}$ or higher order tensor $\mathcal{G}$ with certain matching criteria [@Foi2007Pointwise; @Buades2016Patch; @Foi2016Foveated]. One simple and commonly adopted metric is Euclidean distance measured by $\|\mathcal{P}_{ref} - \mathcal{P}\|_F^2$, $\forall \mathcal{P} \in \Omega_{SR}$. Collaborative filtering is then performed on group $\mathbf{G}$ to utilize the nonlocal similarity feature and estimate clean underlying patches from noisy observation, and it can be generally formulated as $$\label{collarborative_filtering}
\hat{\mathbf{G}} = \mathop{\arg\min_{\mathbf{G}_c}} \| \mathbf{G}_n - \mathbf{G}_c \|_{F}^2 + \rho\cdot\Psi(\mathbf{G}_c)$$ where $\mathbf{G}_n$ and $\mathbf{G}_c$ are noisy and underlying clean group of patches, respectively, $\| \mathbf{G}_n - \mathbf{G}_c \|_{F}^2$ measures the conformity between $\mathbf{G}_c$ and $\mathbf{G}_n$, and $\Psi(\mathbf{G}_c)$ represents certain priors [@Ling2017From]. Low rank approximation is adopted in [@Dong2013Nonlocal; @xu2017multi; @chang2017hyper; @Li2018Weighted] based on nuclear norm minimization [@Cai2008A] with $\Psi(\mathbf{G}_c) = \|\mathbf{G}_c\|_{\ast}$, or tensor trace norm [@Liu2013Tensor] with $\Psi(\mathcal{G}_c) = \sum_{n=1}^{N} \alpha_n \|\mathbf{G_c}_{(n)}\|_{\ast}$. Authors in [@Elad2006Image; @TrilateralXu; @Dong2013Sparse; @Mairal2009Sparse] utilize sparse coding scheme that represents $\hat{\mathbf{G}}$ with a dictionary $\mathbf{D}$ and sparse coding atoms $\mathbf{C}$ by minimizing $$\label{sparse_coding}
\hat{\mathbf{C}} = \mathop{\arg\min_{C}} \|\mathbf{G}_n - \mathbf{D}\mathbf{C}\|_F^2 + \lambda \|\mathbf{C}\|_1$$ The state-of-the-art BM3D and HOSVD algorithms attempt to model sparsity in the transform domain by shrinking coefficients $\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{G}_n) $ under a pre-defined threshold $\tau$ via $$\label{hard_thresholding}
\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{G}_{ht})=\left\{
\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{G}_n), \quad |\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{G}_n)| \geq \tau \\
0, \quad |\mathcal{T}(\mathcal{G}_n)| < \tau
\end{aligned}
\right.$$ Some representative techniques and priors are listed in Table \[Table\_technique\_briefing\]. After collaborative filtering, the estimated clean patches are averagely written back to their original location to further smooth out noise. More specifically, every pixel $\hat{p}_i$ of the denoised image is the (weighted) average of all pixels at the same position of filtered group $\hat{\mathbf{G}}$, which can be formulated as $$\label{aggregation}
\hat{p}_i = \sum_{\hat{p}_{i_k} \in \hat{\mathbf{G}}} w_{i_k} \hat{p}_{i_k}$$ where $w_{i_k}$ and $\hat{p}_{i_k}$ denote weight and pixel, respectively.
Multiway filtering technique
----------------------------
In this paper, we focus on the collaborative filtering step with transform domain technique, and regardless of different categorization criteria, it can be roughly modeled as an inverse problem with multiway filtering technique [@muti2008lower], which applies a specific transform and constraint to each dimension of a group of similar image patches. The organization of image patches and choice of transform and constraint often determine the denoising strategy, and the variations are quite extensive [@dabov2007color; @rajwade2013image; @dong2015low; @Li2018Weighted]. In this subsection we introduce the representative 4DHOSVD and CBM3D for color image denoising, and our analysis can be extended to multispectral image with slight modification. For simplicity, a group of similar patches $\mathcal{P}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{G}$.\
Both CBM3D and 4DHOSVD can be represented with the fourth-order tensor decomposition framework in [@Kolda2009Tensor] via $$\label{4dhosvd}
\mathcal{C} = \mathcal{G} \times _1\mathbf{U}_{row}^T \times _2\mathbf{U}_{col}^T \times _3\mathbf{U}_{color}^T \times _4\mathbf{U}_{group}^T$$ where $\mathcal{C}$ is core tensor (coefficient), $\mathbf{U}_{row}$, $\mathbf{U}_{col}$, $\mathbf{U}_{color}$, and $\mathbf{U}_{group}$ are corresponding mode transforms. The major difference between CBM3D and 4DHOSVD is that CBM3D uses pre-defined discrete cosine transform (DCT) and opponent color space represented as a $3\times3$ matrix $$\label{opp_color_mode}
\mathbf{U}_{color}^T = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\textbf{1/3} & \textbf{1/3} & \textbf{1/3} \\
0.5 & 0 & -0.5 \\
0.25 & -0.5 & 0.25 \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ specifically, the first slice of each patch in the new color space can be regarded as luminance channel, and the other two slices as chrominance channel. CBM3D is very efficient because it does not have to train local transforms, and its grouping step is performed only on the luminance channel. For 4DHOSVD, all mode transform matrices including $\mathbf{U}_{color}$ are learned by solving $$\label{optimize_4dhosvd}
\begin{split}
& \min \|\mathcal{G} - \mathcal{C} \times _1\mathbf{U}_{row} \times _2\mathbf{U}_{col} \times _3\mathbf{U}_{color} \times _4\mathbf{U}_{group}\|_F^2\\
& s.t \qquad \mathbf{U}_{row}^T\mathbf{U}_{row} = \mathbf{I}, \qquad \mathbf{U}_{col}^T\mathbf{U}_{col} = \mathbf{I} \\
& \quad\qquad \mathbf{U}_{color}^T\mathbf{U}_{color} = \mathbf{I}, \qquad \mathbf{U}_{group}^T\mathbf{U}_{group} = \mathbf{I}
\end{split}$$ Compared with CBM3D, 4DHOSVD imposes a stronger constraint and requires the orthogonality of color space transform.
Image Denoising Using Block Diagonal Representation
===================================================
Using a 4D transform in equation (\[4dhosvd\]) for CBM3D may be a little confusing, because after a certain color space transform, the original R, G, B channels are computed separatedly in the new color space, which also holds for 4DHOSVD if all mode transforms are obtained. Therefore, it may be expected to re-formulate (\[4dhosvd\]) as independent channel-wise (third-order tensor) transform. In this section, we first generalize patch-level representation via block diagonal matrix, then discuss the proper choice for patch-level basis, and explain how it could be properly incorporated into the block diagonal representation and efficiently applied to image denoising.
Block Diagonal Representation and Formulation of f-diagonal Tensor Decomposition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We notice that (\[4dhosvd\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{4dhosvd_reform}
\mathcal{C} = (\mathcal{G} \times _3\mathbf{U}_{color}^T) \times _1\mathbf{U}_{row}^T \times _2\mathbf{U}_{col}^T \times _4\mathbf{U}_{group}^T$$ where $\mathcal{G} \times _3\mathbf{U}_{color}^T$ is equivalent to applying $\mathbf{U}_{color}$ to each patch of $\mathcal{G}$ via $$\label{4dhosvd_patch}
(\mathcal{G} \times _3\mathbf{U}_{color}^T)_i = \mathcal{P}_i \times _3\mathbf{U}_{color}^T, \; i = 1,2,...,K$$ where $K$ and $\mathcal{P}_i$ represent the number of similar patches and the $i$-th patch of $\mathcal{G}$, respectively. For simplicity, we use $\hat{\mathcal{P}}_i$ to denote $\mathcal{P}_i \times _3\mathbf{U}_{color}^T$. Then we could define the block diagonal operator $bdiag(\hat{\mathcal{P}}_i)$ via $$\label{block_diag_matrix}
bdiag(\hat{\mathcal{P}}_i) = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\hat{\mathcal{P}}_i(:,:,1) & & \\
& \hat{\mathcal{P}}_i(:,:,2) & \\
& & \hat{\mathcal{P}}_i(:,:,3)\\
\end{array}
\right)$$ where each matrix on the diagonal position is a linear combination of all frontal slices of $\mathcal{P}_i$ via $$\label{linear_p}
\hat{\mathcal{P}}_i(:,:,k) = \sum_{j = 1}^3 \mathbf{U}_{color}(j,k) \mathcal{P}_{i}(:,:,j), \; k = 1, 2, 3$$ according to (\[4dhosvd\_patch\]) and (\[block\_diag\_matrix\]), $\mathcal{G} \times _3\mathbf{U}_{color}^T$ can be denoted as an f-diagonal tensor $fdiag(\hat{\mathcal{G}})$ $$\label{block_diag_tensor}
fdiag(\hat{\mathcal{G}}) = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\hat{\mathcal{G}}_i(:,:,1,:) & & \\
& \hat{\mathcal{G}}_i(:,:,2,:) & \\
& & \hat{\mathcal{G}}_i(:,:,3,:)\\
\end{array}
\right)$$ where $\hat{\mathcal{G}} = \mathcal{G} \times _3\mathbf{U}_{color}^T$. Based on (\[4dhosvd\_reform\]) and (\[block\_diag\_tensor\]), the 4D transform (\[4dhosvd\]) is equivalent to $$\label{block_diag_tensor_decomp}
\begin{split}
& \mathcal{C} = fdiag(\hat{\mathcal{G}}) \times _1bdiag(\mathbf{U}_{row}^T) \times _2bdiag(\mathbf{U}_{col}^T)\times _3\mathbf{U}_{group}^T
\end{split}$$ where we make an abuse use of (\[block\_diag\_matrix\]) to denote $bdiag(\mathbf{U}_{row})$ and $bdiag(\mathbf{U}_{col})$ as $$\label{block_diag_U_row}
bdiag(\mathbf{U}) = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{U} & & \\
& \mathbf{U} & \\
& & \mathbf{U} \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ The same group representation $\mathbf{U}_{group}$ is applied for all frontal slices in (\[block\_diag\_tensor\]) mainly because of two reasons. First, the patch-wise similarity often used in the grouping process does not guarantee slice-wise simialrity. Furthermore, according to equation (\[linear\_p\]), the new color space are a linear combination of R, G, B channels, thus are not totally de-correlated. Therefore, there exists a trade-off between the slice-wise and patch-wise relationship. Interestingly, CBM3D subtly takes care of this issue by considering only the luminance channel similarity. To narrow such gap, a suitable alternative to utilizing more group-level information (grouping more patches), is the recursive use of patch-level correlation via block circulant representation (BCR) [@Mazancourt1983The].\
Specifically, for each patch $\mathcal{P}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{ps \times ps \times 3}$ of color image, its BCR $bcirc(\mathcal{P}_i)$ is a block circulant matrix [@Mazancourt1983The] of size $3ps \times 3ps$ defined by $$\label{bcirc_matrix}
bcirc(\mathcal{P}_i) = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathbf{P}_i(:,:,1) & \mathbf{P}_i(:,:,3) & \mathbf{P}_i(:,:,2) \\
\mathbf{P}_i(:,:,2) & \mathbf{P}_i(:,:,1) & \mathbf{P}_i(:,:,3) \\
\mathbf{P}_i(:,:,3) & \mathbf{P}_i(:,:,2) & \mathbf{P}_i(:,:,1) \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ thus, similar to (\[block\_diag\_tensor\]), a block circulant tensor $bcirc(\mathcal{G})$ of size $3ps\times 3ps \times K$ can be denoted as $$\label{bcirc_tensor}
bcirc(\mathcal{G}) = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mathcal{G}(:,:,1,:) & \mathcal{G}(:,:,3,:) & \mathcal{G}(:,:,2,:) \\
\mathcal{G}(:,:,2,:) & \mathcal{G}(:,:,1,:) & \mathcal{G}(:,:,3,:) \\
\mathcal{G}(:,:,3,:) & \mathcal{G}(:,:,2,:) & \mathcal{G}(:,:,1,:) \\
\end{array}
\right)$$
Fig. \[Fig\_illus\_bcirc\_group\] gives a straightforward illustration of (\[bcirc\_matrix\]) and (\[bcirc\_tensor\]), and some interesting feature is given in Appendix \[appendix\_a\]. \[\] Following the idea of multiway transform technique in (\[4dhosvd\]) and based on (\[group\_equal\]), the third-order tensor decomposition of (\[bcirc\_tensor\]) is $$\label{hosvd_bcirc_tensor}
\mathcal{C}_{bcirc} = bcirc(\mathcal{G}) \times _1\mathbf{U}_{bcirc_{row}}^T \times _2\mathbf{U}_{bcirc_{col}}^T \times _3\mathbf{U}_{group}^T$$ Obtaining two factor matrices $\mathbf{U}_{bcirc_{row}}$ and $\mathbf{U}_{bcirc_{col}}$ requires the eigenvalue decomposition of two large block circulant matrices. Using fast Fourier transform (FFT) [@rojo2004some], the block circulant tensor decomposition problem in (\[hosvd\_bcirc\_tensor\]) can be re-formulated as following f-diagonal tensor decomposition in the Fourier domain[^2] $$\label{hosvd_fdiag_tensor}
\mathcal{C}_{fdiag} = fdiag(\hat{\mathcal{G}}) \times _1\mathbf{U}_{fdiag_{row}}^T \times _2\mathbf{U}_{fdiag_{col}}^T \times _3\mathbf{U}_{group}^T$$ Where $\hat{\mathcal{G}} = \mathcal{G}\times _3\mathbf{W}$, and $\mathbf{W}$ is the FFT matrix defined as $$\label{fft_matrix}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\textbf{1} & \textbf{1} & \textbf{1} \\
1 & -0.5 - 0.8660i & -0.5 + 0.8660i \\
1 & -0.5 + 0.8660i & -0.5 - 0.8660i \\
\end{array}
\right)$$ The conjugate feature of $\mathbf{W}$ indicates that whichever the threshold technique (low-rank or hard-threshold) is adopted, only the first and second slices in the Fourier domain need to be computed. This strategy can be extended to handle multispectral images by considering only the first $\lfloor N/2 \rfloor + 1$ slices in the Fourier domain, where $N$ is the number of spectral bands.
Equivalence of f-diagonal Tensor Decomposition in the Fourier Domain
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, the computation of (\[hosvd\_fdiag\_tensor\]) does not require explicit formulation of f-diagonal tensor in the Fourier domain. We introduce t-SVD or tensor-SVD [@kilmer2011factorization; @Kilmer2013Third], a new third-order tensor decomposition framework that demonstrates competitive performance in many applications [@hao2013facial; @zhang2016exact; @zhou2017outlier]. t-SVD mainly relies on the definition of t-product $*$ between two third-order tensors using (\[block\_diag\_matrix\]) in the Fourier domain.
\[\]
\[t-product\] The t-product $*$ between two third-order tensor $\mathcal{A} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_2 \times n_3}$ and $\mathcal{B} \in \mathbb{R}^{n_1\times n_4 \times n_3}$ is an $n_1\times n_4 \times n_3$ tensor $\mathcal{C} = \mathcal{A} * \mathcal{B}$ given by $$\label{bdiag_t-product}
bdiag(\hat{\mathcal{C}}) = bdiag(\hat{\mathcal{A}}) bdiag(\hat{\mathcal{B}})$$ where $\hat{\mathcal{A}} = \mathcal{A} \times _3\mathbf{W}$ and $\hat{\mathcal{B}} = \mathcal{B} \times _3\mathbf{W}$.
The t-SVD of a third-order tensor can be defined as the t-product of three third-order tensor via $$\label{t-SVD}
\mathcal{A} = \mathcal{U} * \mathcal{S} * \mathcal{V}^T$$ which can be computed as $$\label{bdiag_t-SVD}
bdiag(\hat{\mathcal{A}}) = bdiag(\hat{\mathcal{U}})bdiag(\hat{\mathcal{S}})bdiag(\hat{\mathcal{V}})^T$$ with an abuse use of t-product, the core tensor can be obtained by $$\label{compute_C_4D}
\mathcal{C} = \mathcal{G} * _1\mathcal{U}_{row}^T * _2\mathcal{U}_{column}^T * _3\mathcal{U}_{group}^T$$ where $\mathcal{G} * _i\mathcal{U}^T$ can be computed as the $i$-th mode tensor-matrix product in the Fourier domain. $\mathcal{U}_{group}$ is a third-order tensor with its first frontal slice equal to $\mathbf{U}_{group}$ and other frontal slices equal to $\mathbf{0}$. Furthermore, $\mathcal{U}_{row}$ and $\mathcal{U}_{column}$ can be obtained by minimizing a non-local t-SVD (NL-tSVD) problem $$\label{nonlocal_tSVD}
\begin{split}
& \min\sum_{i=1}^{K}\|\mathcal{P}_i - \mathcal{U}_{row}*\mathcal{S}_{i}*\mathcal{U}_{column}^T\|\\
& s.t \quad \mathcal{U}_{row}^T * \mathcal{U}_{row} = \mathcal{I}, \quad \mathcal{U}_{column}^T * \mathcal{U}_{column} = \mathcal{I}
\end{split}$$ After some threshold technique, the filtered group $\mathcal{G}_{filtered}$ can be obtained by the inverse transform of (\[compute\_C\_4D\]) via $$\label{compute_filtered_group}
\mathcal{G}_{filtered} = \mathcal{C} * _1\mathcal{U}_{row} * _2\mathcal{U}_{column} * _3\mathcal{U}_{group}$$
Threshold technique
-------------------
For multiway filtering approaches described in ($\ref{4dhosvd}$), there are roughly two strategies to encourage the sparsity of linear approximation in the transform domain: threshold core tensor $\mathcal{C}$ (via L0-norm [@qi2018multi], Wiener filter [@letexier2008noise; @rajwade2013image], soft- or hard-thresholding [@rajwade2013image]), and threshold factor matrices via low rank prior [@fu20163d]. Directly modeling each mode of 4D data with low rank prior raises two major concerns. First, the possible combination of rank estimation along each mode is extensive, and it risks falling into the unbalance trap introduced in [@bengua2017efficient]. Briefly, given a 4D group of $K$ patches $\mathcal{G}\in \mathbb{R}^{8\times 8 \times N \times K}$, its first mode unfolding is a skinny matrix $\mathbf{G}_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{8\times (8NK)}$, since $8NK\gg8$, then the rank of $\mathcal{G}$ along the first mode is assumed very low, which risks the loss of more information [@bengua2017efficient]. To solve these issues, although not explicitly stated, some methods [@dong2015low; @chang2017hyper] reshape $\mathcal{G}$ into a third-order tensor $\mathcal{G}_r \in \mathbb{R}^{64 \times N \times K}$ by vectorizing its frontal slices, and impose the low rank constraint only to its grouping dimension. We notice that the block matrix representation in (\[bcirc\_matrix\]) may alleviate the unbalance issue, which may further account for the superiority of low rank t-SVD based methods [@zhou2017outlier; @lu2016tensor]. However, choosing the multi-rank of f-diagonal tensor (\[block\_diag\_tensor\]) in the Fourier domain is not easy. In this paper, we adopt the simple hard-thresholding technique to achieve tensor sparsity.
Global basis and local group representation
-------------------------------------------
The presence of noise in the training process could distort the local representation and introduce some unwanted artifacts. Some recent denoising strategies [@talebi2014global; @shikkenawis20162d] consider information of the whole image and learn a global representation to render more robustness. CBM3D shares the same idea by applying a pre-defined transform for all patches. t-SVD is also a suitable alternative as a global basis because it preserves the spatial information, and the pre-defined FFT transform along the third mode could make it less sensitive to the variation of noise. The global patch representation can be trained with randomly sampled patches, but for simplicity, all the reference patches are used.\
If the patch representation is acquired, then grouping and collaborative filtering could be viewed as a feature extraction and patch classification process that takes care of nonlocal similarity. Therefore, some simple and effective classification method such as PCA can be utilized. We term the combination of global t-SVD basis and local PCA transform as ’multispectral t-SVD (MSt-SVD)’, and detailed implementation is given in Algorithm \[MSt-SVD\] and Fig. \[illus\_MSt-SVD\]. Comparing the FFT matrix $\mathbf{W}$ in (\[fft\_matrix\]) and the opponent color mode transform matrix $\mathbf{U}_{color}^T$ of CBM3D in (\[opp\_color\_mode\]), it can be seen that the first slice in the Fourier domain corresponding to the first row of $\mathbf{W}$ can be regarded as luminance channel, thus similar to CBM3D, the grouping process and the training of local PCA can be performed by considering only the first slices of all patches in the Fourier domain. Obviously, this implementation can save $\frac{2}{3}$ computational time on grouping and training. This efficient modification of MSt-SVD for color image is termed ’color MSt-SVD’ (CMSt-SVD), and its implementation is briefed in Algorithm \[CMSt-SVD\].\
Interestingly, the relationship among nonlocal t-SVD, CBM3D and 4DHOSVD is therefore established using block diagonal representation in the Fourier domain.
Computational complexity
------------------------
In this subsection, we compare the computational complexity of CBM3D, 4DHOSVD and the proposed MSt-SVD. For simplicity, we assume that the number of image pixels is $N$, that the average time to compute similar patches per reference patch is $T_{s}$, that the average number of patches similar to the reference patch is $K$, and that the size of the patch is $p\times p$ ($p\ll K$). According to [@rajwade2013image], the time complexity of 4DHOSVD and CBM3D are $O([T_s+Kp^3+Kp^4]N)$ and $O([T_s+Kp^2logp+p^2KlogK]N)$, respectively. The computational burden of MSt-SVD mainly lies in the PCA transform $O(Kp^4)$ and patch level t-SVD transform $O(Kp^3)$, leading to a total complexity of $O([T_s+Kp^3+Kp^4]N)$. Considering that MSt-SVD is a one step algorithm and does not require the training of patch level transform for each group, it is competitive in terms of efficiency.
Experiments
===========
In this section, we evaluate the performance of MSt-SVD and CMSt-SVD for color image and multispectral image denoising. All the results of compared methods are obtained by fine-tuned parameters or from the authors’ papers. All the experiments are performed on a moderate laptop equipped with Core(TM) i5-8250U @ 1.8 GHz and 8GB RAM. Our software package is publicly available[^3], which includes a fast C++ mex-function that could help reproduce all our results of color image and multispectral image denoising within 10 and 100 seconds, respectively.
Experimental setting for color image
------------------------------------
A brief description of four publicly available real-world datasets is listed in Table \[Table\_dataset\_description\], and more detailed information is in [@DatasetXu] and [@KongData].
The representative compared methods for color image denoising include: CBM3D [@dabov2007color], 4DHOSVD1 (hard-thresholding) [@rajwade2013image], WTR1 [@Li2018Weighted], Neat Image (NI), TNRD [@Chen2015On], GID [@xu2018external], MCWNNM [@xu2017multi], TWSC [@TrilateralXu], LSCD [@rizkinia2016local], and LLRT [@chang2017hyper]. Three representative neural network based methods MLP [@burger2012image], DnCNN [@zhang2017beyond] and FFD-Net [@Zhang2018FFDNet] are also included in our comparison. Considering the computational complexity of some compared methods and for fair comparison, all methods are tuned to produce their best average results, and the input noise level $\sigma$ of some Gaussian denoisers is listed in Table \[Table\_sigma\_chosen\]. In practical implementation, however, $\sigma$ should be tuned for every image, so to better understand the effectiveness of state-of-the-art CBM3D, the best result of CBM3D on every image is reported, and this implementation is termed ’CBM3D\_[best]{}’. PSNR and SSIM indices are employed for objective evaluation.
Experimental results for color image
------------------------------------
### Experiments on CC15
The fine-tuned results of TNRD, MLP and DnCNN in [@xu2017multi] are used. PSNR result of every image and average computational time are listed in Table \[Table\_cc15\][^4], and visual evaluations are given in Fig. \[Fig\_illus\_CC15\_demo1\] and Fig. \[Fig\_illus\_CC15\_demo2\]. Table \[Table\_cc15\] shows that the simple CMSt-SVD consistently outperforms MSt-SVD and 4DHOSVD1, and both MSt-SVD and CMSt-SVD are able to produce very competitive performance in terms of both effectiveness and efficiency. Fig. \[Fig\_illus\_CC15\_demo1\] shows that the representative low-rank based method LLRT and the sparse coding scheme TWSC produce satisfactory results in homogenous regions, because the underlying clean patches share much similar feature, and thus can be modeled as a low-rank or sparse coding problem. But as illustrated in Fig. \[Fig\_illus\_CC15\_demo2\], when the ground truth image contains more details or local variations, clear over-smooth effects can be observed. Interestingly, the state-of-the-art neural network FFD-Net shows similar effects. Besides, compared with CBM3D and CMSt-SVD, the local 4DHOSVD transform is more easily affected by the presence of noise, which is incorporated in the training process of color mode transform.
### Experiments on CC60, Xu-100 and our datasets
Table \[Table\_CC60\_Xu\] and \[Table\_my\_own\] list the average PSNR and SSIM values of several competitive methods. It is obvious that CMSt-SVD still demonstrates one of the best performance. Our visual evaluations in Fig. \[Fig\_illus\_CC60\] and Fig. \[Fig\_my\_own\] further illustrate the over-smooth effects of the sparse coding scheme and state-of-the-art neural network, while Fig. \[Fig\_illus\_Xu\] shows that many competitive methods including NI, 4DHOSVD, MCWNNM and GID produce color artifacts to some degree, which is similar to our observation in Fig. \[Fig\_illus\_CC15\_demo1\].
### Visual evaluation on dnd dataset [@plotz2017benchmarking]
The ground truth images of this dataset is not available, so we choose one severely corrupted image that contains lines, smooth regions, color texture and details. The input noise level $\sigma$ of MSt-SVD[^5] and CBM3D is tuned to achieve the best possible visual effects, and about $\sigma = 50 $ is used for both MSt-SVD and CBM3D. Also, the parameters of commercial software Neat Image are carefully chosen to compare their difference. Fig. \[fig\_real\_dnd\] shows the visual comparison. Unfortunately, all compared methods introduce unwanted artifacts. Neat Image presents the best results at line areas, while MSt-SVD produces sharper details with the green color uniformly distributed. The benchmark CBM3D with predefined transforms seeks a balance between details and smoothness.
Experimental setting for multispectral image
--------------------------------------------
The representative compared methods for multispectral image denoising include: LRTA [@renard2008denoising], PARAFAC [@liu2012denoising], 4DHOSVD1, LLRT, BM4D [@Maggioni2013Nonlocal], TDL [@peng2014decomposable], ISTReg [@xie2016multispectral], LRMR [@zhang2014hyperspectral] and Nmog [@chen2018denoising].\
Four quality indices are employed for multispectral image: PSNR, SSIM, ERGAS [@wald2002data] and SAM [@yuhas1993determination]. EGRAS and SAM are spectral-based evaluation indices, and the smaller EGRAS and SAM values are, the better the restored images are.\
Three publicly available datasets are used: Columbia Multispectral Dataset (CAVE)[^6] for simulated experiments, Harvard Hyperspectral Dataset (HHD)[^7] [@chakrabarti2011statistics] and Urban[^8] dataset for the real cases.
Experimental results for Multispectral image
--------------------------------------------
### i.i.d. Gaussian Noise
The whole CAVE database consisting of 32 hyperspectral images is used in our synthetic tests. The images of size $512 \times 512 \times 31$ are captured with the wavelengths in the range of 400-700 nm at an interval of 10 nm. In this experiment, entries in all slices were corrupted by zero-mean i.i.d Gaussian noise $N(0,\sigma^2)$ with $\sigma = \{10, 30, 50, 100\}$. Since LRMR and ISTReg require much more memory space, their results are copied from [@xu2017multi]. Detailed results are listed in Table \[table\_cave\_origin1\], visual effect comparison is given in Fig. \[fig\_iid\_cave\]. It can be seen that the recursive use of patch level information by MSt-SVD may better preserve details.
### non i.i.d. Gaussian Noise
Entries in all slices were corrupted by zero-mean Gaussian noise with increasing intensity from 21 to 51, and for fair comparison, the input noise level for all compared methods is taken as the average number 36. The detailed results and visual evaluations are given in Table \[table\_cave\_unbalance\][^9] and Fig. \[fig\_non\_iid\_cave\], respectively. Comparing Table \[Table\_cc15\] and Table \[table\_cave\_unbalance\], it is interesting to see that compared with 4DHOSVD, MSt-SVD is faster in dealing with color images but slower in multispectral images, this is because the for-loop of Matlab slice-by-slice computation in the Fourier domain is slow, and our C++ mex-function can reduce the total time to 1.5 minutes.
### Experiments on HHD data
There are 50 images of size $1040 \times 1392 \times 31$, and some of them are clearly contaminated by noise. Considering the large size of noisy images, we mainly examine the effectiveness of MSt-SVD on handling real multispectral image, and compare it with the efficient benchmark TDL. The input noise level $\sigma$ is manually tuned for both TDL and MSt-SVD to balance smooth effects and details, and $N_{step} = 8$ is used for MSt-SVD to save some time. Visual evaluation is given in Fig. \[fig\_real\_HDD\], and the artifacts produced by TDL can be seen in Fig. \[TDL\_imgd3\_crop\_paint\] and Fig. \[TDL\_imgd7\_crop\].
### Experiments on Urban HSI data
The full Urban dataset of size $307\times 307 \times 210$ is used, and some of the bands are contaminated by stripe noise in Fig. \[fig\_real\_urban1\](a) and Fig. \[fig\_real\_urban2\](a). As illustrated in \[fig\_real\_urban1\](b), naively applying MSt-SVD fails to remove stripe noise. In fact, the influence of the sparse stripe noise may be amplified by recursively computing the row- and column-wise relationship. According to (\[group\_equal\]), the use of block representation ($\ref{bcirc_matrix}$) does not change the group level representation, thus the influence of stripe noise could be attenuated by adopting sparsity in the grouping dimension. Specifically, we first reshape the original data as a new image of size $210 \times 307 \times 307$, such that stripe noise sparsely spread along the grouping dimension, and then apply MSt-SVD to the new data, the final filtered image is obtained by reshaping it back to the original size. We term this simple operation ’twist MSt-SVD’ and notice that it does not increase computational burden. Since many compared methods can not handle the stripe noise [@chen2018denoising], we use the benchmark Nmog for visual effects comparison. Fig. \[fig\_real\_urban1\](d) and Fig. \[fig\_real\_urban2\](c) demonstrate the effectiveness of the twist implementation. Considering its efficiency, its performance may be improved by further modeling of tensor sparsity [@qi2018multi].
Choice of parameters
--------------------
Among all free parameters, the hard-threshold parameter $\tau$ directly controls the core tensor sparsity in the transform domain, so we mainly investigate how $\tau$ could influence the proposed MSt-SVD and choose $ps = 8$, $SR = 20$ and $K$ = 30 according to the settings of 4DHOSVD in [@rajwade2013image]. For 4DHOSVD in [@rajwade2013image], the authors set $\tau = \sigma\sqrt{2log(n\_elem)}$ based on [@donoho1994ideal] for their simulated experiments on Kodak gallery[^10], where $n\_elem$ is the number of elements of a patch group. But we observe that it is chosen too large to provide over-smooth effects, so we multiply $\tau$ with a scale factor $\gamma$, and tune the averagely best PSNR value using the first 8 images of Kodak gallery. Fig. \[fig\_tau\_tune\] shows the influence of $\gamma$ on both 4DHOSVD and MSt-SVD, and the choice of parameters is detailed in Table \[table\_para\_choice\]. Fig. \[fig\_tau\_tune\_zoom\_in\] gives an illustration of the influence of $\tau$ with Brodatz color texture[^11]. In real cases, the tuning of $\tau$ for MSt-SVD is efficient because some intermediate results can be preserved to avoid the recursive computation of grouping and local PCA transform.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we build the relationship among state-of-the-art transforms with block diagonal representation, and investigate the proper choice of patch level transform. According to our discussion and analysis, two simple and effective methods that combine a global t-SVD basis and local PCA transform are proposed. The proposed MSt-SVD and CMSt-SVD utilize more spatial information, and produce competitive performance with state-of-the-art filters in terms of both efficiency and effectiveness. Recently, some statistical properties of tensor decomposition [@Zhang2018Tensor] are studied, it is interesting to investigate a further understanding of both color image and multispectral image denoising with block diagonal representation. Besides, our future research also includes classification [@Lu2008MPCA] and related image restoration problems [@tang2017pairwise].
Some Features Related To Block Circulant Representation (\[bcirc\_matrix\]) {#appendix_a}
===========================================================================
$bcirc(\mathcal{P}_i) bcirc(\mathcal{P}_i)^T$ is also a block circulant matrix. \[circ\_times\_transpose\]
Two patches $\mathcal{P}_i$ and $\mathcal{P}_j$ are similar if and only if $bcirc(\mathcal{P}_i)$ and $bcirc(\mathcal{P}_j)$ are similar. More specifically, $$\label{norm_equal}
\|\mathcal{P}_i - \mathcal{P}_j\|_F = \sqrt{3}\|bcirc(\mathcal{P}_i) - bcirc(\mathcal{P}_j)\|_F$$ \[circ\_norm\]
Given a group of similar patches $\mathcal{G}$, and its block circulant tensor representation $bcirc(\mathcal{G})$ in (\[bcirc\_tensor\]). If $\mathbf{U}_{group}$ and $\mathbf{U}_{bcirc\_group}$ are the last mode factor matrix of $\mathcal{G}$ and $bcirc(\mathcal{G})$, respectively, then $$\label{group_equal}
\mathbf{U}_{group} = \mathbf{U}_{bcirc\_group}$$ \[circ\_group\_equal\]
The proof of above Theorem is not hard by checking corresponding definition. Theorem \[circ\_times\_transpose\] offers an efficient implementation to compute product between a block circulant matrix and its transpose. Theorem \[circ\_norm\] and Theorem \[circ\_group\_equal\] indicate that nonlocal similarity and linear representation do not change after block circulant operation.
Re-formulation of Block Circulant Tensor Decomposition In The Fourier Domain {#appendix_b}
============================================================================
\[theo\_bcirc\_diag\] [@rojo2004some] Given a patch $\mathcal{P}_i$ and its block circulant representation $bcirc(\mathcal{P})$ in ($\ref{bcirc_matrix}$), there exists an orthogonal matrix $\mathbf{F}\otimes\mathbf{I}$ that could transform $bcirc(\mathcal{P})$ into a block diagonal matrix via $$\label{bcirc_diag_trans}
bdiag(\hat{\mathcal{P}}) = (\mathbf{F}\otimes\mathbf{I})bcirc(\mathcal{P})(\mathbf{F}\otimes\mathbf{I})^{-1}$$ where $\otimes$ represents the kronecker product, and $\hat{\mathcal{P}} = \mathcal{P} \times _3\mathbf{W}$, $\mathbf{W} = \sqrt{3} \mathbf{F}$. Furthermore, according to the orthogonality, we have $$\label{core_tensor_equal}
\|\mathcal{C}_{fdiag}\|_F = \|\mathcal{C}_{bcirc}\|_F$$
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
The authors would like to thank all the reviewers for their valuable comments, and appreciate all the authors for sharing their code and software package.
[^1]: Neatlab ABSoft. https://ni.neatvideo.com/home
[^2]: More details are given in Appendix \[appendix\_b\].
[^3]: https://github.com/ZhaomingKong
[^4]: CBM3D and LSCD use a C++ mex function, while other methods are implemented purely with Matlab.
[^5]: An efficient tool is available at github.com/ZhaomingKong/Pure\_Image
[^6]: www1.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/databases/multispectral
[^7]: vision.seas.harvard.edu/hyperspec/index.html
[^8]: www.tec.army.mil/hypercube
[^9]: BM4D uses a C++ mex-function with parallel implementation and TDL uses some mature toolboxes.
[^10]: http://r0k.us/graphics/kodak/
[^11]: http://multibandtexture.recherche.usherbrooke.ca/colored\_brodatz\_more.html
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Galactic nuclei, like the one of the Milky Way, are extreme places with high stellar densities and, in most cases, hosting a supermassive black hole. One of the scenarios proposed for the formation of the Galactic nucleus is by merging of primordial globular clusters [@Capuzzo-Dolcetta93]. An implication of this model is that this region should host stars characteristically found in old Milky Way globular clusters. RR Lyrae stars are primary distance indicators, well known representatives of old and metal-poor stellar populations, and therefore regularly found in globular clusters. Here we report the discovery of a dozen RR Lyrae ab-type stars in the vicinity of the Galactic center, i.e. in the so-called nuclear stellar bulge of the Milky Way. This discovery provides the first direct observational evidence that the Galactic nuclear stellar bulge contains ancient stars ($>$10 Gyr old). Based on this we conclude that merging globular clusters likely contributed to building-up the high stellar density in the nuclear stellar bulge of the Milky Way.'
author:
- 'Dante Minniti, Rodrigo Contreras Ramos, Manuela Zoccali, Marina Rejkuba, Oscar A. Gonzalez, Elena Valenti,'
- Felipe Gran
title: Discovery of RR Lyrae Stars in the Nuclear Bulge of the Milky Way
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
There are very limited observational tests that can be applied to shed light on the origins of galactic nuclei, with their stars and black holes. The only galactic nucleus where detailed stellar population properties can be derived with sufficiently high resolution and accuracy is that of the Milky Way, making it therefore a fundamental testbed for different formation models. There we can in principle resolve individual stars, probing a wide range of stellar ages and metallicities. There are two main scenarios proposed for the formation of the nuclear bulge of the Milky Way, and of all galactic nuclei in general: merging of globular clusters [@Tremaine75; @Capuzzo-Dolcetta93; @Gnedin14; @Guillard16], and fast gas accretion and star formation onto the central region [@Milosavljevic04; @Schinnerer08].
Here we concentrate on testing the first of these theories. In that scenario, dynamical friction causes orbital decay, dragging globular clusters deep into the potential well, where they merge and form a high density nuclear bulge with a nuclear star cluster at its center. While merging globular clusters typically bring in old-stellar populations, comparison with observations requires some additional in situ star formation [@Antonini15], or sub-sequent growth of the newly formed nuclear cluster via wet merger with other clusters that bring with them additional gas reservoirs that contribute younger stars [@Guillard16]. Therefore, young or intermediate-age stellar populations often dominate the total light in galactic nuclei, even in those cases where they make a minor contribution total the total stellar mass. It is then very difficult, in an environment like the Galactic center, to establish the presence of the ancient stellar populations, and to estimate their ages and metallicities. Such old populations must be present if the nuclear bulge of the Milky Way was made by merging of primordial globular clusters [@Capuzzo-Dolcetta93].
Theoretically, if the nuclear stellar bulge formed by merging of several globular clusters, the expected extension of the final merger product is about 100pc [@Capuzzo-Dolcetta93; @Gnedin14; @Antonini12; @Antonini14]. This size appears to be obtained by the simulations regardless the presence or absence of a central massive black hole [@Capuzzo-Dolcetta93; @Antonini12; @Antonini14; @Capuzzo-Dolcetta08; @Capuzzo-Dolcetta09].
Observationally, the nuclear stellar bulge of the Milky Way is well fit by two components: the nuclear star cluster, a compact component with half-light radius of 4 pc (2 arcmin) that dominates the inner 30 pc, and the nuclear stellar bulge, a shallower component extending out to about 120 pc [@Launhardt02]. This size is comparable to the sizes of well studied nuclear stellar bulges of other external galaxies [@Hartmann11; @Carollo02; @Lotz01].
As globular clusters are tidally disrupted, they yield their stars, including RR Lyrae, to the field. So far, there has been no search for variable stars deep enough to find RR Lyrae in the complex Galactic center region. However, this can now be tested observationally with the VISTA Variables in the Via Lactea (VVV) ESO public survey [@Minniti10; @Saito12], that contains deep multi-epoch photometry in the near-IR, allowing to find faint variable sources.
In the present search we also find numerous bright LPVs/Miras, eclipsing binaries, Cepheids, and microlensing events, which would be reported elsewhere. We concentrate here only on the RR Lyrae because in this context they play a crucial role. Their properties make them prime representatives of the primordial stellar populations of the Milky Way: (a) they have a well known Period-Luminosity relation, and are therefore excellent distance indicators; (b) they have a very narrow range of intrinsic colors that make them excellent reddening indicators; and (c) they are old (age $>$10 Gyr), and metal-poor (i.e. $[Fe/H] < -0.5$).
VVV Survey Photometry {#sec:vvv}
=====================
The limiting magnitudes ($K_s\sim18$ mag, $J\sim20$ mag) and spatial resolution ($\sim$0.8 arcsec) of the near-IR data provided by the VVV survey enable for the first time a successfully search of RR Lyrae throughout the Galactic center region. The PSF-fitting photometry of the individual VVV images for $\sim$100 epochs of the tiles b333 and b334 was carried out following the procedure described by @Alonso-Garcia15 [@Minniti15]. The search for periodic variable stars, phasing of the light curves, and classification of the RR Lyrae type ab were made following the strategies outlined by @Gran16 [@Dekany13]. We searched for RR Lyrae with magnitudes $12 < Ks < 17$, amplitudes $0.2 < A < 1.0$, periods $0.3 < P < 1.0$days.
Extreme crowding and extinction variations are clearly evident in near-IR images taken by the VVV survey (Figure\[fig:image\]). Searching for RR Lyrae in the most crowded and reddened region of the Milky Way is therefore a daunting task, in which several problems need to be faced and sorted out. Specifically, the completeness depends on the position in the field, as these are near-IR mosaics. The stellar density is very high, and the presence of numerous saturated stars in the field that obliterate their surroundings is a limiting factor in the photometry. In addition, the large and differential reddening, highly variable even on small spatial scale, affects the photometric completeness, although the effect is less severe than the crowding. Indeed, the VVV photometry is generally deep enough to reach well below the RR Lyrae region of the color-magnitude diagram even in the most reddened region at the distance of the Galactic center (Figure\[fig:cmd\]). The photometric completeness in this region measured from red clump giants at $14.3 < K_s < 15.9$, the magnitude range of the spanned by the observed RR Lyrae, has an average value of $80\%$ [@Valenti16]. However, the variable seeing and uneven sampling of the observed epochs contribute to further reduce the completeness of our sample. The faint magnitudes of the targets also prevent us from finding/classifying RR Lyrae that have very small amplitudes ( $<0.2$ mag).
For all these reasons, we do not claim full completeness for the detection of RR Lyrae, but conversely we expect many more to be found in dedicated high resolution deep searches that might enable to establish the total RR Lyrae density number in the Galactic center region.
The shape of the light curves is also an important limiting factor, with contamination from eclipsing binaries being a serious problem for the sinusoidal light curves, and therefore limiting us to select mostly RRab with asymmetric light curves. The total number of epochs (i.e. points in the light curves) is $\sim$100 epochs, generally sufficient to select RR Lyrae with confidence. However, sampling is a problem, with many good candidates that need to be discarded as aliases. We therefore have many more RR Lyrae candidates for which additional observations are needed in order to measure their periods accurately. These observations would be acquired in the next 3 years as part of the VVV extended survey (VVVX).
The Innermost RR Lyrae {#sec:rrl}
======================
We report here the discovery of a dozen RR Lyrae type ab (fundamental mode pulsators) stars within 36 arcmin (84 pc) from the Galactic center (Figure \[fig:image\]), plus a couple of c-type RRLyrae (pulsating in their first overtone). We measure accurate positions, projected distances from the Galactic center, mean IR magnitudes and colors, periods, and amplitudes for all of our targets (Table \[tab:PhotObs\]). The clear variability signature of RR Lyrae, including their characteristic saw-tooth light curve shape (Figure \[fig:lcurves\]), and their measured amplitudes and periods, are the unambiguous signatures that we are detecting individual ancient and faint RR Lyrae, and not stellar blends or other artefacts.
We also found a candidate type II Cepheid at a projected distance of 45pc (20 arcmin) from the Galactic center. This type II Cepheid with P= 1.809 days, mean $K_s=14.66$, and $(J-K_s)= 4.02$, is also representative of an old and metal-poor population present in the vicinity of the nuclear star cluster. A fundamental implication about the old age of the variable stars found here is that the nuclear stellar bulge must have been in place since the origins of the Milky Way. In addition, we discovered several more bonafide RR Lyrae over a wider area, within 36 - 50 arcmin (84 - 109 pc) of the Galactic center, just outside of the nuclear bulge.
The near-IR color-magnitude diagram obtained from PSF fitting photometry shows the high extinction of the field where these RR Lyrae have been discovered (Figure \[fig:cmd\]). The target RR Lyrae are fainter and bluer than the bulge red clump giants. When taking into account the large extinction difference across the bulge, the comparison of the color-magnitude diagram of these RR Lyrae and in other regions of the bulge [@Minniti10; @Saito12] is consistent with them being RR Lyrae located in the region of the Galactic center.
Extinction corrections {#sec:ext}
----------------------
Extinction corrections to the measured near-IR magnitudes is a mandatory step in order to assess the location of the sample RR Lyrae within the Galactic nucleus. The RR Lyrae lie in the instability strip, which is a narrow band in the color-magnitude diagram, and their intrinsic colors can be assumed to be $(J-K)_0=0.15 \pm 0.05$ mag. Although we only have $K_s$-band light curves and a single (or a few) J-band epoch, the color corrections for de-reddened RR Lyrae due to the single J-band observation is negligible [@Gran16; @Dekany13]. In fact, the color variation along the light curves is typically small in the near-IR ($\Delta(J-K_s)<0.05$ mag). When computing the reddening for a specific target, the most important systematic error is the uncertain slope of the reddening law [@Gonzalez12; @Nataf16; @Majaess16]. For example, comparing $A_k=0.528E(J-K)$ given by @Nishiyama09 with $A_k=0.72E(J-K)$ from @Cardelli89, and $A_k=0.435E(J-K)$ from @Alonso-Garcia15, the corresponding differences for the typical extinction values of the Galactic center region ($E(J-K) \sim$ 3.0 to 4.0) are significant. Adopting the most recent value given by @Alonso-Garcia15 that applies to the VVV data, and that also agrees with the slope of the reddened red giant clump seen in the color-magnitude diagram (Figure \[fig:cmd\]), we find for each candidate the reddening $E(J-K_s)$ and extinction $A_{k}$ listed in Table\[tab:StelParam\].
Metallicities {#sec:met}
-------------
In order to explore the properties of globular clusters that could have initially formed the Galactic nuclear bulge, we examine the properties of the Oosterhoff types I and II globular cluster populations [@Oosterhoff39; @Catelan09]. A way to distinguish between these two populations is by measuring the average periods of their RR Lyrae, which are shorter in the mean for type I ($<P>=0.55$ days) than for type II Oosterhoff cluster populations ($<P>=0.65$ days) [@Catelan09]. We find that the distribution of periods of the nuclear bulge RR Lyrae has a mean of $P=0.55$ days, resembling an Oosterhoff type I population (more metal-rich than $[Fe/H]= -1.6$ dex). Alternatively, the mean metallicities for RR Lyrae type ab can be estimated using their period-amplitude-metallicity relation. After discarding the RR Lyrae type c, we obtain mean metallicities $<[Fe/H]>=$-1.0, -1.4, and -1.3 dex for the sample RR Lyrae using the calibrations from @Alcock00 [@Yang10; @Feast10], respectively.
The Bailey diagram is shown in Figure\[fig:bailey\], in comparison with the bulge RR Lyrae. The resulting individual metallicities using the Galactic RR Lyrae calibration from @Feast10 (that should only be taken as indicative until spectroscopic measurements become available), are listed in Table\[tab:StelParam\]. Therefore, we suggest that most of the merged clusters were Oosterhoff type I globulars (with $-1.6 <[Fe/H]< -0.9$ dex). Even though we cannot discard that a few of the primordial globular clusters that merged into the nuclear stellar bulge might have been very metal-poor (with $[Fe/H]< -2$dex like VVV-RRL-40405), they do not appear to be the dominant population. Interestingly, the star VVV-RRL-40405 that is located only 16 arcmin away from the Galactic center is the most metal-poor star of this sample, with $[Fe/H] \sim -2.2$dex. This very metal-poor object is the first RR Lyrae that is a likely member of the nuclear star cluster. Knowing its intrinsic color, distance, and extinction (Table\[tab:StelParam\]), we can estimate its visual magnitude, V = 29.5 mag, much too faint and out of reach for current optical instruments.
Distances {#sec:dist}
---------
In order to compute distances we also have to take into account the different sources of errors. An important systematic error is the absolute magnitude scale for the period-luminosity (P-L) relation. We make two different assumptions to compute distances, in order to illustrate the uncertainties involved. First (case 1), we use the P-L relation given by eq.14 from @Muraveva15 that is based on the cleanest sample of Hipparcos and HST RR Lyrae parallaxes, and the extinctions listed in Table\[tab:StelParam\], obtaining distances that are consistent with membership to the Galactic nuclear bulge. Second (case 2), as the P-L relation also depends on the chemical composition (the so-called P-L-Z relation), assuming that these RR Lyrae are the debris of Oosterhoff type I globular clusters, we adopt a mean $[Fe/H]= -1.0$ dex in the P-L-Z relation of @Alonso-Garcia15, as well as a steeper extinction law from @Nishiyama09. In this way we also obtain distances that are consistent with membership to the Galactic nuclear bulge, but larger in the mean by about 500 pc that in the first case considered above. For both cases, Table\[tab:StelParam\] summarizes the RR Lyrae reddenings, extinctions, distance moduli and distances in kpc from the Sun, and metallicities. In all this we have also assumed that the photometric VVV zero point error is negligible ( $<0.01$ mag).
The distance distributions of the RR Lyrae in our sample compared with 1019 RR Lyrae type ab recently discovered in the outer bulge from the VVV survey [@Gran16] have consistent peak values. The distribution of the present sample is very concentrated, much more so than the observed distribution of RR Lyrae in the inner and outer bulge. Considering all these uncertainties, we can conclude that most of our RR Lyrae are located at the distance of the Galactic center. Only two of the brightest ones (VVV-RRL-65743, and VVV-RRL-55144) could be foreground objects, although we cannot completely discard the possibility that they are blended sources. The two main types of sources that brighten an object in this region would be bulge clump stars (which are redder), or foreground disk stars (which are bluer). However, the colors alone cannot help to distinguish these possibilities given the large and non-uniform reddening.
Conclusions {#sec:con}
===========
For the first time, we find that there are RR Lyrae in the region well within the nuclear stellar bulge of our Galaxy, suggesting that they could be the remains of the primordial globular clusters that built up the nuclear bulge. The dozen RR Lyrae stars presented here give a limit to the age and metallicity of the nuclear bulge, and thus provide valuable clues about its origin. While there is ample evidence that the stellar population of the nuclear star cluster is composite, containing a mixture of young, intermediate and old stellar populations [@Genzel10; @Schoedel14; @Chatzopoulos15], the RR Lyrae stars we found suggest that the nuclear bulge is very old ($>10$ Gyr), perhaps as old as the Milky Way itself.
Are these RR Lyrae special in any way? How do they compare with the RR Lyrae previously found in the Milky Way bulge? RR Lyrae are numerous in globular clusters and in the Milky Way halo, and are taken as prime tracers of old ($>$10 Gyr), and metal-poor stellar populations. However, not all globular cluster RR Lyrae are similar. For example, there are two populations of globular clusters [@Oosterhoff39; @Catelan09]: the Oosterhoff type I clusters, that are more metal-rich ($-0.9<[Fe/ H]<-1.6$ dex), and the Oosterhoff type II clusters, that are more metal-poor ($[Fe/H]< -1.6$ dex). With a mean period of $<P>=0.55$ days, most of the RR Lyrae discovered here are representative of an Oosterhoff type I population (Figure\[fig:bailey\]).
Overall, the properties of the present sample are consistent with the bulge RR Lyrae population [@Gran16], being more concentrated to the Galactic centre. The evidence supports the scenario where the nuclear stellar bulge was originally made out of a few globular clusters that merged through dynamical friction [@Capuzzo-Dolcetta93; @Guillard16], and as such it could well be the most massive and oldest surviving star cluster of our Galaxy.
[ccccccccc]{} 40405 & 266.17164326 & -28.86342987 & 15.5 & 15.78 & 20.05 & 4.27 & 0.780597 & 0.32\
65743 & 266.40425763 & -29.31187570 & 18.3 & 14.27 & 18.17 & 3.90 & 0.594484 & 0.22\
55278 & 266.79651367 & -29.08202592 & 20.4 & 15.60 & 19.07 & 3.47 & 0.624883 & 0.35\
37068 & 266.28880383 & -28.68220478 & 20.7 & 15.26 & 18.34& 2.98 & 0.618563 & 0.30\
80042 & 266.62151461 & -28.71032145 & 20.8 & 15.44 & 18.63 & 3.19 & 0.408153 & 0.29\
84844 & 266.06131561 & -28.83296846 & 21.4 & 15.87 & 19.69& 3.82 & 0.549641 & 0.36\
58214 & 266.11652879 & -28.65279182 & 26.5 & 15.79 & 18.87 & 3.08 & 0.403153 & 0.26\
55144 & 266.10448919 & -28.65918014 & 26.6 & 14.64 & 18.00 & 3.36 & 0.508399 & 0.39\
89691 & 266.24177968 & -28.58633606 & 26.9 & 15.74 & 19.33 & 3.59 & 0.376027 & 0.25\
33007 & 266.92238653 & -28.83231159 & 28.6 & 15.27 & 18.74 & 3.47 & 0.621276 & 0.24\
42332 & 266.10220084 & -28.61729278 & 28.7 & 15.34 & 17.93 & 2.59 & 0.520099 & 0.30\
65271 & 266.26347962 & -28.47343076 & 33.1 & 14.81 & 17.75 & 2.94 & 0.369534 & 0.30\
8444 & 266.09247811 & -28.51255523 & 34.3 & 15.52 & 18.60 & 3.08 & 0.487035 & 0.44\
33289 & 266.20795127 & -28.43858475 & 35.9 & 15.58 & 18.61 & 3.03 & 0.480476 & 0.33\
[ccccccccc]{} 40405 & 4.12 & 1.79 & 14.67 & 8.6 &14.92 & 9.6 & -2.2 & RRab\
65743 & 3.75 & 1.63 &13.02 & 4.0 & 13.27 & 4.5 & -1.5 & RRab foreground?\
55278 & 3.32 & 1.44 &14.59 & 8.3 & 14.85 & 9.3 & -1.6 & RRab\
37068 & 2.83 & 1.23 &14.45 & 7.8 & 14.67 & 8.6 & -1.6 & RRab\
80042 & 3.04 & 1.32 &14.09 & 6.6 & 14.32 & 7.3 & -0.6 & RRab\
84844 & 3.67 & 1.60 & 14.56 & 8.2 & 14.82 & 9.2 &-1.3 & RRab\
58214 & 2.93 & 1.27 & 14.47 & 7.8 & 14.71 & 8.8 & -0.6 & RRab\
55144 & 3.21 & 1.40 & 13.45 & 4.9 & 13.70 & 5.5 & -1.2 & RRab foreground?\
89691 & 3.44 & 1.50 & 14.12 & 6.7 & 14.36 & 7.4 & -0.5 & RRc\
33007 & 3.32 & 1.44 & 14.26 & 7.1 & 14.50 & 7.9 & -1.6 & RRab\
42332 & 2.44 & 1.06 & 14.51 & 8.0 & 14.75 & 8.9 & -1.2 & RRab\
65271 & 2.79 & 1.21 & 13.54 & 5.1 & 13.69 & 5.8 & -0.4 & RRc\
8444 & 2.93 & 1.27 & 14.41 & 7.6 & 14.66 & 8.6 & -1.1 & RRab\
33289 & 2.88 & 1.25 & 14.47 & 7.8 & 14.72 & 8.8 & -1.0 & RRab\
We gratefully acknowledge the use of data from the VVV ESO Public Survey program ID 179.B-2002 taken with the VISTA telescope, and data products from the Cambridge Astronomical Survey Unit (CASU). The VVV Survey data are made public at the ESO Archive. Support for the authors is provided by the BASAL Center for Astrophysics and Associated Technologies (CATA) through grant PFB-06, and the Ministry for the Economy, Development, and Tourism, Programa Iniciativa Cientifica Milenio through grant IC120009, awarded to the Millennium Institute of Astrophysics (MAS). We acknowledge support from FONDECYT Regular grants No. 1130196 (D.M.), and No. 1150345 (M.Z. and F.G.). We are also grateful to the Aspen Center for Physics where our work was supported by National Science Foundation grant PHY-1066293, and by a grant from the Simons Foundation (D.M. and M.Z.).
natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, C., [Allsman]{}, R. A., [Alves]{}, D. R., [et al.]{} 2000, , 119, 2194
, J., [D[é]{}k[á]{}ny]{}, I., [Catelan]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2015, , 149, 99
, F. 2014, , 794, 106
, F., [Barausse]{}, E., & [Silk]{}, J. 2015, , 812, 72
, F., [Capuzzo-Dolcetta]{}, R., [Mastrobuono-Battisti]{}, A., & [Merritt]{}, D. 2012, , 750, 111
, R. 1993, , 415, 616
, R., & [Mastrobuono-Battisti]{}, A. 2009, , 507, 183
, R., & [Miocchi]{}, P. 2008, , 388, L69
, J. A., [Clayton]{}, G. C., & [Mathis]{}, J. S. 1989, , 345, 245
, C. M., [Stiavelli]{}, M., [Seigar]{}, M., [de Zeeuw]{}, P. T., & [Dejonghe]{}, H. 2002, , 123, 159
, M. 2009, , 320, 261
, S., [Fritz]{}, T. K., [Gerhard]{}, O., [et al.]{} 2015, , 447, 948
, I., [Minniti]{}, D., [Catelan]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2013, , 776, L19
, M. W., [Abedigamba]{}, O. P., & [Whitelock]{}, P. A. 2010, , 408, L76
, R., [Eisenhauer]{}, F., & [Gillessen]{}, S. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121
, O. Y., [Ostriker]{}, J. P., & [Tremaine]{}, S. 2014, , 785, 71
, O. A., [Rejkuba]{}, M., [Zoccali]{}, M., [et al.]{} 2012, , 543, A13
, F., [Minniti]{}, D., [Saito]{}, R. K., [et al.]{} 2016, , 591, A145
, N., [Emsellem]{}, E., & [Renaud]{}, F. 2016, , 461, 3620
, M., [Debattista]{}, V. P., [Seth]{}, A., [Cappellari]{}, M., & [Quinn]{}, T. R. 2011, , 418, 2697
, R., [Zylka]{}, R., & [Mezger]{}, P. G. 2002, , 384, 112
, J. M., [Telford]{}, R., [Ferguson]{}, H. C., [et al.]{} 2001, , 552, 572
, D., [Turner]{}, D., [Dekany]{}, I., [Minniti]{}, D., & [Gieren]{}, W. 2016, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1607.08623
, M. 2004, , 605, L13
, D., [Lucas]{}, P. W., [Emerson]{}, J. P., [et al.]{} 2010, , 15, 433
, D., [Contreras Ramos]{}, R., [Alonso-Garc[í]{}a]{}, J., [et al.]{} 2015, , 810, L20
, T., [Palmer]{}, M., [Clementini]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2015, , 807, 127
, D. M., [Gonzalez]{}, O. A., [Casagrande]{}, L., [et al.]{} 2016, , 456, 2692
, S., [Tamura]{}, M., [Hatano]{}, H., [et al.]{} 2009, , 696, 1407
, P. T. 1939, The Observatory, 62, 104
, R. K., [Hempel]{}, M., [Minniti]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2012, , 537, A107
, E., [B[ö]{}ker]{}, T., [Meier]{}, D. S., & [Calzetti]{}, D. 2008, , 684, L21
, R., [Feldmeier]{}, A., [Neumayer]{}, N., [Meyer]{}, L., & [Yelda]{}, S. 2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 31, 244007
, S. D., [Ostriker]{}, J. P., & [Spitzer]{}, Jr., L. 1975, , 196, 407
, E., [Zoccali]{}, M., [Gonzalez]{}, O. A., [et al.]{} 2016, , 587, L6
, S.-C., [Sarajedini]{}, A., [Holtzman]{}, J. A., & [Garnett]{}, D. R. 2010, , 724, 799
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Kevin E. Bassler$^{1,2}$, Joseph L. McCauley$^{1,3}$, and Gemunu H. Gunaratne$^{1,4}$[^1]'
title: 'Nonstationary Increments, Scaling Distributions, and Variable Diffusion Processes in Financial Markets'
---
[**Arguably the most important problem in quantitative finance is to understand the nature of stochastic processes that underlie market dynamics. One aspect of the solution to this problem involves determining characteristics of the distribution of fluctuations in returns. Empirical studies conducted over the last decade have reported that they are non-Gaussian, scale in time, and have power-law (or fat) tails [@mand; @mccAgun; @manAsta; @friApei; @borl]. However, because they use sliding interval methods of analysis, these studies implicitly assume that the underlying process has stationary increments. We explicitly show that this assumption is not valid for the Euro-Dollar exchange rate between 1999-2004. In addition, we find that fluctuations in returns of the exchange rate are uncorrelated and scale as power-laws for certain time intervals during each day. This behavior is consistent with a diffusive process with a diffusion coefficient that depends both on the time and the price change. Within scaling regions, we find that sliding interval methods can generate fat-tailed distributions as an artifact, and that the type of scaling reported in many previous studies does not exist.**]{}
Our analysis is conducted on one-minute intra-day prices of the Euro-Dollar exchange rate (obtained from Olsen and Associates, Zürich) which is traded 24-hours a day. Let $P(t)$ represent the exchange rate at time $t$ and define the return of the exchange rate as ${\bar x}(\tau; t) \equiv \log \left [P(\tau + t)/P(t) \right]$. Here $t$ represents a time during the day and $\tau$ a time increment that is initiated at $t$. The analysis presented below is predicated on the assumption, for which we provide evidence, that the stochastic dynamics of ${\bar x}(\tau; t)$ is the same between trading days. Then, we find that the average movement taken over the approximately 1500 trading days during 1999-2004, $\langle {\bar x} (\tau; t) \rangle$ nearly vanishes for each value of $t$. A value of $\tau = 10\ min$ is used so that the autocorrelations in the signal $P(t)$ have decayed sufficiently. The rest of our analysis is conducted on fluctuations $x(\tau;t) = {\bar x}(\tau;t) - \langle {\bar x} (\tau; t) \rangle$ about the mean.
A stochastic process has stationary increments if the distribution of $x(\tau; t)$ is independent of $t$; otherwise, increments are nonstationary. Figure 1(a) shows the behavior of the standard deviation $\sigma(\tau;t) \equiv \sqrt {\langle x (\tau; t)^2 \rangle}$ of the Euro-Dollar rate as a function of the time of day. If the stochastic increments are stationary, the curve would be flat. Clearly, it is not. Instead $\sigma (\tau; t)$ exhibits complicated nonstationary behavior while changing by more than a factor of 3 during the day.
Our assumption of daily repetition of the stochastic process is validated by conducting a corresponding analysis of fluctuations throughout a trading week [@galAcal]. Figure 1(b) shows the standard deviation of returns averaged over the 300 weeks studied. The approximate daily periodicity of $\sigma(\tau; t)$ is evident, thereby justifying our approach. Similar observations were made on price increaments for Euro-Dollar rate in Ref. [@galAcal].
The standard deviation scales as power-laws with time during several intervals within the day. Power-law fits to the data in some of these intervals are shown by colored lines in Fig. 1(a). We focus our analysis on the time interval [**I**]{} which begins at 9:00 AM New York time and lasts approximately $3$ hours. The data shown in red in Fig. 2(a) shows that the standard deviation within this interval scales like $t^{-\eta}$ where $t$ is measured from the beginning of the interval and the index $\eta = 0.13 \pm 0.04$. This scaling extends for more than $1.5$ decades in time. Note that the value of $\eta$ is different for the other time intervals during which the standard deviation scales in time. Similar variation in scaling exponents during the day has been reported previously [@carAcas].
The scaling index within [**I**]{} does not change significantly during the six years studied. This is demonstrated by independently analyzing three two-year periods 1999-2000, 2001-2002, and 2003-2004. Figure 2(b) shows that the scaling index remains nearly unchanged between these two-year periods.
We have also analyzed the behavior of other moments $\langle |x(\tau; t) |^{\beta}\rangle^{1/\beta}$ of the returns. Figure 2(a) shows that each of the moments $\beta=0.5,\ 1.0,\ 2.0$, and $3.0$ also scales as a power-law in time, and furthermore that the scaling index for each of them is consistent with the value of $\eta = 0.15$. This nearly uniform scaling of the different moments suggests that the return distribution itself scales in time. Denote the distribution of $x(\tau; t)$ by $W(x, \tau; t)$, where the final argument reiterates that the distribution can depend on the starting time of the interval. In particular, when the increments are nonstationary $W(x,\tau; t)$ depends on $t$. Our scaling anzatz is $$W(x, \tau; 0) = \frac{1}{\tau^{H}} {\cal F} (u)
\label{scaling}$$ where $H$ is the [*scaling index*]{}, $u=x/\tau^{H}$ the [*scaling variable*]{} and ${\cal F}$ the [*scaling function*]{}. Note that the scaling anzatz is for a time interval [*starting*]{} from the beginning of [**I**]{}.
In addition to scaling, the stochastic dynamics appears to have no memory. This can be demonstrated by evaluating the auto-correlation function $$A_{\tau}(t_1,t_2) = \frac{\langle x(\tau;t_1) x(\tau;t_2) \rangle} {\sigma(\tau;t_1) \sigma(\tau;t_2)}.
\nonumber$$ We find that for $\tau=10$, $A_{\tau}(t_1, t_2) = 1$ if $t_1=t_2$, and of the order of $10^{-3}$ when $|t_1-t_2|\ge 10$. This observation eliminates fractional Brownian motion [@manAvan] as a description for the underlying stochastic dynamics, and strongly indicates that ${\partial W (x, \tau; 0)}/{\partial \tau}$ depends only on $x(\tau; 0)$ and $\tau$. If, in addition, $W(x, \tau;0)$ has finite variance (see Fig. 4), it has been analytically established that the evolution of $W(x,\tau; 0)$ is given by a diffusion equation [@chan; @gunAmcc] $$\frac {\partial W(x, \tau; 0)}{\partial \tau} = \frac{1}{2} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} \left (D(x, \tau) W(x, \tau; 0)\right),
\label{FPeqn}$$ where $D(x, \tau)$ is the diffusion coefficient. There is no drift term in Eq. (2) because $x(\tau; t)$ has zero mean for all $t$. Note that the stochastic dynamics is completely determined by the diffusion coefficient, which, as shown below, depends on $H$. Hence, $H$ can be considered to be the [*dynamical*]{} scaling index.
Because we have found scaling, consider solutions of the form (1) to Eq. (2). When $H = 1/2$, the diffusion coefficient has been shown to be a function of $u$; i.e., $D(x, \tau) = {\cal D}(u)$ [@gunAmcc]. If, in addition, ${\cal D}(u)$ is symmetric in $u$, it is related to the scaling function by ${\cal F}(u) = D(u)^{-1} \exp \left (-\int^{u} dy \ y/D(y) \right )$ [@gunAmcc; @aleAbas]. When $H \ne 1/2$, we can “rescale" time intervals by $\tilde \tau = \tau^{2H}$ [@galAcal; @basAgun]. In $\tilde \tau$, the stochastic process has a scaling index $1/2$ and a diffusion coefficient of the form ${\cal D}(x/\sqrt{\tilde \tau})$. Converting back to $\tau$, $D(x, \tau) = 2 H \tau^{2H-1} {\cal D}(u)$ [@basAgun].
Statistical analyses of financial markets have often been conducted using sliding interval methods [@mccAgun; @manAsta; @friApei; @borl; @borl2; @galAcal; @ghaAbre], which implicitly assume that increments are stationary even if they are not. For example, they compute the distribution $W_S(x, \tau) = \langle W (x, \tau; t)\rangle_{t}$, where $\langle . \rangle_t$ indicates an average over $t$. Many of these studies have reported that $W_S(x, \tau)$ scales as $$W_S (x, \tau) = \frac{1}{\tau^{H_S}} {\cal F}_S (v),
\label{siscaling}$$ where $v = x / {\tau^{H_S}}$ and $H_S \approx 1/2$. It has also been reported that the scaling function ${\cal F}_S$ has power-law (or fat) tails [@friApei; @borl]. However, it is important to understand that $W_S(x, \tau)$ is a solution of Eq. (2) only when the stochastic process has stationary increments, in which case $H = H_S = 1/2$. In general, $H_S$ and $W_S (x, \tau)$ are different from $H$ and $W (x, \tau; 0)$. Next, we give an explicit example where this is the case, and, in addition, $W_S(x, \tau)$ appears to have fat-tails even though $W(x, \tau; 0)$ does not.
Consider a diffusive process initiated at $x=0$ that has a variable diffusion coefficient $2 H \tau^{2H-1} (1 + |u|)$. Its distribution has a scaling index $H$ and a scaling function ${\cal F}(u) = \frac{1}{2}\exp (-|u|)$ [@gunAmcc; @aleAbas]. (See the discussion following Eq. (2).) Numerical integration of the stochastic process for $H=0.35$ confirms this claim, see Fig. 3(a). In contrast, $W_S(x, \tau)$ calculated from [*the same data*]{} appears to scale with an index $H_S = \frac{1}{2}$. Unlike ${\cal F}$ which is bi-exponential, the apparent scaling function ${\cal F}_S$ (shown in Fig. 3(b)) has fat-tails. However, a careful analysis reveals that distributions $W_S(x,\tau)$ do not scale in the tail region, and hence that ${\cal F}_S$ is not well-defined. Differences analogous to those between $H$ and $H_S$ have been noted for Lévy processes [@fogAboh] and for the R/S analysis of Tsallis distributions [@borl2].
The behavior of $\sigma(\tau; t)$ (Fig. 2(a)) can be calculated for variable diffusion processes. Assuming that $\tau$ is small, Ito calculus gives $\delta x^2 \equiv x(\tau; t)^2 = D(x, t) \tau$. Averaging over returns at $t$ gives $$\langle \delta x^2 \rangle = \left[\int dx W(x, t; 0) D(x, t) \right] \tau.
\label{mean_abs1}$$ In a variable diffusion process, $W(x,t; 0) = t^{-H} {\cal F}(u)$ and $D(x; t) = 2 H t^{2H -1} {\cal D}(u)$; consequently $$\sqrt {\langle \delta x^2 \rangle} \sim t^{H - 1/2},
\label {mean_abs2}$$ independent of the exact form of ${\cal D}(u)$. Results for the Euro-Dollar rate within the interval [**I**]{} (Fig. 2(a)) which showed that $\eta \approx 0.15$ are therefore consistent with a scaling index $H = \frac{1}{2} - \eta \approx 0.35$. Note that, unlike for Lévy processes and fractional Brownian motion, $H < 1/2$, and is substantially less than $H_S$ reported in previous analyses of the Euro-Dollar exchange rate (between 0.5 and 0.6) [@galAcal; @ghaAbre; @mulAdac]. A general calculation for the moments of a variable diffusion process gives $$\langle |\delta x|^{\beta} \rangle^{1/\beta} \sim t^{H -1/2},
\label {mean_abs3}$$ for all $\beta$, consistent with results shown in Fig. 2(a).
In order to estimate $H_S$ for an arbitrary variable diffusion process, we note first that $\langle x(t+\tau;0)^2\rangle = \langle x(t;0)^2 \rangle + \langle x(\tau;t)^2 \rangle$ for any diffusive process without memory (see Ref.[@gunAmcc]). Then, using the scaling anzatz (1), setting $c = \int du \ u {\cal F}(u)$, and taking the sliding interval average $$\langle x(\tau; t)^2 \rangle_t = \langle c (t+\tau)^{2H} - c t^{2H}\rangle_t \approx 2Hc \langle t^{2H-1}\rangle_t \tau,
\label{expn}$$ where the last approximation is valid when $\tau \ll t$, a condition that is true for most intervals of length $\tau$ in a sliding interval calculation. Hence $\langle x(\tau; t)^2 \rangle_{t} \sim \tau$. Consequently, $H_S = 1/2$ regardless of the value of $H$!
Finally, we introduce a method to extract the empirical scaling function ${\cal F}$ from the Euro-Dollar time series. Unfortunately, the available data are insufficient to determine ${\cal F}(u)$ accurately using the usual method of collapsing $W(x, \tau; 0)$ for multiple values of $\tau$. However, since we have determined $H (\approx 0.35)$ independently, we can use Eq. (\[scaling\]) for multiple values of $\tau$ in the interval [**I**]{} (i.e., $\tau$ between approximately $10$ and $160$ minutes) to determine ${\cal F}$. The result is shown in Fig. 4(a). Note that the distribution has an approximate bi-exponential form. Since exponential distributions have finite variance, all assumptions needed for the derivation of Eq. (\[FPeqn\]) are justified. However, it is asymmetric and decays more slowly on the negative side. By contrast, the empirical sliding interval scaling function ${\cal F}_S(v)$ for the same time interval is shown in Fig. 4(b). For this case, the scaling collapse is achieved for $H_S=1/2$. $F_S(v)$ appears to have fat tails, consistent with previous reports [@mulAdac; @borl]. However, in light of the example discussed earlier and the fact that $H \ne 1/2$, it is unlikely that ${\cal F}_S$ is well-defined for this financial market data within the interval [**I**]{}.
Variable diffusion processes exhibit another signature (stylized fact) of market fluctuations. Although their autocorrelation vanishes, a large fluctuation will typically produce a large value of $|x|$, and hence a return with a large diffusion coefficient. Consequently, a large fluctuation is likely to be followed by additional large fluctuations whose signs are uncorrelated to the first [@gunAmcc]. As a result, the autocorrelation function for the signal $|x(\tau;t)|$ (or for the signal $x(\tau;t)^2$) will decay slowly in $t$. Such behavior, referred to as the “clustering of volatility" is seen in the Euro-Dollar exchange rate and has been reported in empirical studies of other financial markets [@conApot; @heyAyan; @heyAleo].
The analysis given here applies to stochastic dynamics of a single scaling interval. However, the daily fluctuations in the Euro-Dollar rate are a combination of scaling intervals with distinct scaling indices, and possibly regions with no scaling. We have not yet determined how to extend our analysis beyond a single scaling region. Bacuase of this, it is not clear how to interpret the distributions over intervals longer than a scaling region, including inter-day data.
We have shown that stochastic fluctuations in the Euro-Dollar rate have uncorrelated nonstationary increments during the course of a trading day, and that there are intervals during which their absolute moments scale like a power-law in time. The stochastic dynamics during these scaling intervals can be described by a diffusion process with variable diffusion coefficient. We have also shown that sliding interval analysis of variable diffusion processes can give an incorrect scaling exponent and in addition can give scaling functions with fat-tails even when the underlying dynamics do not have them. Indeed, this appears to be the case within the interval [**I**]{}.
The authors would like to thank A. A. Alejandro-Quinones for discussions. They also acknowledge support from the Institute for Space Science Operations (KEB, GHG) and the NSF through grants DMR-0406323 (KEB), DMR-0427938 (KEB) and DMS-0607345 (GHG).
[99]{}
B. B. Mandelbrot, The Variation of Certain Speculative Prices, [*J. Bus.*]{} [**36**]{}, 394 (1963).
J. L. McCauley and G. H. Gunaratne, An Empirical Model of Volatility Returns and Options Pricing, [*Physica A*]{} [**329**]{}, 170 (2003).
R. N. Mantegna and H. E. Stanley, Scaling Behavior in the Dynamics of an Economic Index, [*Nature*]{} [**376**]{}, 46 (1995); Turbulence in Financial Markets, [*Nature*]{} [**383**]{}, 587 (1996).
R. Friedrich, J. Peinke, and Ch. Renner, How to Quantify Deterministic and Random Influences on the Statistics of the Foreign Exchange Market, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**84**]{}, 5224 (2000).
L. Borland, A Theory of Non-Gaussian Option Pricing, [*Quan. Finance*]{} [**2**]{}, 415 (2002).
S. Galluccio, G. Caldarelli, M. Marsili, and Y. C. Zhang, Scaling in Currency Exchange, [*Physica A*]{} [**245**]{}, 423 (1997).
A. Carbone, G. Castelli, and H. E. Stanley, Time-dependent Hurst Exponents in Financial Time Series, [*Physica A*]{} [**344**]{}, 267 (2004).
B. Mandlebrot and J. W. van Ness, Fractional Brownian Motion, Fractional Noise and Applications, [*SIAM Rev.*]{} [**10**]{}, 422 (1968).
G. H. Gunaratne, J. L. McCauley, M. Nicole, and A. Török. Variable Step Random Walks and Self-Similar Distributions, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**121**]{}, 887 (2005).
S. Chandrasekhar, Stochastic Problems in Physics and Astronomy, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{}, [**15**]{}, 1 (1943).
A. A. Alejandro-Quinones, K. E. Bassler, M. Field, J. L. McCauley, M. Nicol, I. Timofeyev, A. Török, and G. H. Gunaratne, A Theory of Fluctuations in Stock Prices, [*Physica A*]{} [**363**]{}, 383 (2006).
K. E. Bassler, G. H. Gunaratne, and J. L. McCauley, Markov Processes, Hurst Exponents, and Nonlinear Diffusion Equations with Applications to Finance, Physica A, [**369**]{}, 343 (2006).
L. Borland, Microscopic Dynamics of the Nonlinear Fokker-Planck Equation: A Phenomenological Model, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**57**]{}, 6634 (1998).
S. Ghashghaie, W. Breymann, J. Peinke, P. Talkner, and Y. Dodge, Turbulent Cascades in Foreign Exchange Markets, [*Nature*]{} [**381**]{}, 767 (1996).
H. C. Fogedby, T. Bohr, and H. J. Jensen, Fluctuations in a Lévy Flight Gas, [*J. Stat. Phys.*]{} [**66**]{}, 583 (1992).
U. A. Müller, M. M. Dacorogna, R. B. Olsen, O. V. Pictet, M. Schwarz, and C. Morgenegg, Statistical Study of Foreign Exchange Rates, Empirical Evidence of a Price Change Scaling Law, and Inter-day Analysis, [*J. Bank. Fin.*]{} [**14**]{}, 1189 (1990).
R. Cont, M. Potters, and J.-P. Bouchard, Scaling in Stock Market Data: Stable Laws and Beyond, in “Scale Invariance and Beyond”, eds. B. Dubrulle, F. Graner, and D. Sornette, Springer, Berlin, 1997.
C. C. Heyde and Y. Yang, On Defining Long Range Dependence, [*J. Appl. Prob.*]{} [**34**]{}, 939 (1997).
C. C. Heyde and N. N. Leonenko, Student Processes, [*Adv. Appl. Prob.*]{} [**37**]{}, 342 (2005).
M. Couillard and M. Davison, A Comment on Measuring the Hurst exponent of Financial Time Series, [*Physica A*]{} [**348**]{}, 404 (2005).
![(a) The standard deviation $\sigma(\tau;t) \equiv \sqrt {\langle x (\tau; t)^2 \rangle}$ of the daily Euro-Dollar exchange as a function of the time of day (in GMT). Here $\tau = 10\ min$ to ensure that autocorrelations in $P(t)$ have decayed sufficiently. Our statistical analysis assumes that $x (\tau; t)$ follows the same stochastic process each trading day. The average indicated by the brackets $\langle . \rangle$ is taken over the approximately 1500 trading days between 1999-2004, and the standard error at each point is typically 3%. Note that, if the stochastic dynamics had stationary increments, $\sigma(\tau;t)$ would be constant. Instead, it varies by more than a factor of 3 during the day, thus showing explicitly that the exchange rate has nonstationary increments. Notice also that $\sigma(\tau;t)$ scales in time during several intervals, four of which are highlighted by colored lines that are power-law fits. Our analysis focuses on the interval [**I**]{} shown by the horizontal solid line. (b) The weekly behavior of $\sigma(\tau;t)$ for the same data. Observe that it exhibits an approximate daily periodicity, thereby justifying our assumption of the daily repeatability of the stochastic process underlying the Euro-Dollar exchange rate.[]{data-label="figure1"}](Fig1a.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}\
![(a) The standard deviation $\sigma(\tau;t) \equiv \sqrt {\langle x (\tau; t)^2 \rangle}$ of the daily Euro-Dollar exchange as a function of the time of day (in GMT). Here $\tau = 10\ min$ to ensure that autocorrelations in $P(t)$ have decayed sufficiently. Our statistical analysis assumes that $x (\tau; t)$ follows the same stochastic process each trading day. The average indicated by the brackets $\langle . \rangle$ is taken over the approximately 1500 trading days between 1999-2004, and the standard error at each point is typically 3%. Note that, if the stochastic dynamics had stationary increments, $\sigma(\tau;t)$ would be constant. Instead, it varies by more than a factor of 3 during the day, thus showing explicitly that the exchange rate has nonstationary increments. Notice also that $\sigma(\tau;t)$ scales in time during several intervals, four of which are highlighted by colored lines that are power-law fits. Our analysis focuses on the interval [**I**]{} shown by the horizontal solid line. (b) The weekly behavior of $\sigma(\tau;t)$ for the same data. Observe that it exhibits an approximate daily periodicity, thereby justifying our assumption of the daily repeatability of the stochastic process underlying the Euro-Dollar exchange rate.[]{data-label="figure1"}](Fig1b.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}
![(a) A log-log plot of $\langle x(\tau; t)^{\beta} \rangle^{1/\beta}$ for $\beta = 0.5, 1.0, 2.0$, and $3.0$, demonstrating power law decay $t^{-\eta}$ for each index. Here $t$ is measured in local New York time stating at 9:00AM. The data for $\beta = 0.5, 1.0, 2.0$, and $3.0$, shown in blue, green, red, and black, respectively, have scaling indices (given by the slopes of the solid lines) $\eta = 0.15\pm0.02$, $0.14\pm0.02$, $0.13\pm0.04$ and $0.13\pm0.08$. All of these values are consistent with $\eta \approx 0.15$, and hence a dynamical scaling index of $H=\frac{1}{2}-\eta \approx 0.35$. The error estimates on the exponents are the standard errors from the nonlinear fit including the standard deviations for each time point, but neglecting any correlations between them. (b) The behavior of the standard deviation $\sigma(\tau;t)$ in the interval [**I**]{} during each of the periods 1999-2000 (blue), 2001-2002 (red), and 2003-2004 (green). The scaling index from nonlinear fits for the three data sets are $0.13 \pm 0.06$, $0.14 \pm 0.04$ and $0.14 \pm 0.07$. The near equality of these indices shows that the scaling index is nearly invariant over time. []{data-label="Figure2"}](Fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}\
![(a) A log-log plot of $\langle x(\tau; t)^{\beta} \rangle^{1/\beta}$ for $\beta = 0.5, 1.0, 2.0$, and $3.0$, demonstrating power law decay $t^{-\eta}$ for each index. Here $t$ is measured in local New York time stating at 9:00AM. The data for $\beta = 0.5, 1.0, 2.0$, and $3.0$, shown in blue, green, red, and black, respectively, have scaling indices (given by the slopes of the solid lines) $\eta = 0.15\pm0.02$, $0.14\pm0.02$, $0.13\pm0.04$ and $0.13\pm0.08$. All of these values are consistent with $\eta \approx 0.15$, and hence a dynamical scaling index of $H=\frac{1}{2}-\eta \approx 0.35$. The error estimates on the exponents are the standard errors from the nonlinear fit including the standard deviations for each time point, but neglecting any correlations between them. (b) The behavior of the standard deviation $\sigma(\tau;t)$ in the interval [**I**]{} during each of the periods 1999-2000 (blue), 2001-2002 (red), and 2003-2004 (green). The scaling index from nonlinear fits for the three data sets are $0.13 \pm 0.06$, $0.14 \pm 0.04$ and $0.14 \pm 0.07$. The near equality of these indices shows that the scaling index is nearly invariant over time. []{data-label="Figure2"}](Fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}
![(a) The scaling function of the return distribution ${\cal F}$ calculated from a collapse of data for $\tau=10$ (blue), $100$ (green), and $1000$ (red) units. The results are from a set of 5,000,000 independent stochastic processes with variable diffusion. The scaling index used was $H=0.35$, and the diffusion coefficient was $2H t^{2H-1} (1+|u|)$. Note that ${\cal F}$ is bi-exponential, as discussed in the text. (b) The sliding interval scaling function ${\cal F}_S$ calculated from the same runs. Shown are results for sliding intervals with $\tau=10$ (blue), $100$ (green) and $1000$ (red) units from runs of length $10,000$ units. Unlike ${\cal F}$, it appears to have fat tails. The scaling index used here for which the scaling collapse is achieved is $H_S = 1/2$ even though the dynamical scaling index is $H = 0.35$. Note, however, although the central part of the distribution scales well, the tails do not.[]{data-label="Figure3"}](Fig3a.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}\
\
![(a) The scaling function of the return distribution ${\cal F}$ calculated from a collapse of data for $\tau=10$ (blue), $100$ (green), and $1000$ (red) units. The results are from a set of 5,000,000 independent stochastic processes with variable diffusion. The scaling index used was $H=0.35$, and the diffusion coefficient was $2H t^{2H-1} (1+|u|)$. Note that ${\cal F}$ is bi-exponential, as discussed in the text. (b) The sliding interval scaling function ${\cal F}_S$ calculated from the same runs. Shown are results for sliding intervals with $\tau=10$ (blue), $100$ (green) and $1000$ (red) units from runs of length $10,000$ units. Unlike ${\cal F}$, it appears to have fat tails. The scaling index used here for which the scaling collapse is achieved is $H_S = 1/2$ even though the dynamical scaling index is $H = 0.35$. Note, however, although the central part of the distribution scales well, the tails do not.[]{data-label="Figure3"}](Fig3b.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}
![(a) The empirical scaling function ${\cal F}$ for interval [**I**]{} calculated assuming the scaling anzatz Eq. (1) with $H=0.35$ and values of $\tau$ between 10 and 160 minutes. Note that ${\cal F}$ is slightly asymmetric and approximately bi-exponential. Since exponential distributions have finite variance, all assumptions needed for the derivation of Eq. (\[FPeqn\]) are justified. (b) The empirical sliding interval scaling function ${\cal F}_S$ for interval [**I**]{} calculated by scaling collapse of data using the anzatz Eq. (3) for $\tau$ of 10 (blue), 20 (green) and 40 (red) minutes. Note that ${\cal F}_S$ has fat-tails.[]{data-label="Figure4"}](Fig4a.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}\
\
![(a) The empirical scaling function ${\cal F}$ for interval [**I**]{} calculated assuming the scaling anzatz Eq. (1) with $H=0.35$ and values of $\tau$ between 10 and 160 minutes. Note that ${\cal F}$ is slightly asymmetric and approximately bi-exponential. Since exponential distributions have finite variance, all assumptions needed for the derivation of Eq. (\[FPeqn\]) are justified. (b) The empirical sliding interval scaling function ${\cal F}_S$ for interval [**I**]{} calculated by scaling collapse of data using the anzatz Eq. (3) for $\tau$ of 10 (blue), 20 (green) and 40 (red) minutes. Note that ${\cal F}_S$ has fat-tails.[]{data-label="Figure4"}](Fig4b.eps "fig:"){width="2.5in"}
[^1]: Corresponding Author - Electronic Address: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have used WFPC2 $VRI$ observations to calculate the distances to three nearby galaxies, NGC 4214, UGC 685, and UGC 5456 using the tip of the red giant branch method. Our values for NGC 4214 ($2.94\pm 0.18$ Mpc) and UGC 685 ($4.79\pm 0.30$ Mpc) are the most precise measurementes of the distances to these objects ever made. For UGC 5456 the data do not allow us to reach a decisive conclusion since there are two possible solutions, one leading towards a short distance around 3.8 Mpc and another one towards a long distance of 5.6 Mpc or more.'
author:
- 'Jesús Maíz-Apellániz, Lucas Cieza, and John W. MacKenty'
bibliography:
- 'general.bib'
title: 'Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances to , , and '
---
INTRODUCTION
============
In the last decade, the measurement of the tip of the red giant branch (or TRGB) has become a reliable method for measuring distances to galaxies with resolved stellar populations [@Leeetal93]. This has been posible thanks to the very weak dependence of the absolute magnitude of the TRGB on metallicity [@DaCoArma90; @Belletal01]. Another advantage of this method (as opposed to the use of variable stars such as Cepheids or RR Lyrae) is that only a single epoch is needed to estimate the distance, considerably reducing the amount of observing time required and avoiding scheduling problems. Its robustness has been recently tested by obtaining consistent distances to the SMC, LMC, and IC 1613 using four different methods: Cepheids, RR Lyrae, red clump, and TRGB [@Dolpetal01a]. The use of HST/WFPC2 data allows the measurement of distances up to $\approx 5$ Mpc with a single orbit using the TRGB [@Karaetal01; @Tosietal01; @Dolpetal01b] and the introduction of ACS will extend that range in distance by a factor of two.
The method for using the TRGB as a standard candle has been described by @Sakaetal96. One constructs a smoothed version of the luminosity function in the Cousins $I$ passband as:
$$\Phi(I) = \sum_{i=1}^{N} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma_i}
\exp\left[-\frac{(I_i-I)^2}{2\sigma_i^2}\right], \label{Phi}$$
where $I_i$ and $\sigma_i$ are the magnitude and photometric uncertainty of the $i$th star, respectively, and $N$ is the total number of stars in the sample. We then define an adaptive edge-detection filter as:
$$E(I) = \Phi(I+\bar{\sigma}_m) - \Phi(I-\bar{\sigma}_m), \label{E}$$
where $\bar{\sigma}_m$ is the mean photometric uncertainty for all stars with magnitudes between $I-0.05$ and $I+0.05$. $E$ can then be used as a localized slope estimator to find the cutoff in the $I$ band luminosity function created by the TRGB.
The three objects in this paper (NGC 4214, UGC 685, and UGC 5456) were selected from a study of a complete sample of galaxies from the Center for Astrophysics redshift survey (CfaRS; @Huchetal83b) presented by @Burg87 [^1] on the basis of their high excitation and proximity. A summary of the properties of the three galaxies is given in Table \[reference\].
NGC 4214 is a well-studied nearby magellanic irregular galaxy. It has several intense star-forming regions concentrated along the bar of the galaxy [@MacKetal00; @Maiz01b] which can be easily studied thanks to the low foreground extinction and the thin character of its galactic disk [@Maizetal99a]. Furthermore, the different massive young clusters are at different evolutionary stages [@Maizetal98]. These characteristics make NGC 4214 the best available template for dwarf starbursts. @Leitetal96 estimate its distance as 4.1 Mpc but they admit that the value could be lower if the distance to the Virgo Cluster is different than the one they use for their calculations. They also cite other sources’ estimates ranging as high as 5.1 Mpc. On the other hand, @Hoppetal99 measure a distance of $\approx$ 2 Mpc using NICMOS data to find the TRGB.
UGC 685 and UGC 5456 are two smaller and less studied galaxies. They are both classified as Blue Compact Dwarfs (or BCDs) and show regions of current star formation activity, though not as intense as those in NGC 4214. @Hopp99 and @MakaKara98 find values of 5.5 Mpc and 5.9 Mpc, respectively, for the distance to UGC 685 based on the brightest blue supergiant stars. @MakaKara98 also find a distance to UGC 5456 of 2.7 Mpc using the same method but specify that this value is in apparent disagreement with its radial velocity.
OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REDUCTION
===============================
We obtained deep, high resolution, multiwavelength imaging of NGC 4214, UGC 685, and UGC 5456 with the WFPC2 instrument aboard HST (prop. ID 6569) on 1997 July 22, 1998 Nov 17, and 1999 Feb 18, respectively. Four continuum filters (F336W, WFPC2 $U$; F555W, WFPC2 $V$; F702W, WFPC2 wide $R$; and F814W, WFPC2 $I$) and two nebular filters (F656N, and F502N, ) were used for each galaxy, as shown in Table \[wfpc2obs\]. The NGC 4214 nebular data and the structure of its stellar clusters were analyzed in two previous papers [@MacKetal00; @Maiz01b]; the detailed study of the young population will be presented in a follow-up paper [@Maizetal02a]. In this paper we analyze the F555W, F702W, and F814W data of the three galaxies in order to measure their distances by finding the tip of the red giant branch.
The reduction of the NGC 4214 data was described in @MacKetal00 and the reader is referred to that paper for details. The UGC 685 and UGC 5456 data were reduced in an analogous way. In particular, we point out that the F502N and F656N images were used to eliminate the nebular contribution to the F555W and F702W data, thus producing “near-pure” $V$ and $R$ continuum images. With one exception (the F702W filter for NGC 4214), two long and one short exposures were obtained for each filter and galaxy in order to eliminate cosmic rays and to avoid saturation at the center of compact bright sources.
We obtained the 4-band stellar photometry of each galaxy using the HSTphot package [@Dolp00a]. HSTphot is tailored to handle the undersampled nature of the PSF in WFPC2 images and uses a self-consistent treatment of the CTE and zero-point photometric calibrations [@Dolp00b]. The central regions of the three galaxies are dominated by a high surface density young stellar population. In those areas, blending between stars is a serious problem due to crowding and isolating the old population is not possible even at WFPC2 resolution. Therefore, we masked out those regions as well as the prominent NGC 4214 clusters identified by @Maiz01b. For the remaining areas, we eliminated those objects with reduced $\chi^2 > 4.0$ (poor fit: likely multiple or extended objects) and sharpness[^2] $< -0.3$ or $> 0.3$ and the resulting data was grouped in three sets for each galaxy: \[1\] stars detected in all four filters (1595, 325, and 197 stars for NGC 4214, UGC 685, and UGC 5456, respectively), \[2\] stars detected in at least F555W and F814W (13408, 3594, and 1105 stars, respectively), and \[3\] stars detected in at least F702W and F814W (17936, 5207, and 1803 stars, respectively). For each galaxy, the data in the first set were used to measure extinction (as described later) while the data in the second and third sets were used to detect the tip of the red giant branch in each galaxy.
The F555W$-$F814W vs. F814W and F702W$-$F814W vs. F814W color-magnitude contour plots are shown in Figs. \[cmdsngc4214\], \[cmdsugc685\], and \[cmdsugc5456\]. Contours are logaritmically spaced (in stars / color magnitude / brightness magnitude) in order to show the structures at both low and high densities. For each of the six possible combinations (three galaxies and two color-magnitude pairs) we performed artificial star experiments using the [*hstfake*]{} utility available in HSTphot. In each case experiments were performed in six 0.25 color-magnitudes-wide ranges and the results were interpolated for intermediate colors. In Figs. \[cmdsngc4214\], \[cmdsugc685\], and \[cmdsugc5456\] we show the location of the 50% completeness limit as a function of color.
ANALYSIS
========
We selected those stars with F555W$-$F814W between 1.0 and 3.0 in the second set and those with F702W$-$F814W between 0.25 and 1.5 in the third set and we built the corresponding smoothed luminosity functions in the F814W passband according to Equation \[Phi\]. The values were chosen in order to maximize the number of red giants included while minimizing the number of stars of other types using @DaCoArma90 as a reference for $V-I$ colors and the @Lejeetal97 models to transform them to $R-I$. We then calculated the corresponding edge-detection filters according to Equation \[E\]. The results are shown in Figs. \[finalngc4214\] and \[finalugc685ugc5456\] and the location of the TRGB in each case is shown in Table \[distances\]. The values of $\Phi$ and $E$ shown in Figs. \[finalngc4214\] and \[finalugc685ugc5456\] have been corrected for incompleteness. However, it should be noted that the incompleteness correction can become very uncertain for faint magnitudes due to small-number statistics. For that reason, we have marked in each case the location of the weighted 50% incompleteness limit. Only the data to the left of that point should be trusted when finding the TRGB.
In order to test the effects of crowding we separated the NGC 4214 data in two subsets for each of the two band sets depending on the chip where the stars were detected (PC or WF2+3+4). Since the PC has a pixel size smaller than the WF chips by a factor of 2.2, it provides a considerably better sampling of the PSF, so it should alleviate any possible crowding problems. However, we do not find any significant difference between the PC and the WF results. In all four cases a clear peak appears at essentially the same value of $m_{\rm F814W}$ and only for the F702W$-$F814W PC subset we do find a 0.3 magnitudes fainter secondary peak. Such a secondary peak would lead to an undecisive conclusion regarding the position of the TRGB if that were our only data. However, the availability of the results from the other three subsets allows us to establish the magnitude of the TRGB with precision.
For UGC 685 and UGC 5456 there are not enough stars in the PC chip to perform a similar experiment. Nevertheless, the UGC 685 data allow us to see the differences between using both sets. There are approximately twice as many stars detected in F702W and F814W than in F555W and F814W due to two reasons: red stars are more easily detected in F702W than in F555W and the lower separation in color introduces more “blue” stars in the luminosity function. The first reason is an argument in favor of using F702W instead of F555W (more real red giants are detected) while the second one is an argument against it (more spureous objects are included in the sample), so the simultaneous use of the two sets (F555W$-$F814W and F702W$-$F814W) is a good check of the validity of the results. For UGC 685, the edge-detection filters for the two sets yield a consistent value for the TRGB which is well to the left of the 50% completeness limit, so a distance measurement can be decisively established.
Unfortunately, the same is not true for UGC 5456. A strong peak is visible in the F702W$-$F814W edge detection filter at $m_{\rm F814W}=25.07$ but it is located to the right of the 50% incompleteness limit and, therefore, cannot be trusted to be real (the peak is much weaker if the incompleteness correction is not applied to $\Phi$). A secondary peak is visible at $m_{\rm F814W}=24.24$ in the same data set and also at $m_{\rm F814W}=24.20$ in the F555W$-$F814W data set which could be caused by the TRGB but we cannot be certain about it[^3]. Therefore, we conclude that UGC 5456 either is farther away than the range that can be measured with the present data or has very few red giants outside its central regions.
In order to arrive at a distance from our data there are three required steps. First, we have to correct for extinction. A minimum value for $E(B-V)$ is provided by the foreground (Galactic) value measured for the position of each galaxy by @Schletal98 from COBE and IRAS data (see Table \[extinctions\]). However, the @Schletal98 values do not take into account internal extinction within the galaxy itself. In order to measure that, we used the set with 4-band photometry and generated the three colors F336W$-$F555W, F555W$-$F702W, and F555W$-$F814W, We then applied an extension to $>2$ colors of the standard color-color procedure (described in @Maizetal02a) to calculate the median $E(B-V)$ which affects the blue stellar population in each of the three galaxies outside the masked regions (i.e. the blue population which is approximately co-spatial with the red giants). The results are also shown in Table \[extinctions\] and they are slightly higher than the values provided by @Schletal98, as expected in the case of moderate internal extinction. Nevertheless, it is possible that some of the extinction associated with the blue population is localized around the individual stars themselves, so we will consider this second value to be an upper bound to the extinction affecting the red giant population. Therefore, we will use as our value for the extinction in each case the mean of the two results (foreground and blue population) and we will estimate the uncertainty as half the difference between them. The last column in Table \[extinctions\] shows the adopted correction in the $I$ band using a value of $R_V$ of 3.1. Under the “other” column in Table \[extinctions\] we also list the values of $E(B-V)$ measured from Balmer ratios in H[ii]{} regions in the central regions of NGC 4214 and UGC 685. As expected, those values are higher than the ones we use due to the considerable internal extinction present in those regions. They are shown here to serve as caution against using values obtained in such a way in similar studies of other galaxies.
The second necessary step to arrive to a distance is the conversion from WFPC2 F814W magnitudes to Cousins $I$ ones. As described by @Holtetal95b, such conversions are non-trivial for the cases of high extinction and/or certain WFPC2 filters. Fortunately, that is not the case for the galaxies analyzed here and the F814W filter. In this paper we follow @Holtetal95b and use a correction of $-0.03\pm 0.01$ magnitudes.
Finally, we have to choose a value for $M_{I,{\rm TGRB}}$. As shown by @Belletal01, if the \[Fe/H\] of the studied population is known in detail, it is possible to calculate $M_{I,{\rm TGRB}}$ within a few hundredths of a magnitude. We do not have such a knowledge for the red giants in our galaxies but we do not really need that level of precision either, since the uncertainties from our procedure for calculating $m_{I,{\rm TGRB}}$ are already of the order of 0.1 magnitudes. Thus, we can settle for a value $M_{I,{\rm TGRB}} = 4.00 \pm 0.10$, which is valid for the range of \[Fe/H\] between $-2.8$ and $-0.6$ [@Belletal01] and almost certainly includes the metallicities of the red giant population in our three galaxies.
The values for the distances are shown in Table \[distances\]. For NGC 4214, three of the four values of $m-M$ are identical so we used one of those for our adopted distance as well as the smallest of the three uncertainties (the values are not completely independent from the statistical point of view so there is no easy way to reduce the estimated uncertainty by combining them). For UGC 685 we used the values obtained with the F702W$-$F814W data simply because of the larger number of stars in the sample but, alternatively, the F555W$-$F814W result of $4.61\pm 0.30$ Mpc could also be used (the distance between them is of only 0.6$\sigma$). Finally, as previously mentioned, no decisive result could be obtained for UGC 5456 so two possible values are listed.
Our distance for NGC 4214 ($2.94\pm 0.18$ Mpc) is in the middle of the range previously obtained by other authors (2.0 to 5.1 Mpc) but no compatibility analysis can be provided since the sources do not provide uncertainty estimates. Our distance for UGC 685 ($4.79\pm 0.30$ Mpc) is also quite close to the previous values available from the literature (5.5 Mpc, @Hopp99, and 5.9 Mpc, @MakaKara98). Our result is well within the uncertainty specified by the first of those articles, which is 30% (the second paper does not provide an uncertainty estimate). On the other hand, the previously value available for UGC 5456 (2.7 Mpc, @MakaKara98) can certainly be excluded with our data; that galaxy is farther away, though we are not sure by how much. It is interesting to note that the previous values for the distances to UGC 685 and UGC 5456 were obtained using the same method, the magnitude of the brightest blue supergiant stars. Why would the method be valid for the first galaxy but not for the second? The explanation we prefer is that the brightest young clusters in UGC 685 are Scaled OB Associations while those in UGC 5456 are Super Star Clusters (or at least compact clusters), as described by @Maiz01b. Therefore, the brightest point-like sources detected from the ground in $B$ in UGC 685 are likely to be individual blue supergiants or small aggregrates of them. On the other hand, the brightest point-like sources in UGC 5456 are clusters made out of many young stars, and confusing them with blue supergiants leads to a large underestimation of the distance.
Lucas Cieza acknowledges support from the Space Telescope Science Institute Summer Student Program. Support for this work was provided by NASA through grants GO-06569.01-A and GO-09096.01-A from the Space Telescope Science Institute, Inc., under NASA contract NAS5-26555. 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.
![ subtracted WFPC2 wide $R$ image of NGC 4214. Tick marks are shown for every hundredth pixel.[]{data-label="wfpc2ngc4214"}](fig1.ps){width="\linewidth"}
![ subtracted WFPC2 wide $R$ image of UGC 685. Tick marks are shown for every hundredth pixel.[]{data-label="wfpc2ugc685"}](fig2.ps){width="\linewidth"}
![ subtracted WFPC2 wide $R$ image of UGC 5456. Tick marks are shown for every hundredth pixel.[]{data-label="wfpc2ugc5456"}](fig3.ps){width="\linewidth"}
![Observed color-magnitude contour plots of NGC 4214. Stars in the central regions and in prominent young clusters are excluded in order to reduce blending and enhance the old population. Contours are logarithmically spaced. The thick solid line marks the 50% completeness limit but the plots themselves are not corrected for that effect. The vertical dashed lines indicate the color range used to determine the location of the tip of the red giant branch.[]{data-label="cmdsngc4214"}](fig4.ps){width="\linewidth"}
![Same as Fig. \[cmdsngc4214\] for UGC 685.[]{data-label="cmdsugc685"}](fig5.ps){width="\linewidth"}
![Same as Fig. \[cmdsngc4214\] for UGC 5456.[]{data-label="cmdsugc5456"}](fig6.ps){width="\linewidth"}
![F814W luminosity functions with the corresponding outputs of the edge-detection filter for NGC 4214. The upper plots are for the non-masked regions in the WF chips while the lower ones are for the PC chip. The left plots use the F555W data for the color information while the right ones use the F702W data. The dashed vertical line marks the 50% completeness in each case.[]{data-label="finalngc4214"}](fig7.ps){width="\linewidth"}
![F814W luminosity functions with the corresponding outputs of the edge-detection filter for UGC 685 (upper plots) and UGC 5456 (lower plots). The left plots use the F555W data for the color information while the right ones use the F702W data. The dashed vertical line marks the 50% completeness in each case.[]{data-label="finalugc685ugc5456"}](fig8.ps){width="\linewidth"}
[^1]: The CfaRS consisted of 2400 galaxies taken from the original Zwicky Catalog to a limiting magnitude of $M_B^0 = 14.5$.
[^2]: HSTphot defines sharpness in such a way that “perfect” stars have a value of 0, more centrally-concentrated objects (e.g. cosmic-rays) have a negative value and less-concentrated ones (e.g. galaxies) have a positive value.
[^3]: The F555W$-$F814W UGC 5456 data set is a good example of one of the problems in the TRGB method: One needs to detect a large number of bright red giants in order to minimize Poisson fluctuations in $\Phi$ near the location of the TRGB. This is especially problematic when a sizable population of red super giants is present.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '*Maximum Caliber* (Max Cal) is purported to be a general variational principle for Non-Equilibrium Statistical Physics (NESP). But recently, Jack and Evans and Maes have raised concerns about how Max Cal handles dissipative processes. Here, we show that the problem does not lie in Max Cal; the problem is in the use of insufficient constraints. We also present an exactly solvable single-particle model of dissipation, valid far from equilibrium, and its solution by Maximum Caliber. The model illustrates how the influx and efflux of work and heat into a flowing system alters the distribution of trajectories. Maximum Caliber is a viable principle for dissipative systems.'
author:
- Luca Agozzino
- Ken Dill
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Minimal constraints for Maximum Caliber analysis of dissipative steady state systems
---
The principle of Maximum Caliber for nonequilibrium processes
=============================================================
Since the seminal work of Clausius and Boltzmann in the nineteenth century, predicting material equilibria has been based on the concept of entropy and its maximization. There has been a search for a more general variational principle that could also apply to nonequilibria, especially in the far-from-equilibrium regime. A good candidate has been the Principle of Maximum Caliber (Max Cal) [@jaynes1979maximum; @jaynes1985complex; @haken1986new; @dewar2005maximum; @presse2013principles; @dixit2018perspective], which is a Maximum-Entropy-like principle for inferring distributions over pathways and rate distributions of kinetic processes. Recently, concerns have been raised about whether Maximum Caliber handles dissipation properly. We address those here, and show that Max Cal can handle dissipation properly when given appropriate constraints.
Maximum Caliber is a method of inference about probability distributions over *pathways* or *trajectories*, in contrast to Maximum Entropy which infers distributions over *microstates*. Max Cal begins with a model of the accessible trajectories, $X=\{\xi(t_0),\xi(t_1),\xi(t_2)...\}$ of values $\xi$ at different times $t$. Max Cal infers the probability $p(X)$ of observing trajectory $X$ within trajectory space $\{X\}$ by maximizing the path entropy
$$\mathcal{S}=-\sum_X p(X)\log \frac{p(X)}{g(X)},$$
where the function $g(X)$ is some reference/prior distribution in the absence of constraints. Now, in the simple situation of non-dissipative dynamics of a single dynamical quantity $J(X)$, for which the average,
$${\left\langle }J{\right\rangle }= \int dX p(X) J(X)
\label{eq:meanJ}$$
is known, the trajectory populations are obtained using the method of Lagrange Multipliers [@presse2013principles; @dixit2018perspective].
Dissipative dynamics requires more constraints
==============================================
Two recent papers [@jack2016absence; @maes2018non] assert that Max Cal will fail in some cases. Jack and Evans (JE) [@jack2016absence] show that applying Max Cal with a single constraint to dissipative systems leads to the apparently inconsistent result of having no dissipation; Maes (M) [@maes2018non] asserts that problems whenever Max Cal is applied in cases of a time-symmetric component in one of the constraints. Here we clarify that these are not problems of the Principle of Maximum Caliber; these are problems of application of incomplete or incorrect constraints.
We first address the JE situation. Consider a dissipative system where a current $J(X)$ flows in conjunction with some finite amount of work $\delta w(X)$ done on the system and a heat flow $\delta q(X)$ out. Assume that the statistical ensemble of all trajectories contains also those trajectories that are related to each other through a time-reversal transformation $\mathbb{T}$ and a space-reflection transformation $\mathbb{P}$ (it can also refer to reflection along only one of the physical coordinates [@jack2016absence]). For the right choice of current-generating force, the resulting current will always be antisymmetric under both time reversal and space-reflection transformations, so we assume that the forces acting on the system are of this type (an example is a shear stress, which generates a current with such property). As a consequence, under a combined $\mathbb{PT}$ transformation, the current will be identical to the untransformed current [@jack2016absence].
Now consider the exchange of heat and work between the system and the external bath. This will be antisymmetric under time reversal. Running time backwards would reverse all three: the flow, the work, and the heat along the trajectory. But, it will be invariant under space reflection. No matter whether a force drives a current in a forward or backward direction along a trajectory, an identical amount of heat will be dissipated. This is not an assertion of reversibility of heat transfer; that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We are considering here only a single non-equilibrium trajectory, not a Second Law average over all trajectories. Rather, it just means that if a trajectory has heat flowing into the system, its time-reversed trajectory has heat flowing out. As an example, consider a particle with mass $m$ sliding on a surface with friction coefficient $\phi$ and initial velocity $v$. The total energy dissipated through the process of slowing down until stopping is equal to the total kinetic energy $E_k=1/2 mv^2$ of the particle, which will increase the temperature of the surface by $\Delta T=E_k/C$, where $C$ is the surface’s heat capacity. The time-reversed process would be the following: heating up the surface by exactly $\Delta T$ and wait for the thermal energy to spontaneously transform back into kinetic energy, accelerating the particle back to velocity $v$. This reverse process is extremely unlikely. We illustrate a calculation of this probability in Max Cal below.
In general, for a dissipative system, a trajectory $X$ will have some current flow $J(X)$, at the same time as work $\delta w(X)$ performed on it, some heat dissipation $\delta q(X)$ out of it. In this case, the ${\mathbb{PT}}$-reversed trajectory, $\mathbb{PT}X$, would have heat $\delta q(\mathbb{PT}X)=-\delta q(X)$ going into the system and work $\delta w(\mathbb{PT}X)=-\delta w(X)$ done on the external environment, because a space reflection transformation does not change the heat/work flow, but time reversal does. The probability of the transformed trajectory $\mathbb{PT}X$ should be much lower than of the untransformed trajectory $X$ for macroscopic currents, although we know from fluctuation theorems that for very small currents they can become comparable [@jarzynski1997nonequilibrium; @crooks1999entropy]. The result below agrees with such predictions.
For a dissipative steady state (DSS) the internal energy is unchanging with time, $\Delta U = \delta w+ \delta q$, because in the steady state, the heat out must equal the work in[^1].
The argument of Jack and Evans is straightforward [@jack2016absence]. First, they correctly note that if the only constraint is on $\langle J(X) \rangle$, (eq. \[eq:meanJ\]), then maximizing the Caliber (i.e. the path entropy subject to the constraint) gives the following probability of trajectory $X:$
$$p(X)=\dfrac{e^{\mu J(X)}}{Z(\mu)},
\label{eqJE}$$
where $Z(\mu) = \sum e^{\mu J(X)}$ is the sum of weights over all paths. Second, since the flux is ${\mathbb{PT}}$ invariant, substitution of $J(X)= J({\mathbb{PT}}X)$ into Eq \[eqJE\] gives the result that the probabilities must be ${\mathbb{PT}}$ invariant,
$$p({\mathbb{PT}}X)=p(X).$$
JE argue that such systems are not dissipative, because ${\left\langle }\delta q {\right\rangle }= 0$, which they show as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
&{\left\langle }\delta q {\right\rangle }& =\int dX p(X) \delta q(X)\nonumber \\
&=&1/2 \int dX \left(p(X) \delta q(X)+ p({\mathbb{PT}}X) \delta q({\mathbb{PT}}X)\right)\nonumber \\
&=&1/2 \int dX p(X)(\delta q(X)-\delta q(X))=0,
\label{eq:diss}\end{aligned}$$
where the second line is obtained by considering that the Jacobian of a ${\mathbb{PT}}$ transformation equals 1.
JE conclude from this that Maximum Caliber cannot handle systems, such as a sheared fluid, that are dissipative. On the contrary, we show below that the problem above is the use of only a single constraint, namely $\langle J(X) \rangle$. This misses the essentiality of the coupling of the flow $J$ inside the system to the work and heat flows into and out of the system. The latter require additional constraints.
The number of constraints must at least equal the number of independent flow variables
======================================================================================
To illuminate the problem, consider the corresponding situation in equilibrium thermodynamics. The equilibrium entropy can be expressed as a function $S = S(U, V, N)$ of three independent extensive variables – energy, volume and particle number. If all three independent variables are free to change in a process, you cannot adequately specify the state of the system with only a single Lagrange multiplier, say the pressure $p$; you must also specify the temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu$. You need a Lagrange multiplier for every independent variable.
In dissipative dynamical systems too, there are multiple independent variables. You can specify an average flow rate $\langle J \rangle$, but dissipative systems also entail heat and work flows in and out, and those can affect the trajectory distribution. For example, you can achieve a given average particle flow rate in multiple ways, such as increasing the work done on the particle in a medium of increasing viscosity that dissipates more heat. Predicting the trajectory distribution in dissipative systems requires knowing the heat and work rates, not just the particle flow rate.[^2]
For example, consider particles flowing along the axis of a tube, with an average current of $\langle J(X)\rangle=J$. That particle flow can be independent of the rate of work flow ${\left\langle }J_w(X){\right\rangle }$ and heat flow ${\left\langle }J_q(X){\right\rangle }$ into and out of the tube. Some situations will reduce these 3 variables to fewer; other situations will not.
First, consider any steady-state flow, dissipative or not. By definition, the total internal energy will be unchanging with time, $\Delta U=0$. So, it follows from the First Law that
$$\delta q=-\delta w.
\label{eq:QW}$$
Thus, in steady-state flows, the heat current must equal the work current, $${\left\langle }J_q(X){\right\rangle }=-{\left\langle }J_w(X){\right\rangle }$$ where our convention is that current flows into the system are defined as positive.
Now, in a non-dissipative steady state (nDSS), we have ${\left\langle }J_q(X){\right\rangle }=-{\left\langle }J_w(X){\right\rangle }= 0$, leaving us only one independent variable, $J$. However, in a dissipative steady state (DSS), energy must continuously enter the system in order to sustain the current $J$, so now we have 3 constraints,
$$\begin{aligned}
&\langle J(X)\rangle&=J\\
&\langle J_w(X)+J_q(X)\rangle&=0\\
&\frac{1}{2}\langle J_w(X)-J_q(X)\rangle&=J_\text{E}
\label{constraints3}\end{aligned}$$
where $J_\text{E}$ is the energy influx rate.
We note two points here. First, if were to use only a single constraint $\langle J \rangle$ for a DSS, as in the JE argument, it is tantamount to setting $J_E = 0$ above, thus effectively asserting that heat and work flow in and out are both zero, and thus that the system is, by definition, not dissipative. Second, near equilibrium and for non-steady states, dissipation ${\left\langle }J_q {\right\rangle }$ is proportional to the current ${\left\langle }J{\right\rangle }$, so in that case a single constraint can be sufficient to describe the system [@hazoglou2015communication].
Therefore, for steady states, arbitrarily far from equilibrium, only non-dissipative systems can be described when only a single constraint, $\langle J \rangle$, is specified.
For dissipative steady-states, Maximum Caliber requires at least 3 constraints.
===============================================================================
For DSS situations, with constraint eqs \[constraints3\]) above, the expression for Caliber is:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{C}=-\int dX p(X)\ln p(X)\\
-\alpha \left( \int dX p(X)-1\right)\\
-\mu \left( \int dX p(X)J(X)-J\right)\\
-\nu \left( \int dX p(X)J_w(X)-J_\text{E}\right)\\
-\lambda \left( \int dX p(X)J_q(X)+J_\text{E}\right)
\label{eq:caliber}\end{aligned}$$
where we chose here, for simplicity, to define each current individually instead of constraining the sum and the difference. Maximizing Caliber gives the trajectory probabilities as
$$p(X)=\dfrac{e^{\mu J(X)+\nu J_w(X)+\lambda J_q(X)}}{Z(\mu,\nu,\lambda)}$$
where $Z =\sum e^{\mu J(X)+\nu J_w(X)+\lambda J_q(X)}$.
This Max Cal formulation shows that reverse trajectories in dissipative processes are unlikely for large currents. Using the ${\mathbb{PT}}$ transformation, we can calculate the relative probability that a system would absorb heat from the environment (and produce work):
$$\dfrac{p({\mathbb{PT}}X)}{p(X)}=e^{-2(\nu J_w(X)+\lambda J_q(X))}.
\label{eq:ratio}$$
This fluctuation relation shows that ‘wrong-way’ paths, which take up heat in dissipative flows, become exponentially improbable with increasing current, as they should. If the only constraint here were on $\langle J \rangle$, as in JE, then ${\left\langle }J_q{\right\rangle }={\left\langle }J_w{\right\rangle }=0$ and wrong-way flows would be predicted to be much more probable.
The Max Cal procedure gives the distribution of all the trajectories. On the one hand, it uses as an input constraint, the heat uptake $J_q(X)$ averaged over all the trajectories: $${\left\langle }\delta q{\right\rangle }= {\left\langle }J_q{\right\rangle }\Delta t =\Delta t \int dX p(X)J_q(X).$$ On the other hand, Max Cal then gives as a prediction the higher moments, such as the mean-square fluctuations of the heat:
$${\left\langle }\delta q^2{\right\rangle }=\Delta t^2 \int dX J_q^2(X) p(X).$$
A solvable model of a dissipative system: a particle in 1-dimensional flow, with heat and work.
===============================================================================================
In this section, we illustrate with a concrete model. Consider one particle moving inside a 1D conduit. The particle is in contact with an external thermal bath with which it can exchange heat. The particle can also interact with a conveyor belt that performs work from outside to boost the particle’s velocity; see Fig. \[fig:particle\].
![**A particle in a dissipative system.** The particle can receive energy from the belt or from the thermal bath, but it can also transmit energy to the belt by hitting it or to the thermal bath, by friction on the walls of the conduit.[]{data-label="fig:particle"}](Particle-Trajectory.pdf){width=".8\linewidth"}
A trajectory $X$ is a series of $N$ steps, each one of which takes time $\Delta t$. In each time step, the particle experiences one of three possibilities: (i) it increases or decreases its velocity by $\Delta v$, by collision with the belt, (ii) it increases or decreases its velocity by $\Delta u$ by exchanging heat with the bath, or (iii) it undergoes no change in velocity in that time step. A full trajectory is a string of such states: up, up, stay, up, down, up, .... for example. The quantities $\Delta v$ and $\Delta u$ are not limited to a fixed value, but can be anything within a given range.
The trajectory for a given particle has three identifying quantities. The average velocity of the particle along the trajectory $\overline{v}(X)$, the work done on the particle by the belt $w(X)$ and the heat absorbed by the particle from the thermal bath $q(X)$. As a convenient convention, we take both $w(X)$ and $q(X)$ to be positive when the energy flows from the external environment to the particle, so for the work, this convention is the opposite with respect to the one used in thermodynamics. Note that for the average velocity of a given trajectory $\overline{v}(X)$ we have used the overbar symbol to distinguish it from a trajectory-ensemble average; $\overline{v}(X)$ is just the average velocity maintained by the particle in a specific trajectory, whereas we would use the symbol ${\left\langle }\overline{v}(X){\right\rangle }\equiv \sum p(X)\overline{v}(X)$ to refer to the trajectory-ensemble average, hence averaged over all the possible trajectories.
This allows us to enforce some minimal constraints which identify a DSS without ambiguity. The constraints are the following:
$$\begin{aligned}
&{\left\langle }w(X){\right\rangle }&= E_\text{in}\label{eq:constr1}\\
&{\left\langle }q(X){\right\rangle }&= -E_\text{in}\\
&{\left\langle }\overline{v}(X){\right\rangle }&= V\label{eq:constr3}\end{aligned}$$
where $E_\text{in}$ is the average work input (or negative heat output).
The particle starts at time $t=0$ with velocity $v_0$. So, a given trajectory $X$ can be specified by an initial velocity and a sequence of changes in velocities:
$$X=\lbrace v_0, \xi_1, \xi_2,..., \xi_{N-1}\rbrace$$
where $ \xi_j=\Delta v_j$ or $\Delta u_j$, where $j$ is an index of the time step, depending on which processes occurred along the given trajectory. Now, Maximum Caliber gives the probability of a given DSS trajectory as
$$p(X)= p(v_0, \xi_1, \xi_2,..., \xi_{N-1}) = \dfrac{e^{\nu w(X)+\lambda q(X)+ \mu \overline{v}(X)}}{Z}
\label{eq:probability}$$
All the functions $w(X)$, $q(X)$ and $\overline{v}(X)$ can be expressed in terms of the particular sequence of velocity changes in trajectory $X$.
Now, under a ${\mathbb{PT}}$ transformation, each trajectory function is transformed as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
&w({\mathbb{PT}}X) &= -w(X)\\
& q({\mathbb{PT}}X) &= -q(X)\\
&\overline{v}({\mathbb{PT}}X) &= \overline{v}(X).\end{aligned}$$
This is because both heat and work are invariant under space reflection, but are anti-symmetric under time reversal. Therefore, the ratio between the ${\mathbb{PT}}$-transformed and untransformed trajectory is
$$\dfrac{p({\mathbb{PT}}X)}{p(X)}=e^{-2[\nu w(X)+\lambda q(X)]}
\label{eq:ratio2}$$
which does not equal 1, except in the non-dissipative case that the trajectory does not involve any energy exchange[^3].
For a general $N$-step process, the functional form is too complex for analytical solution, due to the non-linear relation between velocity and kinetic energy: the change in velocity at time step $n$ will depend upon all the changes in velocity at time steps $n-1$, $n-2$, ..., $0$.
The partition function can be calculated numerically in that case, and the values of the Lagrange multipliers can be tuned to make sure that constraint averages are satisfied. In the next section we will show how to solve the problem analytically in an even simpler case.
Simplified trajectories with only 3 time steps
----------------------------------------------
Now, we can obtain a closed-form expression if we further simplify the model above to just 3 total time steps. Any trajectory is now described by the vector $$X=\{v_0,\xi_1,\xi_2\}
\label{3step}$$ where $v_0$ is the initial velocity of the particle (first step), $\xi_1$ is the change in velocity in the second step and $\xi_2$ is the change in velocity in the third step. At steps 2 and 3, the velocity can either remain the same ($\xi_i=0$) or change by interaction with the moving belt ($\xi_i=\Delta v_i$) or change by heat exchange ($\xi_i=\Delta u_i$) (see Supporting Material for details). Again, the functional form of the probability is given by Eq. \[eq:probability\], but now just for the short-trajectories of Eq. \[3step\].
The Max Cal dynamical partition function is obtained by computing the following sum over all the small number of trajectories $X$:
$$Z=\sum_X e^{\nu w(X)+\lambda q(X)+ \mu \overline{v}(X)}
\label{eq:partition}$$
In order to correctly express the form of the sum in Eq. \[eq:partition\] we take into account the fact that at every step we are assuming that only one type of velocity change is possible, either heat driven or work driven.
We can compute the change in particle velocity that is due to work or heat exchange. In the Supporting Material, we calculate the sum in Eq. \[eq:partition\] and solve Eqs. \[eq:constr1\]-\[eq:constr3\], to obtain the following values of the Lagrange multipliers:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mu &\simeq&\frac{3\eta}{V}\\
\nu &\simeq& \frac{\epsilon}{2E_\text{in}}\\
\lambda &\simeq&-\frac{\epsilon}{2E_\text{in}}\end{aligned}$$
where $\eta=V^2/V_\text{max}^2$ and $\epsilon=\Delta V_Q/\Delta V_W$. $V_\text{max}$ is the maximum velocity that the conduit can withstand, $\Delta V_Q$ is the maximum change in velocity due to heat exchange and $\Delta V_W$ the one due to heat exchange.
In order to obtain this result, we have assumed that the measured velocity $V$ is much smaller than the maximum rate $V_\text{max}$, so $\eta<<1$. We also assumed that the maximum change in velocity due to work is much larger than the one due to heat, because work is always directed in a specific direction, so this means $\epsilon<<1$. Such assumptions, although not necessary to solve the problem, make it easier to obtain an analytical expression for the Lagrange multipliers.
The trajectory probabilities in this 3-step model are:
$$p(X)=\frac{1}{Z}\exp\left\lbrace\epsilon\frac{w(X)-q(X)}{2E_\text{in}}+3\eta\frac{\overline{v}(X)}{V}\right\rbrace
\label{3p}$$
Eq \[3p\] computes the probability of any pathway $X$ for fixed values of the two observables, $E_\text{in}$ and $V$. Fig \[fig:3dPlot\] shows an example of trajectory populations as a function of the three properties, $\overline{v}(X)$, $w(X)$ and $q(X)$ of each trajectory, for fixed values of $V$, the particle flow velocity, and for fixed energy input $E_\text{in}$. The orange plane in Fig \[fig:3dPlot\] shows what you would predict if you knew only the mean flow velocity $\overline{v}(X)$. The trajectory population would not depend on the source of energy into the system (heat or work). The blue plane shows two things: (1) how trajectories that have a higher speed and in the same direction of the average $V$ become more populated, and (2) the trajectories become more populated when more work flows in and heat is dissipated ($w(X)-q(X)>0$), and become less populated as more energy flows in to the system from the external bath, producing work ($w(X)-q(X)<0$).
From Eq \[3p\], we can readily compute the ratio of probabilities for ${\mathbb{PT}}$-reversal: $$\dfrac{p({\mathbb{PT}}X)}{p(X)}\simeq e^{-2\epsilon\dfrac{w(X)-q(X)}{E_\text{in}}}
\label{eq:ratio3}$$ Eq \[eq:ratio3\] shows that for a given amount of energy that is put into the system, a trajectory that has a large dissipative current is more likely than the ${\mathbb{PT}}$-reversed, non-dissipative one. Eq \[eq:ratio3\] also correctly predicts that when energy exchange is small, the probability of a wrong-way flow is comparable to a right-way flow.
![**The Max Cal probability distribution vs JE.** Using 3 constraints (blue plane) it is able to capture the difference between trajectories with different energy sources, which is not possible when only one constraint is used (orange plane). The coloured dots show the difference of the probability of three trajectory with the same average velocity but different energy source, as depicted in Fig. \[fig:3-Trajectories\].[]{data-label="fig:3dPlot"}](Plot3D-3.pdf){width="\linewidth"}
![**Three possible trajectories for a single particle**. **Top:** The particle interacts in both steps with the conveyor belt, receiving energy as work; **Center:** The particle first receives work then heat from the thermal bath; **Bottom:** The particle only receives energy as heat from the thermal bath. In Fig. \[fig:3dPlot\] the corresponding coloured dots with the respective probabilities.[]{data-label="fig:3-Trajectories"}](3_trajectories.pdf){width=".9\linewidth"}
In this way, Max Cal captures the difference between trajectories having the same average velocity but caused by very different processes. In Fig \[fig:3-Trajectories\] we show three examples of trajectories, each with the same average velocity $v$ but with different values of $w$ and $q$. The first trajectory corresponds to the process in which the particle is hit twice by the belt; in the second the particle is hit first by the belt and then it receives energy from the thermal bath; in the third, the particle receives energy from the bath twice. If the process were non-dissipative, the three trajectories would have the same probability, but in this dissipative case, Max Cal shows how the probabilities are different (Fig \[fig:3dPlot\]).
The Maes Argument and the proper number of constraints
======================================================
Maes argument [@maes2018non] is a bit more subtle, because it points out the fact that when the only chosen constraints are time-asymmetric currents, the only possible outcome is a system without any dissipation. We agree in principle that this is the case, but this would be a problem of making a poor choice of constraints, and not with Max Cal itself. When there is available knowledge of the system that is being ignored, like work or heat transfer, (or in general what Maes calls a *frenetic* contribution [@maes2018non]), it is to be expected that Max Cal will not necessarily be consistent with it. In this case too, the problem is with the choice of constraints, not the Max Cal principle. One further point is that our discussion here considers only the 3 constraints needed for DSS; some different situations may need more or different constraints.
Conclusions
===========
We have shown here that Maximum Caliber can handle dissipation properly, but it requires the application of appropriate restraints. In DSS, you need both the mean rate of flow,and also the work performed on the system and the heat that is dissipated. We show this on general grounds, but we also give a specific solvable model of a single particle flow that is subjected to heat and work input and output. This toy model may be useful for studying dissipative flows.
Acknowledgments
===============
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation grants PHY1205881 and MCB1344230 and the Laufer Center for Physical and Quantitative Biology. We wish to thank Jason Wagoner, Purushottam Dixit and Kingshuk Ghosh for the precious insights and discussions.
[^1]: Note, our convention is that energy going into the system is defined as positive.
[^2]: Note, however, that while $(U,V,N)$ are conserved quantities in the equilibrium metaphor, $J_q$ and $J_w$ are not necessarily conserved in flow situations.
[^3]: In this case, the ${\mathbb{PT}}$-reversed trajectory must have identical probability, because it is the identical trajectory.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'S. Pasetto, M. Cropper, Y. Fujita, C. Chiosi'
- 'E.K. Grebel'
bibliography:
- 'BiblioArt.bib'
date: 'Received: / Accepted 09 September 2014 '
title: |
Environmental effects on star formation in\
dwarf galaxies and star clusters
---
Introduction {#Introduction}
============
The effects of the environment on the evolution of a system are studied in several branches of physics, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, and also astronomy. One such astronomical system is a galaxy. Galaxies are characterized by their large dimension and hence are dominated in their evolution by the gravitational force. Gravity is a long range force propagating at the speed of light and without a natural scale length. Thus from a theoretical point of view, every system close enough to a reference point (inside the cosmological horizon) is never fully isolated and represents a system in interaction with its environment. Examples of gravitational interactions available to date are the globular clusters inside the Milky Way (MW) , the dwarf galaxies interacting around our MW [e.g., @2008PASA...25..121C; @2010ApJ...723.1618N; @2012ApJ...756...79S] and around the MW neighbour Andromeda [e.g., @2004ApJ...612L.117Z; @2001Natur.412...49I; @2006MNRAS.371.1983M; @2002AJ....124..310C], and the closest groups of galaxies .
A simple gravitational description of a galaxy would result in serious defect if it does not account for an appropriate description of its buildings blocks: the stars. The process of star formation is tightly connected with the gravitational evolution of a galaxy system. The interplay between star formation and gravitational evolution of a system has been extensively investigated in astronomy in the last century within the context of the Jeans instability [@1902RSPTA.199....1J] passing through all its generalizations (as most recently in [@2013MNRAS.434L..56J]) or the star formation laws [e.g., @1959ApJ...129..243S]. The star formation regions are investigated both observationally [e.g., @2012MNRAS.422.3339W] and with numerical experiments [e.g., @2012ApJ...749..181F; @2012MNRAS.422.1609T].
In a recent paper, hereafter Paper I, the authors presented a technique to couple gravitational effects and star formation processes. The investigation of the role of external effects on star formation being the primary focus of that study, the authors developed a relation to express the pressure exerted by external phenomena on a primary system. In this way they were able to account for the roles of the external agents (e.g., an external hot gas, an external gravitational force etc.) on the system under examination. The standard Jeans instability criterion for stellar formation was substituted by a description ruled by a partial differential system of equations (PDEs) allowing them then to handle the molecular mass spectrum, as well as to obtain high mass resolution [@1998ApJ...509..587F; @1999ApJ...516..619F]. In Paper I it was shown that it is possible to study the linear response of a gravitationally bound group of stars (e.g., a dwarf galaxy) in this way, and to capture the essence of what is observed in a dwarf galaxy like Carina during its interaction with the MW.
In this present work we take our theoretical investigation further. We account for the interaction between gravity and star formation by developing a new criterion of instability for the growth of the perturbation in an unstable fluid (molecular gas) where the star formation begins. This work is based on the seminal work by @1954JAP....25...96P, generalized to account for the non-inertial nature of the reference frame with the formalism presented in Paper I. We focus on the contrast between two gaseous systems of different density and temperature, such as the case of a gas-rich galaxy moving within a hot intra-cluster medium. In Plesset’s work (but see also @1958PhFl....1..201B) the instability growth was followed in spherical coordinates for an expanding bubble. The instability condition was worked out and then extended in the following years to a Lagrangian description [e.g., @1978PhFl...21..140C], to account for the viscosity of the medium [e.g., @1978PhFl...21.1465P] and for a stratified medium [e.g., @1990PhRvA..42.3400M], etc. This theory is useful in various applications: in plasma physics, accelerated streams, Richtmyer-Meshkov instability, etc.
In our case, we generalize Plesset’s technique to a non-inertial reference frame using the pressure equation derived in Paper I. We then apply the resulting equation to the case of the instability of two systems with a high density difference, as is the case for the hot intergalactic medium in a cluster of galaxies and the cold molecular clouds where stars form. The contents of the paper are the following: in Section \[LRT\] the linear response theory is just introduced but formally developed in Appendix A. In Section \[Results\] the resulting instability parameter is presented and explained. In Section \[Applicationandexamples\] a few examples are illustrated. In Section 5 we summarize the results of the paper. Appendix A contains the full development of the theory representing the core of the paper: in Appendix \[Kinematicboundaryconditions\] the kinematic boundary conditions between two fluids in relative motion are computation of the potential flow for internal (Appendix \[Internalgasperturbedpotentialflow\]) and external (Appendix \[Externalgasperturbedpotentialflow\]) gas. The dynamical boundary conditions are then evaluated in Appendix \[Internalgaspressureequation\] for the internal gas pressure equation and in Appendix \[Externalgaspressureequation\] for the external pressure equation. The equation for the surface of equilibrium is presented in Appendix \[Surfaceofequilibrium\]. Finally the condition for instability is obtained in Appendix \[Conditionfortheinstability\]. In Appendix B a few auxiliary functions defined in the text are analysed.
Orbiting systems {#LRT}
================
The picture we are going to introduce is quite general, and suits several applications. Nevertheless, it is convenient to focus on a simple example. We consider two extended bodies consisting of a first system larger in mass and size, described by a density profile (or relative potential), and a secondary system smaller in mass such as a dwarf galaxy orbiting a major companion (e.g., MW dwarf galaxies or a spherical galaxy in a cluster of galaxies). We start considering a galaxy at rest or in a rectilinear motion, i.e. a single system not perturbed by external agents. We consider it to be well represented in the configuration space by a spherical geometry. Hence, despite its clumpy nature, we assume that the molecular gas, the site of the star formation, is well represented by a spherical distribution (in the literature the assumption of spherical geometry is extensively adopted from stellar clusters to clusters of galaxies). If we now consider this galaxy in interaction with external agents (tidal interaction with a perturbing system, ram pressure from external gas, etc.) its initial state of equilibrium in the velocity as well as in configuration space is perturbed (see Fig.\[TTEvol\]).
In the following we are interested in quantifying the external effects acting on this galaxy gas distribution and on the star formation processes. The same treatment for the density profile perturbation of stars or dark matter can be achieved with the formalism developed in @1999ApJ...525..720C or @1999MNRAS.306....1N where star formation processes are nevertheless ignored. Here, we are going to neglect the internal mass distribution profile of the orbiting galaxy (or stellar cluster) by simply constructing the system with two parameters: mass $M$ and scale radius ${r_s}$. The internal gas component resulting mass distribution is for example given by $M\left( {{r_s}} \right) = \frac{4}{3}\pi r_s^3{\rho _{{\rm{gas}}}}$ and its gravitational radius by ${r_g} = \frac{5}{3}{r_s}$, despite any spherical couple potential-density can be considered (see Appendix A). The external major system description can be as complex as we like.
{width="12cm"}
Preliminaries: Internal processes and instabilities
---------------------------------------------------
We start with the description of the surface of the galaxy in its motion throughout an intra-cluster medium (MW hot corona, galaxy cluster intergalactic medium etc.). We suppose that the galaxy, whose dimension we denote with ${r_s}$ (where ${r_s}$ can be thought to be the effective radius, the tidal radius, or any scale radius chosen for a particular purpose), is perturbed from its equilibrium as mentioned above. Then, the distribution of the molecular clouds in the interstellar medium of the galaxy (that we identify with the reservoir of gas for stellar formation) can be identified with a density distribution $\rho = \rho \left( {\bm{\xi }} \right)$ bordered by a surface $\Sigma$ in a system of reference (SoR) comoving with the galaxy whose barycentric is in $O'$ and axis vectors $\hat \xi_i$ that we call $S_1=S_1(O',\hat \xi_i)$ for $i=1,2,3$ (for a more formal definition see Appendix A). This distribution is then perturbed to a new state, corresponding to a new perturbed surface density. Since we are interested in investigating only the instabilities ablating the gas from the stellar system or compressing it, we will limit ourselves to a linear analysis and we will assume the defining equation for the surface $\Sigma \left( {\xi ,\theta ,\phi ;t} \right)=0 $ (where spherical coordinates have been employed introduced in $S_1$) to reduce to $$\label{Eq02}
\Sigma \left( {\xi ,\theta ,\phi ;t} \right) \equiv \xi - \left({r_s}\left( t \right) + \eta \left( t \right)Y_l^m\left( {\theta ,\phi } \right)\right),$$ because $\Sigma \left( {\bm{\xi }} \right)$ is defined by the value of the norm of the position vector $\xi \equiv \left\| {\bf{\xi }} \right\| = {r_s}\left( t \right) + \eta \left( t \right)Y_l^m\left( {\theta ,\phi } \right)$ where ${r_s} = \left\| {{{\bm{r}}_s}} \right\|$, $\eta \ll {r_s}$ is a real function (we omit its dependence on $l$ and $m$ ) and $Y_l^m = \sqrt {\frac{{2l + 1}}{{4\pi }}} \sqrt {\frac{{(l - m)!}}{{(l + m)!}}} {e^{im\phi }}\left( {P_l^m\left( \mu \right)} \right)$ for $l \geqslant 0$ are the spherical harmonics with symmetry $Y_l^m\left( {\theta ,\phi } \right) = Y_{ - \left( {l + 1} \right)}^m\left( {\theta ,\phi } \right)$ for $l \leqslant - 1$, and $P_l^m\left( \mu \right)$ with $\mu = \cos \theta $ the Legendre functions [e.g., @1965PhT....18l..70L]. We are interested in the instability problem so we can omit the sum sign in Eq. [e.g., @1961hhs..book.....C Chap. 1] and later on we will focus on the $l = 2$ perturbative mode. Nevertheless, in other to recover the correct literature flat-geometry limit we will keep $l$ unspecified for now. (see Section \[Applicationandexamples\], and Fig\[TTEvol\]).
In Paper I, the authors established a framework to predict how a few selected instabilities (ram pressure, gas instabilities and tidal interactions) affect star formation. The key result of that work was a technique able to handle interacting systems in semi-analytical fashion. The authors obtained a pressure equation solution of the Navier-Stokes equations in a frame comoving with an orbiting stellar system. In this way, they were able to study the instabilities and the star formation through a pressure formulation within the scale radius of a system, ${r_s}$, and for a specific direction relative to the motion, that reduced to classical results of dimensionless galaxies [e.g., @1972ApJ...176....1G] as particular cases. Indeed, once an equation for the pressure $p$ was derived in a non-inertial reference frame, the star formation efficiency $\varepsilon \left( {{{\hat M}_i},p} \right)$ and lifetime of $\tau \left( {{{\hat M}_i},p} \right)$ of the mass spectrum of molecular clouds ${\hat M_i} \in \left[ {{{10}^2}{{,10}^6}} \right]{M_ \odot }$ was computed by following literature recipes [e.g., @1997ApJ...480..235E]. Here ${\hat M_i} \equiv {M_{i + 1}} - {M_i}$ defines the mass resolution with which the system of PDEs governing the evolution of the molecular clouds is integrated: $$\label{Eqsys01}
\frac{{d{{\hat M}_i}}}{{dt}} = \Xi \left( {{{\hat M}_i}} \right)\left( {{{\hat f}_i}\left( {{R_{{\rm{star}}}} + {R_{{\rm{mol}}}}} \right) - \frac{{{{\hat M}_i}}}{\tau }} \right),$$ where ${{\hat f}_i} \equiv \frac{{{{\hat M}_i}}}{{{M_{{\mathop{\rm tot}\nolimits} }}}}$ with ${{M_{{\mathop{\rm tot}\nolimits} }}}$ being the total mass of the clouds, $\Xi \left( {{{\hat M}_i}} \right)$ is the step-function [e.g., @1972hmfw.book.....A], ${R_{{\rm{star}}}} \equiv \int_{{m_{{\rm{low}}}}}^{{m_{{\rm{up}}}}} {\left( {\psi \left( {t - \tilde t} \right) - \psi \left( { - \tilde t} \right)} \right)\mu \left( m \right)\iota \left( m \right)dm} $ is the gas ejection rate from the stars. This gas ejection rate depends on the fraction of stars (of mass $m$ born at time ${\tilde t}$) returned to the interstellar medium with return mass function $r(m)$ normalized $\mu \left( m \right) \equiv \frac{{r\left( m \right)}}{m}$, on the stellar initial mass function $\iota \left( m \right)$, and on the star formation itself. The ${R_{{\rm{mol}}}} \equiv \sum\limits_i^{} {\left( {1 - \varepsilon } \right)\frac{{{{\hat M}_i}}}{\tau }} $ is the recycling rate of the molecular gas. Once this system is considered, an instability may gives rise to star formation if (and only if) gas is effectively present, i.e. $\Xi \left( {{{\hat M}_i}} \right)>0$, and suitable criteria dependent on the physics and geometry involved are met. In this case the resulting star formation is $$\psi \left( t \right) = \sum\limits_i^{} {\varepsilon \left( {{M_i},p} \right)\frac{{{{\hat M}_i}}}{{\tau \left( {{M_i},p} \right)}}}.$$ The star formation history can then be recovered once long-life, $m < 2.3{M_ \odot }$, and short-life $m \geqslant 2.3 M_\odot$ ($m_{\rm{low}}=0.08 M_\odot$ and $m_{\rm{up}}=100 M_\odot$) stellar feedback to the inter-stellar medium (ISM) is considered, following the recipe in @1998ApJ...509..587F and accounting for a two-phase ISM model (Field’s instability) where a delay due to the HI phase is considered for the gas ejected by stars and evaporated by young stars before it becomes finally molecular gas. Of course, this approach relies heavily on the stellar model adopted and on the time-scales of gas transitions. We followed the recipes depicted in @1999ApJ...516..619F combined with the stellar models of . Different stellar models and ISM recipes can produce different time-scales for the remnants and as a consequence we consider our results as indicative only.
In this context the role of the instabilities was left to a description developed locally in a plane geometry approximation. The criteria adopted there were the standard literature instability conditions [e.g., @1961hhs..book.....C]. In particular, within the Paper I framework, the pressure on the molecular cloud of a dwarf galaxy was considered as a piston acting on a locally defined position of the dwarf - specified by the angle $\theta $ and radius ${r_s}$ - and there (i.e., determined “locally” for each point) the criterion for the growth of the instability was derived in the context of the plane-geometry. The classical linear growth rate, $\gamma $, for the Rayleigh-Taylor (RT) and Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH) instabilities in a plane geometry can be derived by combining standard literature results [e.g., @1961hhs..book.....C] as: $$\label{Eq01}
{\gamma ^2} = \frac{{{\rho _{{\text{out}}}}{\rho _{{\text{in}}}}{k^2}{{\left( {{v_{{\text{out}}}} - {v_{{\text{in}}}}} \right)}^2} + kg\left( {\rho _{{\text{out}}}^2 - \rho _{{\text{in}}}^2} \right)}}{{{{\left( {{\rho _{{\text{out}}}} + {\rho _{{\text{in}}}}} \right)}^2}}}.$$ Here ${\rho _{{\text{out}}}}$ refers to the hot intergalactic medium external (outside) of the galaxy (e.g., hot intra-cluster gas, MW hot coronal gas etc.), ${\rho _{{\text{in}}}}$ refers to the colder molecular cloud gas of the galaxy that will give rise (when unstable) to star formation processes, $k$ is the wave number of the instability, and $g$ the gravity acting on the system at the distance impacting the external pressure, $g = \frac{{GM}}{{{r_s^2}}}$ for unitary mass and mass $M$ at the distance ${r_s}$. If the fluid inside and outside an ideal surface of separation moves with relative velocity ${v_{{\text{rel}}}} \equiv {v_{{\text{out}}}} - {v_{{\text{in}}}} \ne 0$, then Eq. simultaneously accounts for the instability modes of sliding and pressing fluids, i.e. the KH or RT instabilities already considered in Paper I.
In this work, we will show how the description of the Paper I is simplified considerably in respect of the physical interpretation of the phenomena involved once the same instability growth criteria are followed directly in a spherical geometry. In order to achieve such a description, a few preliminary steps have to be performed in order to find a treatable reference frame for the equations involved. We start introducing the reference frame in the following section, a fundamental step to set the scene for the theory development and to understand our results.
Geometrical framework for potential flow approximation {#GeometricalSoR}
------------------------------------------------------
The framework follows closely that already introduced in . We consider the inertial reference frame attached to the more massive galaxy, ${S_0}$, and we call ${S_1}$ the *reference system comoving with the smaller body*. In general, the axes of these two reference frames can be translated to match the same origin and overlapped by a rotation matrix ${\bm{O}} \in SO\left( 3 \right)$ with $\det = + 1$. Generally, if the smaller object is orbiting on its geodesic motion around the major one and ${S_1}$ is attached to it, this rotation matrix will be time dependent ${\bm{O}} = {\bm{O}}\left( t \right)$. This two-extended-body system will be considered in isolation. The reader can visualize the abstract description of this paper if focusing on the image of a small stellar system, e.g., a dwarf galaxy or a globular cluster, centred in the origin of the system of reference $S_1$, and orbiting in the external potential of a cluster of galaxies or in the halo of the galaxies respectively. As in Paper I, we will make use of the concept of the velocity potential. We assume the inter/intra-galactic medium to be irrotational [e.g., @1959flme.book.....L Chap. 1] $\nabla \times {{\bm{v}}_0} = 0$ with ${{\bm{v}}_0}$ being the fluid velocity in ${S_0}$. Hence, there exists a scalar function ${\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_0}}}$, the velocity potential, whose gradient is the fluid velocity i.e. $\exists {\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_0}}}|{{\bm{v}}_0} = {\nabla _{\bm{x}}}{\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_0}}}$. The ${\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_0}}}$ is used in the Navier-Stokes equations to investigate the fluid dynamics of the two gas components: the one belonging to $S_1$’s galaxy and the one external to it. As in Paper I, we will make use of the concept of the velocity potential. We assume the inter/intra-galactic medium to be irrotational [e.g., @1959flme.book.....L Chap. 1] $\nabla \times {{\bm{v}}_0} = 0$ with ${{\bm{v}}_0}$ being the fluid velocity in ${S_0}$. Hence, there exists a scalar function ${\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_0}}}$, the velocity potential, whose gradient is the fluid velocity i.e. $\exists {\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_0}}}|{{\bm{v}}_0} = {\nabla _{\bm{x}}}{\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_0}}}$. The ${\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_0}}}$ is used in the Navier-Stokes equations to investigate the fluid dynamics of the two gas components: the one belonging to $S_1$’s galaxy and the one external to it. However, as claimed in the introduction to this section, we are interested in providing a solution for the Navier-Stokes equation for the mentioned instabilities in a non-inertial reference frame. For this purpose, we have to picture the potential flow description of the Navier-Stokes equations solution in ${S_1}$ .
{width="12cm"}
The geometry of the problem is as shown in Fig. \[SoR\], where ${\bm{\xi }}$ is the arbitrary but fixed position vector in the SoR $S_1$ introduced above: ${S_1}\left( {O';{{{\bm{\hat \xi }}}_1},{{{\bm{\hat \xi }}}_2},{{{\bm{\hat \xi }}}_3}} \right)$ centred $O'$, with unitary vectors ${{\bm{\hat \xi }}_i}$ $i = 1,2,3$; ${\bm{x}} = {\bm{x}}\left( t \right)$ the position vector in ${S_0}\left( {O\left( t \right),{{{\bm{\hat x}}}_1}\left( t \right),{{{\bm{\hat x}}}_2}\left( t \right),{{{\bm{\hat x}}}_3}\left( t \right)} \right)$ centred in $O$ whose orbit as seen by an observer in $O'$ is $O = O\left( t \right)$; where ${{\bm{x}}_{O'}} = {{\bm{x}}_{O'}}\left( t \right)$ the position of the ${S_1}$ origin in ${S_0}$. The external velocity potential fluid was introduced in Paper I: the potential flow past a spheroidal dwarf galaxy is approximated by a classical literature result, $\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_0}}^I \equiv \frac{1}{2}\left\langle {{{\bm{v}}^\infty },{\bm{x}}} \right\rangle \frac{{r_s^3}}{{{{\left\| {\bm{x}} \right\|}^3}}}$ that gives the potential flow in ${S_1}$ when added to a translational potential flow $\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_0}}^{II} \equiv \left\langle {{{\bm{v}}^\infty },{\bm{x}}} \right\rangle $ that “brings the galaxy to rest”. ${\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}} \equiv \varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^I + \varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{II} = - \left\langle {{\bm{v}},{\bm{\xi }}} \right\rangle \left( {1 + \frac{1}{2}\frac{{\xi _s^3}}{{{{\left\| {\bm{\xi }} \right\|}^3}}}} \right)$, thanks to the scalar character of the velocity potential (we recall that ${\bm{v}}^\infty$ is the velocity of the fluid at infinity and ${\bm{v}}$ the velocity of the $S_1$ system, $v = \left\| {\bf{v}} \right\|$ the speed obtained with standard Euclidean norm $\left\| * \right\|$, $\left\langle {*,*} \right\rangle$ the standard inner product between two vectors).
The description of the motion in ${S_1}$ instead of ${S_0}$ has some advantages in the mathematical treatment of the fluid dynamics equations. This is not a new approach to the Navier-Stokes equation and represents a standard literature procedure when dealing with two-fluid problems [e.g., @2000ifd..book.....B; @1959flme.book.....L]. In this way it is possible to simplify the description of the two-fluid interaction to a common reference frame: it is simple to prove that if the fluid is irrotational in a given reference frame it is not in another, being the vorticity, say ${\bm{\zeta }}$, a concept relative to the reference frame as the velocity (${{\bm{\zeta }}_0} = {{\bm{\zeta }}_1} + 2{\bm{\Omega }}$, with ${\bm{\Omega }}$ relative rotational velocity of ${S_1}$ and ${S_0}$ where the vorticity is called ${{\bm{\zeta }}_1}$ and ${{\bm{\zeta }}_0}$ respectively). The description of the motion in a non-inertial reference frame simplifies this approach. We also follow standard literature results in formulating the potential flow in relation to the velocity of the stellar system ${\bm{v}}$ instead of the velocity of the impacting flow ${{\bm{v}}^\infty }$ which simplifies the physical interpretation of our results. Finally, with ${\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{III}} \equiv - \frac{{{{\dot r}_s}r_s^2}}{{\left\| {\bm{\xi }} \right\|}}$ [e.g., @2000ifd..book.....B], we describe the potential flow of the gas internal to the galaxy alone. Moreover, we add it to the description of the external flow impacting the galaxy’s internal molecular cloud gas when necessary (for example to describe the hot MW coronal gas).
The description presented so far was initially introduced in Paper I. However it has some limitations and imprecisions that do not permit the best understanding of the involved physics. Despite its success in reproducing the star formation history of the Carina dwarf galaxy presented in Paper I, the formalism there developed did not account properly for the deformation of the dwarf galaxy because of tidal interaction, and hence for the star formation instability presented in a real system. In any physical case, we expect the system to suffer a geometric compression in a direction roughly orthogonal to the orbit and an elongation along the orbits where the tidal tails lie . Vice versa, we expect that elongation to be tilted by about $\frac{\pi }{2}$, with respect to the orbital direction proximate to the pericentre passages [e.g., @2009MNRAS.400.2162K]. In both the extreme cases, we want to be able to follow the impact of the pressure on a galaxy foliated by homoeoidal surfaces tilted with an arbitrary rotation matrix ${\bm{O}}$ introduced above (see Fig.\[TTEvol\]).
In order to achieve such a generalization and simultaneously to investigate the role of the star formation instability, in Appendix A we will develop a two-fluids instability analysis in spherical geometry for a non-inertial reference frame under the influence of a non-uniform external gravitational field. The development of the theory proceeds as in the plane geometrical case of Paper I with two additional difficulties:
- the presence of apparent forces owing to the non-inertial nature of the geometrical frame we used;
- the deformation from spherical to oblate-spheroidal to address the limitation of the simple spherical geometry in the description of the tidal interaction of a system with an external gravitational field.
The linear response theory is described separately in Appendix A in order to give space here to the results and applications. Our key result take the form of an instability criterion that can be evaluated once a small parameter space is considered for the stellar system and its environment. The result is inspired by the standard quantum-mechanics Wenntzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) approximation for the solution of evolution equations with slowly varying coefficients, but limited to the analysis of the condition on the positivity of the growth factor ${\gamma ^2}\left( {\theta} \right) > 0$ of the perturbation of a stellar system in motion. The result is obtained in Eq. of Appendix A. After some algebra by collecting properly the terms and the trigonometric functions, this can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq36_2}
{\gamma ^2} &= \frac{3}{2}\frac{{v_{\rm{rel}}\cos \theta }}{{r_s^2}}\left( {A + 1} \right)\left( {\frac{3}{2}v_{\rm{rel}}\cos \theta \left( {A + 1} \right) + {{\dot r}_s}} \right)\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{9}{4}\frac{{\left( {A - 2} \right)\left( {A + 1} \right){F_1}{v_{\rm{rel}}^2}\sin \theta \cos \theta }}{{2r_s^2}}\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{{a_{{\rm{O'}}}^ \bot }}{{{r_s}}}\left( {{\rm A}\left( {l - \frac{1}{4}} \right) - \frac{1}{4}} \right)\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{9}{4}{v_{\rm{rel}}^2}{\sin ^2}\theta {\left( {\frac{{A + 1}}{{2{r_s}}}} \right)^2}\left( {F_1^2 - 2\frac{{{l_ - } + {F_2}}}{{A + 1}}} \right)\nonumber\\
&+ \left( {l + \frac{1}{2}} \right)A\frac{{{{\ddot r}_s}}}{{{r_s}}} + \frac{3}{4}\frac{{\dot r_s^2}}{{r_s^2}},\end{aligned}$$ where we introduce the generalized Atwood number[^1]: $$\label{Eq29}
{\rm A} \equiv \frac{{{l_ + }{l_{ + + }}{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} - {l_ - }l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}},$$ Here $\theta $ is angle between the position vector ${\bf{\xi }}$ and the stellar system velocity vector in ${S_0}$. ${a_{O'}}$ and ${v_{{\rm{rel}}}}$ are the relative acceleration and velocity of ${S_1}$ in ${S_0}$, ${r_s}\left( t \right)$ is the selected scale radius of the system (with its velocity ${\dot r_s}$ and acceleration ${\ddot r_s}$), and finally ${\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}$ and ${\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}$ are the gas density inside (HI, molecular) or outside (hot interstellar medium) of the system being examined. The special functions ${F_1}$ and ${F_2}$ are auxiliary functions defined in Appendix B. The spherical harmonic azimuthal modes $l$ (with $l_+\equiv l+1$, $l_{++}\equiv l+2$ etc.) are used to account for the departure of the tidal deformation of the stellar system from its starting spherical shape (see Fig.\[TTEvol\]). Finally, because of the short life-time of the molecular clouds compared with the orbital time of the stellar systems considered, we can safely assume ${\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}$ and ${\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}$ - and ultimately the Atwood number - to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium. This will result in a further simplification of our equations described in the following sections.
Results {#Results}
=======
To interpret the role of the stability phenomena in the evolution of a stellar system centred on $S_1$ orbiting a major companion centred on $S_0$, it is convenient to make a few minor changes to Eq.. We split the velocity components of the external fluid into a parallel $v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot \equiv {v_{{\rm{rel}}}}\cos \theta $ and a perpendicular $v_{{\rm{rel}}}^\parallel \equiv {v_{{\rm{rel}}}}\sin \theta $ component to the position vector in ${S_1}$. The same is done for the acceleration: with $\vartheta $ instead of $\theta$ we will proceed to define $a_{{\rm{O'}}}^ \parallel$ and $a_{{\rm{O'}}}^ \bot$. Moreover, while in Section \[Dynamicalboundarycondition\] the algebra is laid out with the generic $l$ to prove that we are able to recover the plane limit in Section \[SpLims\], here only the $l = 2$ perturbation case is of interest. With Eq. for $l=2$, we can rewrite the growth factor as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq37}
\gamma _{l = 2}^2 \equiv \hat \gamma^2 &= \frac{5}{2}\hat {\rm A}\frac{{{{\ddot r}_s}}}{{{r_s}}} + \frac{3}{4}\frac{{\dot r_s^2}}{{r_s^2}}\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{3}{2}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot {{\dot r}_s}}}{{r_s^2}}\left( {\hat {\rm A} + 1} \right) + \frac{9}{{16}}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^{ \bot 2}}}{{r_s^2}}{\left( {\hat {\rm A} + 1} \right)^2}\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{9}{{16}}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^{\parallel 2}}}{{r_s^2}}\left( {\hat {\rm A} + 1} \right)\left( {\left( {\hat {\rm A} + 1} \right)\hat F_1^2 - 2\left( {{{\hat F}_2} + 1} \right)} \right)\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{9}{{16}}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^\parallel v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot }}{{r_s^2}}\left( {\hat {\rm A} - 2} \right)\left( {\hat {\rm A} + 1} \right){{\hat F}_1}\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{{a_{O'}^ \bot }}{{4{r_s}}}\left( {7\hat {\rm A} - 1} \right),\end{aligned}$$ with $${{\rm A}_{l = 2}} \equiv \hat {\rm A} = \frac{{2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} - 3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}}}{{2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} + 3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}}}$$ where we additionally defined the special function ${\hat F_1} \equiv {F_1}|_{l = 2}$ and ${\hat F_2} \equiv {F_2}|_{l = 2}$. This is the fundamental result of this paper, and it gives us the interpretation key of the stability phenomena globally acting on a spherical stellar system. To first order the growth of the instabilities is the sum of different contributions, $$\label{Gamma2parameter}
{\hat \gamma ^2} = \hat \gamma _{\rm{I}}^2 + \hat \gamma _{{\rm{RT}}}^2 + \hat \gamma _{{\rm{KH}}}^2 + \hat \gamma _{{\rm{mix}}}^2 + \hat \gamma _{{\rm{a - RT}}}^2,$$ which we identify line by line:
1. The terms in the first line of Eq. $$\label{Eq38}
\hat \gamma^2_\text{I} \equiv \frac{5}{2}\hat {\rm A}\frac{{{{\ddot r}_s}}}{{{r_s}}} + \frac{3}{4}\frac{{\dot r_s^2}}{{r_s^2}}=\frac{{5\left( {2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} - 3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}} \right){{\ddot r}_s}}}{{2{r_s}\left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}} + \frac{{3\dot r_s^2}}{{4r_s^2}},$$ which is the standard literature result for an inertial reference frame. These terms do not depend on the subject of our study: for example they are in common with previous studies on the growth of bubbles in an inertial reference frame or supernova explosions. Here, though, we limit ourselves to the $l = 2$ mode of disturbance because of the physical system under consideration. This mode contributes positively to the instability every time $\frac{3}{2}\frac{{\dot r_s^2}}{{{r_s}}}\left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right) > \frac{5}{4}\left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} - 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right){\ddot r_s}$, and when assuming $3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} - 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} > 0$ in the case of galaxies or stellar clusters moving through a hot medium. Its positivity depends for example on the expansion/contraction of the tidal radius of the stellar system. Equation , if solved together with the corresponding Eq. of the equilibrium surface, will eventually lead to the complete eigenvalues of the system which can directly be compared with numerical simulation;
2. The terms in the next line of Eq. $$\label{Eq39}
\hat \gamma^2_{\text{RT}} \equiv \frac{3}{2}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot {{\dot r}_s}}}{{r_s^2}}\left( {\hat {\rm A} + 1} \right) + \frac{9}{{16}}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^{ \bot 2}}}{{r_s^2}}{\left( {\hat {\rm A} + 1} \right)^2}=\frac{{9\rho _{{\rm{out}}}^2v_{{\rm{rel}}}^{ \bot 2}}}{{r_s^2{{\left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}^2}}} + \frac{{6{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}{{\dot r}_s}v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot }}{{r_s^2\left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}},$$ proportional to $v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ {\bot 2} $. We will call these terms “pure”-RT terms. They influence the instability owing to the pressure along the radial extension of the star cluster. They show how the instability dependence on the RT effect is quadratic on the velocity of the fluid impacting the galaxy, i.e. quadratic on the velocity of the stellar system itself. It is especially interesting to observe how the term $\propto v_{{\rm{rel}}}^{ \bot 2}$ is always present: even if ${\dot r_s} = 0$, for example in the case of a galaxy that has reached its equilibrium by violent relaxation, the instability grows with quadratic dependence on the orbital velocity. As expected, it is maximum at the stagnation point, and it decreases slowly away from the direction of motion, becoming formally zero at $\theta = \frac{\pi }{2}$;
3. The term $$\label{Eq40}
\hat \gamma^2_{\text{KH}} \equiv \frac{9}{{16}}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^{\parallel 2}}}{{r_s^2}}\left( {\hat {\rm A} + 1} \right)\left( {\left( {\hat {\rm A} + 1} \right)\hat F_1^2 - 2\left( {{{\hat F}_2} + 1} \right)} \right)=\frac{{9{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}v_{{\rm{rel}}}^{\parallel 2}\left( {2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}\hat F_1^2 - \left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)\left( {{{\hat F}_2} + 1} \right)} \right)}}{{2r_s^2{{\left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}^2}}},$$ proportional to $v_{{\rm{rel}}}^{\parallel 2}$. We will refer to this term as the “pure”-KH term. This is influenced by the sliding of the relative velocity between the dwarf galaxy ISM and the inter-cluster medium through which the stellar system is moving. As in the RT case, $\hat \gamma^2_{\text{KH}}$ is quadratic with the velocity of motion of the stellar system and does not depend on the radial expansion or contraction of the galaxy. Further insight in the understanding of this term will be gained in the next section where the astrophysical case of interest ${\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} \gg {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}$ will be developed;
4. The term $$\label{Eq41}
\hat \gamma^2_{\text{mix}} \equiv -\frac{9}{{16}}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^\parallel v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot }}{{r_s^2}}\left( {\hat {\rm A} - 2} \right)\left( {\hat {\rm A} + 1} \right){{\hat S}_1}=- \frac{{9{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot v_{{\rm{rel}}}^\parallel \left( {9{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right){{\hat F}_1}}}{{2r_s^2{{\left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}^2}}}.$$ This is a mixed-contribution term. It always exists except for the special case of the stagnation point or the tangential point where it disappears, either $v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot $ or $v_{{\rm{rel}}}^\parallel $ being null, respectively. It is a quadratic term in the velocities, and it shows how the coexistence of KH and RT instabilities is always present once the galaxy is in motion along its geodesic. Its contribution to the instability depends on the sign of ${\hat F_1}$, being negative for small angles, contributing positively to the growth of the instability near the stagnation point, and positive for $\theta \simeq \frac{\pi }{2}$ thus having a stabilizing factor against the “pure”-KH term introduced before (See Fig A.1 in Appendix A);
5. The term $$\label{Eq42}
\hat \gamma^2_{\text{a-RT}} \equiv \frac{{a_{\rm{O'}}^ \bot }}{{4{r_s}}}\left( {7\hat {\rm A} - 1} \right)=\frac{{a_{{\rm{O'}}}^ \bot \left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} - 6{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}} \right)}}{{{r_s}\left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}},$$ proportional to the acceleration component in the direction indicated by the position vector. This term is a completely new result of our theory (it cancels out at the plane geometry limit). This term has a different nature from the terms originally described in the works of Kelvin, Helmholtz, Rayleigh and Taylor: this term is an apparent *force* due to the non-inertial nature of the reference system we adopted. It shows a linear dependence on the acceleration $a_{{\rm{O'}}}^ \bot$ to contribute orthogonally to the surface of the galaxy, i.e., only along its radial direction. Hence, to the first order, this term contributes (with a positive or negative force, stabilizing or promoting instability) only to the RT instability, not to the KH one. Clearly this term has a different contribution to the instability depending on the actual orbit and on the angle $\vartheta $.
Curiously, *our results indicate no direct contribution of the tangential component of the acceleration to the overall instability $a_{{\rm{O'}}}^\parallel$, i.e. we discovered that no apparent force acts on the KH type of instability to the first order*. This component has nevertheless to be present at second order, as evident in the equilibrium equation derived in Appendix A Eq. to the leading order, or in the growth factor Eq. when analysed to the second order. We mention that in the more complicated work by @2006PhFl...18g2104S a similar analysis to ours is carried out to higher order but for a non-translational system of reference. We remark that even besides the technical difficulties in carrying out such an analysis in our non-inertial case, this is not of interest in our case: in Paper I we showed that the life-time of the molecular clouds subject to external pressure is below 300 Myrs for the Local Group case. Hence, within these timescales, higher order terms or resonances do not have time to play a role. A general treatment of the force acting on the generic point of an element in ${S_1}$ was given by Eq.(6) of that in tidal approximation reads ${{\bm{\ddot r}}_s} = {{\bm{O}}^{\rm{T}}}{\bm{TO}}{{\bm{r}}_s} - 2{\bm{\Omega }} \times {{\bm{\dot r}}_s} - {\bm{\dot \Omega }} \times {{\bm{r}}_s} - {\bm{\Omega }} \times \left( {{\bm{\Omega }} \times {{\bm{r}}_s}} \right)$. Eq. holds only in the case of the short lifetime of the dwarf galaxy’s molecular clouds we are considering (see Fig.(1) in ).
Application and examples {#Applicationandexamples}
========================
In what follows, we develop some analytical, numerical and theoretical examples and exercises to show the potential of the criterion developed above.
Instability for the case ${\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} \ll {\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
To gain better insight into the physical conditions for the positivity of the growth factor, we consider the special case where the hot inter-galactic medium, here ${\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}$, is much more diffuse than the cold molecular clouds density distribution, ${\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}$, that we are considering as the star formation site. In this case a lighter fluid is pressing on a heavier one described in the non-inertial reference frame ${S_1}$. This is a practical case of interest in astrophysics. Because the density difference between the hot intergalactic medium and molecular clouds is assumed to be extremely high, ${\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} \gg {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}$ and we can expand the previous Eq. to get to the first order in the small parameter $\varepsilon = \frac{{{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}}}$: $$\label{Eq43}
{\hat \gamma ^2} = - \frac{{9\varepsilon v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot v_{{\rm{rel}}}^\parallel {{\hat F}_1}}}{{2r_s^2}} - \frac{{3\varepsilon v_{{\rm{rel}}}^{\parallel 2}({{\hat F}_2} + 1)}}{{2r_s^2}} + \frac{{(7\varepsilon - 6)a_{O'}^ \bot }}{{3{r_s}}} + \frac{{2\varepsilon {{\dot r}_s}v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot }}{{r_s^2}} + \frac{{10(4\varepsilon - 3){r_s}{{\ddot r}_s} + 9\dot r_s^2}}{{12r_s^2}},$$ whose positivity, for example at the stagnation point is simply: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq44}
&{\hat \gamma ^2} = \frac{{(7\varepsilon - 6)a_{O'}^ \bot }}{{3{r_s}}} + \frac{{2\varepsilon {{\dot r}_s}v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot }}{{r_s^2}} + \frac{{10(4\varepsilon - 3){r_s}{{\ddot r}_s} + 9\dot r_s^2}}{{12r_s^2}} > 0 \Leftrightarrow \nonumber\\
&\frac{{7\varepsilon - 6}}{3}a_{O'}^ \bot + \frac{{5\left( {4\varepsilon - 3} \right)}}{6}{{\ddot r}_s} > - 2\varepsilon \frac{{{{\dot r}_s}v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot }}{{{r_s}}} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{{\dot r_s^2}}{{{r_s}}},\end{aligned}$$ which shows a competition between the relative acceleration of the two reference frames ${S_1}$ and ${S_0}$, the gravity of the systems ${\ddot r_s} = g = \frac{{GM}}{{r_s^2}}$, the velocity terms $v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot$ and the contraction velocity ${\dot r_s}$. At the limit of $\varepsilon \to 0$ there are no hydrodynamical effects and the gas instability will be purely gravitational. We get: $$\label{Eq45}
2a_{O'}^ \bot + \frac{5}{2}g < \frac{3}{4}\frac{{\dot r_s^2}}{{{r_s}}},$$ satisfied in the zones of the galaxy where $a_{O'}^ \bot < 0$, i.e. where the component of the external acceleration compresses the gas. This is indeed a well known literature result on the purely gravitational compressive effect of a tidal field acting on a galaxy, that we recover with our stability criteria. The dissipative phenomena in the pure dynamical case are still a matter of debate [e.g., @2014arXiv1406.2376E; @2013MNRAS.434L..56J] that we avoid here. We simply limit ourself to observe that with the total potential acting at the point of interest on $\Sigma$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq47}
{\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}}\left( {\bm{x}_\Sigma} \right) &\simeq {\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}}\left( {{{\bm{x}}_{O'}}} \right) + {\partial _{\bm{x}_\Sigma}}{\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}}\left( {{{\bm{x}}_{O'}}} \right)\left( {{\bm{x}_\Sigma} - {{\bm{x}}_{O'}}} \right) + ...\nonumber\\
{\partial _{\bm{x}_\Sigma}}{\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}}\left( {\bm{x}_\Sigma} \right) &\simeq {\partial _{\bm{x}_\Sigma}}{\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}}\left( {{{\bm{x}}_{O'}}} \right) + \partial _{\bm{x}_\Sigma}^2{\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}}\left( {{{\bm{x}}_{O'}}} \right)\left( {{\bm{x}_\Sigma} - {{\bm{x}}_{O'}}} \right) + ...,\end{aligned}$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq48}
a_{{{O'}}}^ \bot &=\left\langle { - {\partial _{\bm{x}_\Sigma}}{\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}}\left( {\bm{x}_\Sigma} \right),{\bm{O\xi }}} \right\rangle \nonumber\\
&\simeq \left\langle { - {\partial _{\bm{x}_\Sigma}}{\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}}\left( {{{\bm{x}}_{O'}}} \right),{\bm{O\xi }}} \right\rangle - \left\langle {\partial _{\bm{x}_\Sigma}^2{\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}}\left( {{{\bm{x}}_{O'}}} \right){\bm{O\xi }},{\bm{O\xi }}} \right\rangle \nonumber\\
&= \left\langle {{{\bm{a}}_{O'}},{\bm{O\xi }}} \right\rangle + \left\langle {{{\bm{O}}^{\rm{T}}}{\bm{TO\xi }},{\bm{\xi }}} \right\rangle, \end{aligned}$$ to which we want to add the stellar cluster mass distribution at the same position ${g} = \frac{{GM}}{{r_s^2}}$. This proof follows tightly the derivation of Eqs. 9 and 10 of Paper I and holds only for small systems orbiting major companions.
{width="12cm"}
Small angles $\theta \cong 0$
------------------------------
We are obviously interested in the small angles approximation. This is because in the spherical geometry that we have developed, the stagnation point lies where the pressure is higher, i.e. it is the first point impacting on the external intra-galaxy medium. Vice versa in a different geometry this is not necessarily true. If we assume a spiral galaxy penetrating a cluster of galaxies with a hot intra-cluster medium in a direction orthogonal to the disk plane, the first instability to be seen is the stripping from the border of the disk because of the weaker galaxy potential at the edges of the disk . The instability criterion of Eq. reduces to $$\label{Eq46}
{\hat \gamma ^2} \simeq \frac{{9\rho _{{\rm{out}}}^2v_{{\rm{rel}}}^2}}{{r_s^2{{\left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}^2}}} + \frac{{6{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}{{\dot r}_s}{v_{{\rm{rel}}}}}}{{r_s^2\left( {3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}} - \frac{{6{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} - 3{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{3{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + 2{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}\frac{{{a_{O'}}}}{{{r_s}}}\cos \vartheta
+ \frac{3}{4}\frac{{\dot r_s^2}}{{r_s^2}} - 10{\rm A}\frac{{{{\ddot r}_s}}}{{{r_s}}} + O{\left( \theta \right)^2},$$ where we made use of the asymptotic behaviour of the special functions $F_1$ and $F_2$ (see Appendix B). This result proves that to the linear-order $\hat \gamma^2$ is independent of the direction. This is an important theoretical result (not expected a priori) that indicates how our instability parameter is weakly dependent on the particular geometry developed (the curvature) and it has probably a wider range of applicability than what is formally mathematically permitted.
The importance of this result can be grasped by examining Fig. \[PiccoliAngoli\]. If we assume that $\theta \simeq 0$ is small (see point A on Fig. \[PiccoliAngoli\]) then the difference between the orthogonal (and tangential) vectors to the unperturbed and perturbed surfaces is always small even if $\eta \sim {r_s}$, i.e., even if $\eta \ll {r_s}$ does not hold strictly (e.g., along the direction of the tidal tails of an orbiting dwarf galaxy with a highly radial orbit). Similarly, for the point B, i.e., far away from $\theta = 0$ or $\theta = \frac{\pi }{2}$ we expect the theory not to hold properly (as indeed the divergence of the special functions ${F_1}$ and ${F_2}$ indicates). To grasp the importance of this result it is worth examining Fig. \[PiccoliAngoli\]. If we assume that $\theta \simeq 0$ is small (see point A on Fig. \[PiccoliAngoli\]) then the difference between the orthogonal (and tangential) vectors to the unperturbed and perturbed surfaces is always small even if $\eta \sim {r_s}$, i.e., even if $\eta \ll {r_s}$ does not hold strictly (e.g., along the direction of the tidal tails of an orbiting dwarf galaxy with a highly radial orbit). Vice versa, for the point B, i.e., far away from $\theta = 0$ or $\theta = \frac{\pi }{2}$ we expect the theory not to hold properly (as indeed the divergence of the special functions ${F_1}$ and ${F_2}$ indicates). If there were a strong angular dependence at the stagnation point to the first order (e.g., ${\theta ^2},{\theta ^3},{\theta ^4}...$) it would inevitably limit our results to the very specific spherical system (even though every stellar system with a sufficiently smooth density distribution can be approximated with an osculating sphere).
The ${\hat \gamma ^2}$’s independence in the first order in $\theta $ is an encouraging result on the potential of the criterion we have developed. Finally, note that the angle $\vartheta $, differently from $\theta $, is not necessarily small, but depends on the configuration space of the external cluster of galaxies or stellar distribution acting on the system under examination.
Application to observations
---------------------------
Although the investigation of a particular catalogue of galaxies, galaxy clusters, or globular cluster is beyond the goal of the present paper, it is interesting to observe that the criterion in Eq. can give a hint on the activity of the star formation directly by observational measures. Depending on the precision of the data available and on the system under study, the simplest approach to the criterion (from an observational point of view) is as follows. The mass spectrum of the molecular clouds, where stars are born, is reasonably well known (Paper I). For the external hot intergalactic medium the X-ray emitting hot intra-cluster gas distribution is known to be well represented by $\beta $-models . Consider a galaxy with an effective radius ${r_s} = {r_{{\rm{eff}}}}$, starting to free fall in equilibrium ${\dot r_s} = {\dot r_{{\rm{eff}}}} = 0$ from the outskirts of a galaxy cluster parametrized by a potential-density couple $\Delta {\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}} = 4\pi G{\rho _{{\rm{cl}}}}$. The galaxy will experience tidal stretching (or compression) by the tidal field ${\bm{T}} = - \frac{{\partial {\Phi _{{\rm{cl}}}}}}{{\partial {\bm{x}}\partial {\bm{x}}}}$ along (or orthogonally) to the free fall direction (with velocity ${v_{{\rm{ff}}}} = v_{{\rm{rel}}}^ \bot $). Hence, it will be stable or unstable to star formation simply if the total mass ${M_{{\rm{gal}}}}$ of the galaxy is enough to shield the galaxy from the external field $a_{O'}^ \bot = {\left. {\bm{T}} \right|_{{\rm{cl}}}}{r_s}$ or not (where ${\left. {\bm{T}} \right|_{{\rm{cl}}}}$ is evaluated through the radial direction to the galaxy cluster centre, ${\bm{a}} \simeq {{\bm{a}}_{O'}} + {{\bm{O}}^T}{\bm{TO\xi }} + ...$ ). The only observational datum required to be obtained is the tidal distribution of the gravitational system and this can easily be computed as $$\label{Eq46bis}
{{\rm T}_{ij}} = \sum\limits_{i \in {\rm{cl}}}^{} {\frac{{G{M_i}}}{{{{\left\| {{x_{{\rm{gal}}}} - {x_i}} \right\|}^3}}}\left( {\frac{{3\left( {{x_{{\rm{gal}}}} - {x_i}} \right)\left( {{x_{{\rm{gal}}}} - {x_j}} \right)}}{{{{\left\| {{x_{{\rm{gal}}}} - {x_i}} \right\|}^2}}} - {\delta _{ij}}} \right)},$$ where $\bm{x}_\text{gal}$ is the location of the galaxy under examination within the catalogue describing the cluster of galaxies located respectively at $\bm{x}_i$, and $\delta _{ij}$ is the bi-dimensional Dirac delta function. An example of this type of computation from observational data is shown in (for a different geometry than in Section \[SoR\]). In this way, all the parameters necessary to exploit the instability criterion (e.g., in the form of Eq. ) are entirely obtained from a catalogue
Numerical example on dwarf galaxies of the Local Group (LG)
-----------------------------------------------------------
In paper I a local description of the instability processes was assumed, using a pressure equation (there Eq.(10)) that recovers standard literature results [e.g., @1972ApJ...176....1G] if considered in dimensionless systems (i.e., for ${r_s} \to 0$ we obtained the ram pressure equation of @1972ApJ...176....1G). This pressure equation was applied locally to a molecular cloud spectrum of masses $M \in \left[ {{{10}^2}{{,10}^6}} \right]{M_ \odot }$ [@1997ApJ...480..235E]. In this way, each different molecular cloud class was accounted differently for its instability (in the linear regime), reacting differently depending on the particular mass. The result was then integrated to obtain the overall mass consumed, transformed into stars, or transferred back to the intergalactic medium following the recipe of @1999ApJ...516..619F. The compatibility of the result was confirmed against a numerical integration of the evolution of an extensively studied LG dwarf galaxy (Carina) . In paper I a local description of the instability processes was assumed, using a pressure equation (there Eq.(10)) that recovers standard literature results [e.g., @1972ApJ...176....1G] if considered in dimensionless systems (i.e., for ${r_s} \to 0$ we obtained the ram pressure equation of @1972ApJ...176....1G). This pressure equation was applied locally to a molecular cloud spectrum of masses $M \in \left[ {{{10}^2}{{,10}^6}} \right]{M_ \odot }$ [@1997ApJ...480..235E]. In this way, each different molecular cloud class was accounted differently for its instability (in the linear regime), reacting differently depending on the particular mass. The result was then integrated to obtain the overall mass consumed, transformed into stars, or transferred back to the intergalactic medium following the recipe of @1999ApJ...516..619F. The compatibility of the result was confirmed against a numerical integration of the evolution of an extensively studied LG dwarf galaxy (Carina) .
With the criterion of instability derived above in Eq. , we can now investigate more precisely the role of the different orbital parameters involved in the instability process. For example, we assume a dwarf galaxy orbiting in the plane of the MW potential, starting at 200 kpc from the centre of ${S_0}$ (centred on the MW) on an orbit with eccentricity $e = 0.25$. The orbit and star formation (for an initially metal poor galaxy) is as in Fig.\[OrbSFHe25\]
{width="\columnwidth"}
where in the left panel the orbit computed for the MW galaxy model of Paper I is illustrated. The legend explains the colour-coding of the orbits as a function of time (Gyrs). The same colour-code is used in the right panel where the star formation history has been computed with the technique developed in Paper I.
For an example position along the orbit, say ${t^*} \equiv t_{\text{lbt}} = -9$ Gyr (where $t_{\text{lbt}}$ is the look-back time), we ask ourselves which mass limit gives rise to star formation instability. We plot our instability factor Eq., with the model of the MW external potential and electron number density for coronal gas as in Paper I, as a function of the total mass of the dwarf galaxy. The results are shown in Fig.\[GraphGrid\] (left panel).
{width="\columnwidth"}
The orbits define the phase space parameter of the galaxy. If we increase the total mass of the orbiting object at fixed orbital parameters (MW model centred on $S_0$, ${\mathbf{x}}\left( {t = 0} \right) = \left\{ {0,200,0} \right\}$kpc and $e = 0.25$), we see that the system gradually becomes more stable and at $t=t^*$ (an arbitrary point on the real line of the time) we can easily see that systems more massive than $\sim 0.25 \times {10^8}{M_ \odot }$ with a tidal radius of ${r_{{\text{tidal}}}}=5$kpc become stable to external star formation activation.
We remark at this point that Eq. represents a criterion of stability, not an equation governing the evolution of the system analysed. We do not follow the linear response of a system but only study the onset of star formation. Different masses, or systems, would evolve on different orbits than the one chosen in our example. The instability criterion simply has the function to predict which parameters in the multidimensional space of mass, size and phase-space give rise to instability and hence potentially lead to star formation because of the specified external environment. Of course if the galaxy does not contain gas (i.e., the criterion of $\Xi>0$ in Eq. is not satisfied), then regardless of whether its structural and orbital parameters satisfy the positivity of the instability growth factor, the galaxy will not experience star formation. More on this point will be said in the Section 5.
Another interesting feature of our theory is the possibility to account for a scale parameter ${r_s}$. Hence, on the same fixed orbit of Fig.\[GraphGrid\] (left panel) we can investigate the instability once ${r_s}$ is allowed to vary. We consider the same instant and orbit. As seen in the left panel of Fig.\[GraphGrid\], any mass ${M_{{\rm{gal}}}} > {0.25 \times 10^8}{M_ \odot }$ is enough to shield the galaxy from activating star formation by external factors. We now imagine to dilute (or compact) a ${M_{{\rm{gal}}}} = {10^8}{M_ \odot }$ over larger and larger scale radii at the same position and velocity as computed for ${t^*}$ in the previous plot. The result is as in Fig.\[GraphGrid\] (right panel). The result clearly shows that the growth of the instabilities is favoured by diffusing the stellar system. As soon as a galaxy of total mass ${M_{{\rm{gal}}}} = {10^8}{M_ \odot }$ is diffused over a scale radius greater than 4.1 kpc the galaxy becomes prone to the growth of instabilities (here the tidal radius, but note that the passage between different scale radii will result in just a shift along the x axis) coherently with left panel in the figure.
Finally, both the panels show a comparative study in the particular instant of the selected orbit for the relative importance of the different effects. We selected an angular dependence of $\theta = \frac{\pi }{8}$ to show all the effects contributing to model the total instability parameter curve. As is evident, the mixed term $\hat \gamma _{{\rm{mix}}}^2$ is dominant over the pure KH term, $\hat \gamma _{KH}^2$, and RT term, $\hat \gamma _{{\rm{RT}}}^2$. This holds for compact systems. At fixed mass ($M = {10^6}{M_ \odot }$) for increasing radius, we see that is the more diffuse is the system, the more the inertial term of Eq. becomes relevant. It finally becomes dominant over 5 kpc. We stress once more that this is not expected to be a general trend, but it is specific to this particular orbit. Nevertheless, for each orbit, the instability criterion can indicate the dominant effects for the parameter selected. The RT-acceleration effect (Eq.) is constant at a fixed point on the orbit and dominant over all terms. This is because for the chosen orbits and dwarf scale parameters $r_s=5$ kpc and $M_\text{gal}=10^8 M_\odot$ there is a tight correlation between pericentre passages and star formation history (see Fig. \[OrbSFHe25\] right panel).
We combine the two panels of the previous figures to show in Fig.\[GammaTot\] (a given orbit and precise instant, $t=t^*$ in our case) the characteristic manifold of the star forming regions (in the mass-size space).
{width="12cm"}
As evident from the Figure, the dwarf galaxy orbiting the MW in the example orbit can either have star formation (red zone) or be stable against it (green region) depending on its mass and size. *The criterion derived here predicts the threshold value for the onset of star formation in a mass vs. size space for any orbit of interest.* This plot indeed can be calculated for to any point of the MW dwarf galaxies’ phase-space distribution. In Fig. \[GammaTot\] the “green valley” of the manifold formalizes the intuition that smaller (in size) systems require less total mass to be shielded from external influences. Finally, beyond a certain limit the internal-inertial term $\hat \gamma^2_I$ becomes dominant and induces the $l=2$ modal instability regardless of the role of the external pressure or tidal forces. As evident from the Figure, the dwarf galaxy orbiting the MW in the example orbit can either have star formation (red zone) or be stable against it (green region) depending on its mass and size. *The criterion derived here predicts the threshold value for the onset of star formation in a mass vs. size space for any orbit of interest.* This plot indeed can be calculated for to any point of the MW dwarf galaxies’ phase-space distribution. In Fig. \[GammaTot\] the “green valley” of the manifold formalizes the intuition that smaller (in size) systems require less total mass to be shielded from external influences. Finally, beyond a certain limit the internal-inertial term $\hat \gamma^2_I$ becomes dominant and induces the $l=2$ modal instability regardless of the role of the external pressure or tidal forces.
We stress that this is not intended to be an investigation of the instability zones of the parameter spaces of the MW, LG or any particular LG dwarf galaxy. A statistical investigation of the errors involved and on their propagation on the positions and velocities of a dwarf galaxy is a complicated task that requires more advanced techniques (e.g., see the analysis of the Carina’s dwarf galaxy orbit in based on the minimum action principle) and is in preparation for MW dwarf galaxies (Pasetto et al 2014, in preparation).
Conclusion
==========
Since the original works on collapse and instability of Jeans [@1902RSPTA.199....1J] and the phenomenological works of @1959ApJ...129..243S, and @1998ApJ...498..541K, criteria ruling the star formation processes have been of great interest in astrophysics and an extensive matter of debate. The treatment of the star formation processes accounting for environmental effects has almost always been the “territory” of experimental/numerical astrophysics (for a review, see e.g., @2010AdAst2010E..25M).
In this work we address this problem from an analytical point of view for the first time, by presenting a new treatment of the gas instability processes that activate star formation in interacting stellar systems embedded in an external environment. Our approach is based on the study of the pressure acting on a density distribution of molecular clouds subject to external pressure acting on them. The arguments are developed in spherical geometry and a consistent new instability criterion is obtained, which accounts for gravitational and hydrodynamical properties of the molecular clouds and their surrounding environment.
The main results in this analysis are
- an analytical expression for the instability conditions, a criterion obtained by analysing the growth of the instability because of a perturbation at a surface of equilibrium. The description of the perturbation is limited to a mode of interest for the astrophysical case, $l = 2$ in a spherical harmonic expansion. Limiting conditions (Eqs. or with ) are also developed to propose a version of the instability criterion fully testable with limited observational data. *From observational constraints this is expected to give indications on the nature of a studied system*.
- we show for the first time the dependence of instability on the orbital parameters for a particular example. This approach has the advantage of casting light on the role of the different instability processes in giving rise to unstable (i.e. growth) modes. In particular, this approach is complementary to pure numerical methodology (adaptive mesh refinement, smooth particle hydrodynamics etc.) indicating the main dependencies of the analysed stellar system on dynamical parameters (speed, acceleration, mass and size) and how strong they are. In this way, this analytical result is a fundamental key for interpreting the numerical/experimental results where all of these effects act simultaneously.
Finally, an investigation of the star formation criterion is presented for a typical orbit of a LG dwarf galaxy . We briefly presented our instability parameter as an investigative tool to the stellar formation in pre-assigned orbits of a LG dwarf galaxy.
We conclude with a few remarks on the criterion developed here. It is obtained by a dynamically consistent equation derived to the first order in the perturbation factor $\eta $, but it is not an evolution equation, it is only an instability criterion. We did not consider the eigen-function of the perturbation equation nor the equilibrium equation that should be solved together to obtain the time evolution of the perturbation, eventually producing a system of equations directly comparable to N-body AMD/SPH simulations. This comparison was done in Paper I to which we refer the reader.
Despite the difficulties in handling instability with numerical techniques, the N-body AMD/SPH simulations provide a valuable tool to perform experiments/exercises that can guide the theoretical and observational studies. Nevertheless, the degree of comprehension of a phenomenon that can be achieved with analytical studies cannot be reached by a controlled numerical experiment where all the effects (internal and external) overlap in a non-linear way. It is the purpose of this paper to present a possible interpretative key for disentangling the different theoretical aspects of a numerical experiment.
Still, numerical experiments can lead the theoretical research where the limitation of the analytical approaches struggles to advance to a simple formulation [e.g., @2012MNRAS.419..971D]. For example every time two systems lose their identities when merging into a single object [e.g., @2014MNRAS.442L..33R; @2008MNRAS.391L..98R; @2007MNRAS.379.1475S] the linear response theory here developed can be only of indicative help, while a numerical simulation where the instability criteria are implemented locally seems - to date - the better way to do advance our understanding.
This work addresses in an analytical way the problem of the environmental influence on a system. The criterion derived here predicts the threshold value for the onset of star formation in a mass vs. size space for any orbit of interest. It shows that the instability can be triggered or suppressed in a different way depending on the internal density profile of the system under examination. Finally, we remark that in the case of primordial globular clusters moving supersonically throughout the disk of a spiral galaxy, the algebra of the instability criterion developed here is expected to work once the pressure equation is considered in the supersonic regime. A relation between pre and post shock pressure to account for this isentropic compression was already worked out in Appendix A.3 of Paper I.
SP thanks: Anna Pasquali and Denija Crnojevic for stimulating discussions. We thank the anonymous referee for useful suggestions. We acknowledge PRACE for awarding us access to resource ARCHER UK National Supercomputing Service. The support of Chris Johnson from EPCC, UK for the technical work is gratefully acknowledged.
Non-inertial linear response theory for gas instabilities in spherical coordinates {#Linearresponsetheory}
==================================================================================
In this appendix we develop the mathematics of the linear response theory introduced in Section \[LRT\]. The unstable periphery of a gaseous sphere penetrating an external medium is considered in a non-inertial reference frame and kinematic and dynamical boundary conditions are considered. An instability criterion is obtained in spherical coordinates and plane geometry limit is considered.
Kinematic boundary conditions {#Kinematicboundaryconditions}
-----------------------------
### Perturbed surface {#Perturbedsurface}
In the geometrical framework introduced in the Section \[GeometricalSoR\], we consider a potential-flow type description of the surface of the galaxy in its motion throughout an intra-cluster medium The distribution of the molecular clouds in the interstellar medium of the galaxy is described with a density distribution $\rho = \rho \left( {\bm{\xi }} \right)$ in ${S_1}$ bordered by a surface $\Sigma$ surface of the frontier of the domain of existence of the (bound) density function $\rho :\mathop {\lim }\limits_{{\bm{\xi }} \to \infty } \rho < \infty $. No singularity is allowed in the potential-density couple satisfying the associated Poisson equation $\Delta \Phi = 4\pi G\rho $. This distribution is then perturbed to a new state, corresponding to a new perturbed surface density (where the spherical coordinates introduced above in ${S_1}$ have been employed). We will limit ourselves to a linear analysis and we assume the defining equation for the surface $\Sigma \left( {\xi ,\theta ,\phi ;t} \right)=0 $ to be given by Eq..
### Internal gas perturbed potential flow {#Internalgasperturbedpotentialflow}
We will refer to a quantity of the orbiting stellar system as “internal”, e.g., its density ${\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}$, velocity potential ${\varphi ^{{\rm{in}}}}$ etc. To describe the cold interstellar medium we will use the solution for the Laplace equation for a stationary expanding/contracting potential flow written as ${\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{III}} \equiv - \frac{{r_s^2{{\dot r}_s}}}{\xi }$ [e.g., @1959flme.book.....L] to which we add the perturbation solution of the Laplace equation proportional to ${\xi ^l}$, i.e. ${\xi ^l}Y_l^m{B_{lm}}$ (with $B_{lm}$ proportionality coefficients of the spherical harmonic basis): $$\label{Eq03}
\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}\left( {\xi ,\theta ,\phi ;t} \right) = {\xi ^l}Y_l^m{B_{lm}} - \frac{{r_s^2{{\dot r}_s}}}{\xi },$$ where we already excluded terms proportional to ${\xi ^{ - 1 - l}}$ in the radial solution of the Laplace equation $\varphi \propto {A_{lm}}{\xi ^{ - l}} + {B_{lm}}{\xi ^l}$ by setting their corresponding coefficients ${A_{lm}} = 0$. This is done in order to avoid divergences as long as we move away from $\Sigma $ inward into the galaxy. To ensure continuity of the surface element fluids at the surface, we proceed in the standard way [e.g., @2000ifd..book.....B] by evaluating the kinematical boundary conditions (i.e., of the Eulerian derivative at the surface) of the fluid elements at the perturbed surface $\left\| {\bm{\xi }} \right\| = {r_s} + \eta Y_l^m$ (see Eq.): $$\label{Eq04}
{\left. {{\partial _t}\Sigma + \left\langle {\nabla \varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}},\nabla \Sigma } \right\rangle } \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} = 0,$$ where ${\partial _x}$ is a compact notation for the derivative $\frac{\partial }{{\partial x}}$. With ${\partial _t}\Sigma = - {\dot r_s} - \dot \eta Y_l^m$ and by computing the spatial gradient components in $S_1$ as $\left( {{\partial _\xi }\Sigma ,\frac{{{\partial _\theta }\Sigma }}{\xi },\frac{{{\partial _\phi }\Sigma }}{{\xi \sin \theta }}} \right) = \left( {1, - \frac{{\eta {\partial _\theta }Y_l^m}}{\xi }, - \frac{{\eta {\partial _\phi }Y_l^m}}{\xi }\csc \theta } \right)$, as well as $\left( {{\partial _\xi }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}},\frac{{{\partial _\theta }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}}}{\xi },\frac{{{\partial _\phi }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}}}{{\xi \sin \theta }}} \right) = \left( {l{\xi ^{l - 1}}Y_l^m{B_{lm}} + \frac{{r_s^2{{\dot r}_s}}}{{{\xi ^2}}},{B_{lm}}{\xi ^{l - 1}}{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m,{B_{lm}}{\xi ^{l - 1}}\csc \theta {\partial _\phi }Y_l^m} \right)$, Eq. reduces to an equation for the parameters ${B_{lm}}$: $${B_{lm}}\eta {\left( {{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m} \right)^2}{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)^{l - 2}} + {B_{lm}}\eta {\csc ^2}\theta {\left( {{\partial _\phi }Y_l^m} \right)^2}{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)^{l - 2}} - {B_{lm}}lY_l^m{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)^{l - 1}} = \frac{{r_s^2{{\dot r}_s}}}{{{{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)}^2}}} - \dot \eta Y_l^m - {\dot r_s},$$ obtained by Eq. with the terms computed above and by simple substitution of the perturbed surface of Eq.. This equation can be solved for ${B_{lm}}$ as: $$\label{Eq05}
{B_{lm}} = \frac{{Y_l^m{{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)}^{ - l}}\left( {\dot \eta {{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)}^2} + \eta {{\dot r}_s}\left( {\eta Y_l^m + 2{r_s}} \right)} \right)}}{{ - \eta \left( {{{\left( {{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m} \right)}^2} + {{\csc }^2}\theta {{\left( {{\partial _\phi }Y_l^m} \right)}^2}} \right) + l{r_s}Y_l^m + \eta l(Y_l^{m})^2}},$$ obtained by collecting the common terms. We now linearize the previous result to the first order in $\eta $. After a McLaurin expansion in $\eta$ we find the following compact form for the coefficients ${B_{lm}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq06}
{B_{lm}}\left( \eta \right) &\simeq {B_{lm}}\left( 0 \right) + {\partial _\eta }{B_{lm}}\left( 0 \right)\eta + O{\left( \eta \right)^2} ,\nonumber\\
&\simeq \dot \eta \frac{{r_s^{1 - l}}}{l} + 2\eta {{\dot r}_s}\frac{{r_s^{ - l}}}{l}. \end{aligned}$$ Inserting Eq. in Eq. helps us to obtain the final form of the potential vector to the first order as: $$\label{Eq07}
\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}\left( {\xi ,\theta ,\phi ;t} \right) \simeq {\xi ^l}Y_l^m\left( {\frac{{\dot \eta }}{l}{r_s}^{1 - l} + \frac{{2\eta }}{l}{{\dot r}_s}{r_s}^l} \right) - \frac{{r_s^2{{\dot r}_s}}}{\xi },$$ which is Eq.(4) of @1954JAP....25...96P. Differently from @1954JAP....25...96P, we are here interested in describing the motion of the dwarf galaxy along its orbit in the bath of a hotter, lighter intergalactic medium, or vice versa, the motion of this intergalactic medium impacting the dwarf galaxy in its orbital evolution as it appears in the reference frame ${S_1}$. This case has similarity with the problem recently presented in Paper I and was there extensively treated in the context of stellar convection by @2014arXiv1403.6122P. We adapt their formalism and extend their results to this non-axisymmetric context.
### External gas perturbed potential flow {#Externalgasperturbedpotentialflow}
We will refer to a quantity external to the orbiting system as “outside” the system, e.g., the hot intra-cluster medium density ${\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}$, its velocity potential ${\varphi ^{{\rm{out}}}}$ etc. The potential flow for the hot intergalactic medium written in the reference frame ${S_1}$ comoving with the stellar system, $\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}}$, is introduced in the previous section, but see recently also @2014arXiv1403.6122P, as ${\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}} \equiv - v\xi \left( {1 + \frac{1}{2}\frac{{r_s^3}}{{{\xi ^3}}}} \right)\cos \theta $. To these terms, we add now the term computed above for the expansion/contraction of the galaxy ${\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}}$, and the perturbation solution of the Laplace equation proportional to $\frac{{1}}{{{\xi ^{l + 1}}}}$ written as ${A_{lm}}\frac{{Y_l^m}}{{{\xi ^{l + 1}}}}$ to get $$\label{Eq08}
\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}}\left( {\xi ,\theta ,\phi ;t} \right) = - v\xi \left( {1 + \frac{1}{2}\frac{{r_s^3}}{{{\xi ^3}}}} \right)\cos \theta - \frac{{r_s^2{{\dot r}_s}}}{\xi } + {A_{lm}}\frac{{Y_l^m}}{{{\xi ^{l + 1}}}},$$ where differently from the previous case of Eq. we want here to exclude terms proportional to ${\xi ^l}$ by setting their corresponding coefficients ${B_{lm}} = 0$ in the Laplace equation because we do not want to consider divergences as long as we go far outside the dwarf galaxy away from $\Sigma $. Again as in Eq. we proceed by evaluating the kinematical boundary conditions of the fluid element at the surface $$\label{Eq09}
{\left. {{\partial _t}\Sigma + \left\langle {\nabla \varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}},\nabla \Sigma } \right\rangle } \right|_{{\xi} = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} = 0,$$ where the only difference from the previous Eq. is that the velocity potential gradients are now derived as $\left( {{\partial _\xi }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}},\frac{1}{\xi }{\partial _\theta }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}},\frac{{{\partial _\phi }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}}}}{{\xi \sin \theta }}} \right)$ $ = \left( {\frac{{3r_s^3}}{{2{\xi ^3}}}v\cos \theta - \left( {1 + \frac{{r_s^3}}{{2{\xi ^3}}}} \right)v\cos \theta - {A_{lm}}\left( {l + 1} \right){\xi ^{ - l - 2}}Y_l^m + \frac{{r_s^2{{\dot r}_s}}}{{{\xi ^2}}},} \right.$ $v\left( {\frac{{r_s^3}}{{2{\xi ^3}}} + 1} \right)\sin \theta + {A_{lm}}{\xi ^{ - l - 2}}{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m,$ $\left. {{A_{lm}}{\xi ^{ - l - 2}}\csc \theta {\partial _\phi }Y_l^m} \right)$. Considering this difference, we proceed exactly as done above for the $\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}$, to obtain an equation that is linear in ${A_{lm}}$ and that can be solved as: $$\label{Eq10}
{A_{lm}} = - \frac{{{{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)}^{l + 3}}\left( {\frac{{\eta v{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m\left( {2{{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)}^3} + r_s^3} \right)\sin \theta }}{{2{{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)}^4}}} + v\left( {1 - \frac{{r_s^3}}{{{{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)}^3}}}} \right)\cos \theta + {{\dot r}_s}\left( {1 - \frac{{r_s^2}}{{{{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)}^2}}}} \right) + \dot \eta Y_l^m} \right)}}{{\eta \left( {{{\left( {{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m} \right)}^2} + {{\csc }^2}\theta {{\left( {{\partial _\phi }Y_l^m} \right)}^2} + (l + 1){{\left( {Y_l^m} \right)}^2}} \right) + (l + 1){r_s}Y_l^m}}.$$ We now linearize the previous result to the first order in $\eta $. After some algebra we get: $$\label{Eq11}
{A_{lm}} \simeq - 3\eta v\frac{{r_s^{l + 1}{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m}}{{2(l + 1)Y_l^m}}\sin \theta - 2\eta {\dot r_s}\frac{{r_s^{l + 1}}}{{l + 1}} - \dot \eta \frac{{r_s^{l + 2}}}{{l + 1}} - 3\eta v\frac{{r_s^{l + 1}}}{{l + 1}}\cos \theta .$$ Finally, we obtain the potential velocity in the following simplified form: $$\label{Eq12}
\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}}\left( {\xi ,\theta ,\phi ;t} \right) \simeq - v\cos \theta \xi \left( {1 + \frac{1}{2}\frac{{r_s^3}}{{{\xi ^3}}}} \right) - \frac{{r_s^2{{\dot r}_s}}}{\xi } - \frac{{3{r_s}^{l + 1}}}{{\left( {l + 1} \right){\xi ^{l + 1}}}}\eta \left( {\frac{{v{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m}}{2}\sin \theta } \right.\left. { + Y_l^m\left( {\frac{1}{3}\frac{{\dot \eta }}{\eta }{r_s} + \frac{2}{3}{{\dot r}_s} + v\cos \theta } \right)} \right),$$ where we have inserted Eq. in Eq. and accepted minor simplifications.
A sanity check shows that this can be reduced in the unperturbed case, $\eta \to 0$, to the result ${\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}} + {\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{III}}$ This was already suggested in Paper I and extensively considered in a different context in @2014arXiv1403.6122P. For $v = 0 \wedge \eta \ne 0$ this reduces to the Eq. (5) of @1954JAP....25...96P.
Dynamical boundary condition {#Dynamicalboundarycondition}
----------------------------
At the surface radius $\left\| {\bm{\xi }} \right\| = {r_s} + \eta Y_l^m$ that we have chosen to represent the galaxy size, apart from the kinematic boundary condition we want to express the condition of continuity of the stress vector (i.e. the dynamic boundary condition). The stress vector ${{\bm{s}}_{{\text{out}}}}$ and ${{\bm{s}}_{{\text{in}}}}$ inside and outside the surface $\Sigma$ must satisfy the condition ${\left\langle {{\bm{n}},{{\bm{s}}_{{\text{out}}}}} \right\rangle _{\Sigma = 0}} = {\left\langle {{\bm{n}},{{\bm{s}}_{{\text{in}}}}} \right\rangle _{\Sigma = 0}}$ so that for inviscid fluids (${\bm{s}} = - p{\bm{I}}$ with ${\bm{I}}$ identity matrix) we obtain the standard literature dynamical boundary condition ${p_{{\text{out}}}} = {p_{{\text{in}}}}$ to be treated now thus accounting for the ram pressure that the galaxy is experiencing in its motion.
### Internal gas pressure equation {#Internalgaspressureequation}
Now we need the task to impose the dynamical boundary condition of the external gas medium on the internal stellar system gas at each position of its perturbed scale-radius surface ${r_s} + \delta {r_s}$. Given the framework developed in Section \[GeometricalSoR\] we can make use of Eq.(7) of Paper I where the non-inertial character of the system ${S_1}$ is taken into account. In this notation, we can compute the velocity for the molecular clouds of the dwarf galaxy $\left\| {{{\bm{v}}_1}} \right\|$ as ${\left\| {{{\bm{v}}_1}} \right\|^2} = \left\langle {{\nabla _{\bm{\xi }}}\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}},{\nabla _{\bm{\xi }}}\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}} \right\rangle $ is the internal fluid of the galaxy which is inert with respect to the reference frame ${S_1}$ comoving with the stellar system. Eq.(7) of Paper I in this case reads: $$\label{Eq13}
{\partial _t}\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}} + \frac{1}{2}\left\langle {\nabla \varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}},\nabla \varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}} \right\rangle + \frac{p}{{{\rho _{{\text{in}}}}}} = {f^{{\text{in}}}}\left( t \right) - {\Phi _{\bm{g}}} - \left\langle {{{\bm{a}}_{O'}},{\bm{\xi }}} \right\rangle ,$$ where $\left\langle {{{\bm{a}}_{O'}},{\bm{\xi }}} \right\rangle$ is the projection of the acceleration along the position vector ${\bm{\xi }}$ and ${f^{{\text{in}}}}\left( t \right)$ is a constant of the space, not depending on ${B_{{\text{lm}}}}$, which we determine by imposing the boundary condition far away from the ideal radius ${r_s}$ (at infinity). This is because we assume hydrostatic equilibrium far away from the molecular cloud borders and the function ${f^{{\text{in}}}}$ is therefore determined by the limit of the previous equation for $\left\| {\bm{\xi }} \right\| \to \infty$ as shown in Paper I.
Because the lifetime of a molecular cloud (given the star formation efficiency expected to act in the systems under study, see Fig. 1 of Paper I) is much shorter ($<300$ Myr) than the timescale over which the orbital parameters change significantly, we assume the velocity of the fluid impacting the dwarf galaxy molecular clouds to be uniform and constant (in ${S_1}$). We also neglect non-orthogonal components of the acceleration that remain constant in time along the lifetime of the molecular clouds. In this case we write simply $\left\langle {{{\bm{a}}_{O'}},{\bm{\xi }}} \right\rangle = {a_{O'}}\xi \cos \vartheta $ with $\vartheta $ being the angle between ${{\bm{a}}_{O'}}$ and ${\bm{\xi }}$. In general $\vartheta \ne \theta $ apart from particular orbits (or part of them).
To make progress with Eq. we need to evaluate ${\left. {{\partial _t}\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}} \right|_{\left\| {\bm{\xi }} \right\| = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}}$ and ${\left. {\left\langle {\nabla \varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}},\nabla \varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}} \right\rangle } \right|_{\left\| {\bm{\xi }} \right\| = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}}$ to first order in the small parameter $\eta $. Differentiating Eq. \[Eq07\] gives $$\label{Eq14}
{\partial _t}\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}} = \frac{{{\xi ^l}Y_l^mr_s^{ - l}}}{l}\left( {\ddot \eta {r_s} + 2\eta {{\ddot r}_s} + 3\dot \eta {{\dot r}_s}} \right) - {\xi ^l}{\dot r_s}Y_l^mr_s^{ - l - 1}\left( {\dot \eta {r_s} + 2\eta {{\dot r}_s}} \right) - \frac{{r_s^2{{\ddot r}_s}}}{\xi } - \frac{{2\dot r_s^2{r_s}}}{\xi },$$ to be evaluated at the perturbed location $\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}$. We expand this to the first order to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq15}
{\left. {{\partial _t}\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} &\simeq \ddot \eta {r_s}\frac{{Y_l^m}}{l} + 3\dot \eta {{\dot r}_s}\frac{{Y_l^m}}{l} - \dot \eta {{\dot r}_s}Y_l^m - {r_s}{{\ddot r}_s} - 2\dot r_s^2 \hfill \nonumber\\
&+ \eta \left( {\frac{{3\dot \eta {{\dot r}_s}}}{{{r_s}}}{{\left( {Y_l^m} \right)}^2} - \frac{{\dot \eta {{\dot r}_s}}}{{{r_s}}}l{{\left( {Y_l^m} \right)}^2} + \frac{{2Y_l^m}}{l}\ddot r_s }+ \right. \left. { Y_l^m{{\ddot r}_s} + \ddot \eta {{\left( {Y_l^m} \right)}^2}} \right). \end{aligned}$$ The procedure advances exactly in the same way for the gradient components, giving $$\begin{aligned}
{\left. {{\partial _\xi }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} &= {\left. {{\xi ^{l - 1}}Y_l^mr_s^{ - l}\left( {\dot \eta {r_s} + 2\eta {{\dot r}_s}} \right) + \frac{{r_s^2{{\dot r}_s}}}{{{\xi ^2}}}} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} \nonumber\\ \label{Eq16}
&= Y_l^mr_s^{ - l}\left( {\dot \eta {r_s} + 2\eta {{\dot r}_s}} \right){\left( {{r_s} + \eta Y_l^m} \right)^{l - 1}} + \frac{{r_s^2{{\dot r}_s}}}{{{{\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)}^2}}} \nonumber\\
&\simeq \dot \eta Y_l^m + {{\dot r}_s}, \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
{\left. {\frac{{{\partial _\theta }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}}}{\xi }} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} &= {\left. {\frac{{{\xi ^{l - 1}}}}{l}r_s^{ - l}\left( {\dot \eta {r_s} + 2\eta {{\dot r}_s}} \right){\partial _\theta }Y_l^m} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} \nonumber\\ \label{Eq17}
&= \frac{{r_s^{ - l}}}{l}\left( {\dot \eta {r_s} + 2\eta {{\dot r}_s}} \right){\left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s}} \right)^{l - 1}}{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m \nonumber\\
&\simeq \frac{{2\eta {{\dot r}_s}}}{{l{r_s}}}{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m + \frac{{\dot \eta }}{l}{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m, \end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
{\left. {\frac{{{\partial _\phi }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{in}}}}}{{\xi \sin \theta }}} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} &= {\left. {\frac{{{\xi ^{l - 1}}r_s^{ - l}}}{l}\left( {\dot \eta {r_s} + 2\eta {{\dot r}_s}} \right)\csc \theta {\partial _\phi }Y_l^m} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} \nonumber\\ \label{Eq18}
&= \frac{{r_s^{ - l}}}{l}\left( {\dot \eta {r_s} + 2\eta {{\dot r}_s}} \right){\left( {{r_s} + \eta Y_l^m} \right)^{l - 1}}\csc \theta {\partial _\phi }Y_l^m \nonumber\\
&\simeq \frac{{2\eta {{\dot r}_s}}}{{l{r_s}}}\csc \theta {\partial _\phi }Y_l^m + \frac{{\dot \eta }}{l}\csc \theta {\partial _\phi }Y_l^m. \end{aligned}$$ We preferred a slightly longer formalism in the first lines of these equations to show the terms proportional to $ \xi $ so that in the second lines we simplify their substitution at the perturbed location, and in the third lines (Eqs., , ) the remaining terms emerge more clearly. Other more compact formulas can be worked out if necessary but reduce the readability. Eq. to the first order on the perturbation is then: $$\label{Eq19}
\frac{p}{{{\rho _{{\text{in}}}}}} + {a_{O'}}\cos \vartheta \left( {\eta Y_l^m + {r_s} - 1} \right) + \ddot \eta {r_s}\frac{{Y_l^m}}{l} + 2\eta {\ddot r_s}\frac{{Y_l^m}}{l} + \eta Y_l^m{\ddot r_s} + 3\dot \eta {\dot r_s}\frac{{Y_l^m}}{l} - {r_s}{\ddot r_s} - \frac{{3\dot r_s^2}}{2} + {\Phi _{\bm{g}}} = 0.$$ From this equation we can calculate the pressure. As a “sanity check”, if we require the reference system to be inertial, then the apparent forces disappear ${a_{O'}} = 0$ and for a zero flow velocity as well as for the case of no perturbation $\eta = 0$ we get $\frac{p}{{{\rho _{{\text{in}}}}}} + {\Phi _{\bm{g}}} = {r_s}{\ddot r_s} + \frac{3}{2}\dot r_s^2$ which is the standard literature equation of the expanding/contracting bubble for zero surface tension [e.g., @2000ifd..book.....B]. Finally, it is evident that when the perturbation is not null but no velocity fluid is included $v = 0$ we obtain the results in @1954JAP....25...96P. Hence in these cases our results reduce to to well-known results in the literature.
### External gas pressure equation {#Externalgaspressureequation}
In the external gas case, the pressure equation is again obtained from the Bernoulli equation by adding the inertial term as in the previous section. Here we pay for writing our equations in ${S_1}$ instead of ${S_0}$ with a slightly more complex formalism; nevertheless, the procedure is the same as the one outlined above and the approach will result in an easier physical interpretation of our final results. We consider the terms in the following equation $$\label{Eq20}
{\partial _t}\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}} + \frac{1}{2}\left\langle {{\nabla _{\bm{\xi }}}\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}},{\nabla _{\bm{\xi }}}\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}}} \right\rangle + \frac{p}{{{\rho _{{\text{out}}}}}} = \frac{{v_{{\text{rel}}}^2}}{2} - {\Phi _{\bm{g}}} - \left\langle {{{\bm{a}}_{O'}},{\bm{\xi }}} \right\rangle ,$$ which we evaluate at the perturbed location $\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}$. Here the free function ${f^{{\text{out}}}} = \frac{{v_{{\text{rel}}}^2}}{2}$ has been previously derived in Paper I (their eq.8) and ${v_{{\text{rel}}}}$ is the velocity of the fluid impacting the stellar system in ${S_1}$, i.e. the velocity of the stellar system itself (apart from the sign). The reason for calling it now ${v_{{\text{rel}}}}$, instead of simply $\left\| {{{\bm{v}}_{O'}}} \right\| = v$, will be clearer later on.
For each term in Eq. to the first order we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
{\left. {{\partial _t}\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}}} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} &\simeq - \frac{{3\eta {a_{O'}}\sin \vartheta {\partial _\theta }Y_l^m}}{{2(l + 1)}} - \frac{{3{v_{{\text{rel}}}}\sin \theta \left( {\eta (l + 1){{\dot r}_s} + \dot \eta {r_s}} \right){\partial _\theta }Y_l^m}}{{2(l + 1){r_s}}} - {a_{O'}}\cos \vartheta \left( {\frac{{3\eta Y_l^m}}{{l + 1}} + \frac{{3{r_s}}}{2}} \right) \nonumber\\ \label{Eq21}
&- {v_{{\text{rel}}}}\cos \theta \left( {\frac{{3\dot \eta Y_l^m}}{{l + 1}} + \frac{{3{{\dot r}_s}}}{2}} \right) - \frac{{\ddot \eta {r_s}Y_l^m}}{{l + 1}} - {{\ddot r}_s}{r_s} + \eta {{\ddot r}_s}\frac{{l - 1}}{{l + 1}}Y_l^m - \dot \eta \frac{{l + 4}}{{l + 1}}{{\dot r}_s}Y_l^m - 2\frac{{l - 1}}{{l + 1}}\dot r_s^2, \\ \label{Eq22}
{\left. {{\partial _\xi }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}}} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} &\simeq \frac{{3\eta }}{{2{r_s}}}{v_{{\text{rel}}}}\sin \theta {\partial _\theta }Y_l^m + \dot \eta Y_l^m + {{\dot r}_s}, \\ \label{Eq23}
{\left. {\frac{{{\partial _\theta }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}}}}{\xi }} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} &\simeq \frac{{3{v_{{\text{rel}}}}\sin \theta }}{{2(l + 1){r_s}}}\left( {(l + 1){r_s} - \eta \left( {{\partial _{\theta ,\theta }}Y_l^m + (l - 1)Y_l^m} \right)} \right) - \frac{{9\eta {\partial _\theta }Y_l^m}}{{2(l + 1){r_s}}}{v_{{\text{rel}}}}\cos \theta - \frac{{\dot \eta {r_s} + 2\eta {{\dot r}_s}}}{{(l + 1){r_s}}}{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m, \\ \label{Eq24}
{\left. {\frac{{{\partial _\phi }\varphi _{{{\bm{v}}_1}}^{{\text{out}}}}}{{\xi \sin \theta }}} \right|_{\xi = \eta Y_l^m + {r_s}}} &\simeq - \frac{{3\eta v_{\text{rel}}{\partial _\phi }Y_l^m}}{{(l + 1){r_s}}}\cot \theta - \frac{{3\eta {v_{{\text{rel}}}}{\partial _{\theta ,\phi }}Y_l^m}}{{2(l + 1){r_s}}} - \frac{{\csc \theta \left( {\dot \eta {r_s} + 2\eta {{\dot r}_s}} \right)}}{{(l + 1){r_s}}}{\partial _\phi }Y_l^m. \end{aligned}$$ Eq. is simplified by collecting Eqs., , and once the scalar product is taken into account. As before, the solution of Eq. can be obtained in terms of the pressure $p$ and it can be simplified by retaining only the first order terms. We have (hereafter we define ${l_ + } \equiv l + 1$, ${l_{ + + }} \equiv l + 2$ and ${l_ - } \equiv l - 1$ etc. to minimize the notation) $$\label{Eq25}
\begin{gathered}
\frac{p}{{{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}} - \frac{3}{4}\frac{{{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m\sin \vartheta }}{{{l_ + }}}\eta {a_{O'}} + v_{{\rm{rel}}}^2\left( {\frac{5}{8} - \frac{9}{4}\frac{\eta }{{{r_s}}}\frac{{{\partial _{\theta ,\theta }}Y_l^m + {l_ - }Y_l^m}}{{{l_ + }}}} \right){\sin ^2}\theta - 3{v_{{\rm{rel}}}}\left( {\dot \eta {r_s} + \eta {{\dot r}_s}} \right)\frac{{{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m}}{{{l_ + }{r_s}}}\sin \theta \\
- \frac{9}{4}\frac{{3\eta v_{{\rm{rel}}}^2}}{{{r_s}}}\frac{{{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m}}{{{l_ + }}}\sin \theta \cos \theta + {a_{O'}}\left( {\eta \frac{{{l_{ - - }}Y_l^m}}{{{l_ + }}} - \frac{{{r_s}}}{2}} \right)\cos \vartheta + {v_{{\rm{rel}}}}\left( { - \frac{{3\dot \eta Y_l^m}}{{{l_ + }}} - \frac{{3{{\dot r}_s}}}{2}} \right)\cos \theta \\
- \ddot \eta {r_s}{l_ + } - {{\ddot r}_s}\left( {{r_s} - \eta \frac{{{l_ - }Y_l^m}}{{{l_ + }}}} \right) - 3\dot \eta {{\dot r}_s}\frac{{Y_l^m}}{{{l_ + }}} - 3\dot r_s^2 - \frac{1}{2}{\cos ^2}\theta v_{{\rm{rel}}}^2 + {\Phi _{\bm{g}}} = 0. \hfill \\
\end{gathered}$$ Again we can check the validity of this equation by assuming no perturbation $\eta \to 0$ and $l = 0$ to prove that it effectively reduces to the Theorem of Section 3 in @2014arXiv1403.6122P as a particular case.
### Surface of equilibrium {#Surfaceofequilibrium}
Taking the difference between Eq. and , we express the continuity condition of the pressure impacting on the stellar system from the external gas (the ram pressure condition). The equation of motion for the unperturbed equation is: $$\label{Eq26}
{v_\text{rel}^2}{\cos ^2}\theta - \frac{{{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} - \frac{5}{4}{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} - {\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}}}{v_\text{rel}^2}{\sin ^2}\theta + 3\frac{{{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} - {\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}}}{\dot r_s}v_\text{rel}\cos \theta + {a_{O'}}\cos \vartheta {r_s}\frac{{2{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} - {\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}}} + \left( {2{\Phi _{\bm{g}}} - 2{r_s}{{\ddot r}_s} - 3\dot r_s^2} \right) = 0.$$ Our disposition of the terms indicates immediately that in ${S_0}$, without motion of the fluid or the sphere, we obtain $\left( {{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} - {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)\left( {2{\Phi _{\bm{g}}} - 2{r_s}{{\ddot r}_s} - 3\dot r_s^2} \right) = 0$, which indicates the condition of equilibrium where always ${\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} \ne {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}$ as ${\Phi _{\bm{g}}} = {r_s}{\ddot r_s} + \frac{3}{2}\dot r_s^2$. This, for example, may describe a case of a galaxy lying at the centre of a galaxy cluster. Therefore, because we are interested in the growth of the perturbation over an equilibrium state (for at least one instability mode), in the resulting equation we need to study only the terms proportional to the perturbation terms (i.e., the terms containing the spherical harmonics) that we analyse in the next section. We move from this equation in order to investigate the more interesting case of the differential equation for $\eta = \eta \left( t \right)$ from which, stability condition for the growth of a perturbation can be derived.
Condition for the instability {#Conditionfortheinstability}
-----------------------------
The condition for the instability is derived by considering only the perturbed terms in difference between Eq. and . Collecting terms in $Y_l^m$ and its derivatives we obtain an equation of the form ${a_1}Y_l^m + {a_2}{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m + {a_3}{\partial _{\theta ,\theta }}Y_l^m = 0$ for some form of the functions ${a_i} = {a_i}\left( {\eta ,\dot \eta ,\ddot \eta } \right)$ and $i=1, 2, 3$, which suggests that we define two special functions as follows: $$\label{Eq27}
{F_1} = {F_1}\left( {\theta ,l,m} \right) \equiv \frac{{{\partial _\theta }Y_l^m}}{{Y_l^m}}$$ $$\label{Eq28}
{F_2} = {F_2}\left( {\theta ,l,m} \right) \equiv \frac{{{\partial _{\theta ,\theta }}Y_l^m}}{{Y_l^m}},$$ independent from $\eta $ or its derivatives. In this way we obtain an equation for the perturbation $\eta $ of the form ${a_1}\left( {\eta ,\dot \eta ,\ddot \eta } \right) + {a_2}\left( {\eta ,\dot \eta ,\ddot \eta } \right){F_1} + {a_3}\left( {\eta ,\dot \eta ,\ddot \eta } \right){F_2} = 0$ which immediately produces an interesting result as follow: *the presence of a preferential direction for the motion of the galaxy along its orbit induces a symmetry on the perturbations*. The dependence on the considered azimuthal mode remains, i.e. the dependence on $m$, nevertheless it becomes independent from the azimuthal direction $\phi $. This is an interesting simplification that is a consequence of the geometry assumed.
The study of the stability of the solution of an equation of the form ${a_1}\left( {\eta ,\dot \eta ,\ddot \eta } \right) + {a_2}\left( {\eta ,\dot \eta ,\ddot \eta } \right){F_1} + {a_3}\left( {\eta ,\dot \eta ,\ddot \eta } \right){F_2} = 0$ is better performed if we convert it to an eigen-value problem. To proceed in this way we collect the terms depending on the perturbation factor $\eta$ and its derivatives. With the aid of Eq. and we put the differential equation ${a_1}\left( {\eta ,\dot \eta ,\ddot \eta } \right) + {a_2}\left( {\eta ,\dot \eta ,\ddot \eta } \right){F_1} + {a_3}\left( {\eta ,\dot \eta ,\ddot \eta } \right){F_2} = 0$ in standard form. Hence, the more suitable form for starting our stability analysis obtained by taking only the perturbed terms that differ between Eq. and and accounting for Eqs. and is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq30}
&\ddot \eta + \frac{{3{v_{{\rm{rel}}}}}}{{{r_s}}}\left( {\frac{{l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}\left( {{S_1}\sin \theta + \cos \theta } \right)}}{{{l_ + }{\rho ^{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho ^{{\rm{out}}}}}} + {{\dot r}_s}} \right)\dot \eta + \left( {\frac{{l{A_{O'}}\cos \vartheta }}{{{r_s}}}\frac{{{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} - {l_{ - - }}{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}} \right.\nonumber\\
&\left. { + \frac{3}{2}\frac{{l{S_1}{A_{O'}}\sin \vartheta }}{{{r_s}}}\frac{{{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}} + \frac{{v\sin \theta }}{{r_s^2}}\frac{{l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}\left( {\frac{9}{4}v\sin \theta ({l_ - } + {S_2}) + 3{S_1}\left( {{{\dot r}_s} + \frac{9}{4}v\cos \theta } \right)} \right) + {\rm A}} \right)\eta = 0.\end{aligned}$$ Despite its complicated form, this equation is formulated in a suitable way to show that it can reduce to Eq.(13) in @1954JAP....25...96P.
Considering we have no known terms in the left hand side (LHS) of Eq., i.e. it is a second order ODE of the type $\ddot \eta + a\left( t \right)\dot \eta + b\left( t \right)\eta = 0$ for $\eta = \eta \left( t \right)$, we can attempt a classical quantum mechanics Wentzel$-$Kramers$-$Brillouin (WKB) approach to the solution by making use of the transformation $$\label{Eq31}
\eta \left( t \right) = \alpha \left( t \right){e^{ - \frac{1}{2}\int_{{t_0}}^t {\Theta\left( \tau \right)d\tau } }},$$ where on purpose we choose, $$\Theta \left( \tau \right) \equiv \frac{{3{v_{{\rm{rel}}}}}}{{{r_s}}}\left( {{{\dot r}_s} + \frac{{l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{l_ + }{\rho ^{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho ^{{\rm{out}}}}}}\left( {{F_1}\sin \theta + \cos \theta } \right)} \right),$$ to simplify Eq. to a standard eigenvalues problem with slowly varying coefficient: $$\label{Eq32}
\ddot \alpha = {\gamma ^2}\left( {\theta ;t} \right)\alpha,$$ whose solution in conveniently carried out in WKB approximation. However, we will accomplish a much simpler task here. We are interested in the condition for which at least one mode is unstable, and the instability of the harmonic oscillator equation Eq. is well known to depend on the positivity of the growth factor ${\gamma ^2}\left( {\theta ;t} \right) > 0$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ApEq33}
{\gamma ^2}\left( {\theta ;t} \right) &\equiv - \frac{{{a_{O'}}\cos \vartheta }}{{2{r_s}}}\frac{{l\left( {2{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} - \left( {l + {l_ - }} \right){\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}}{{{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}} + \frac{9}{4}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^2{{\cos }^2}\theta }}{{r_s^2}}{\left( {\frac{{l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}} \right)^2} - \frac{9}{4}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^2\sin \theta \cos \theta }}{{r_s^2}}\frac{{{F_1}l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}\left( {3{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}}{{{{\left( {{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}^2}}}\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{{{{\dot r}_s}{v_{{\rm{rel}}}}\cos \theta }}{{r_s^2}}\frac{{3l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}{{{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}} + \frac{9}{4}\frac{{v_{{\rm{rel}}}^2{{\sin }^2}\theta }}{{r_s^2}}\frac{{{{\left( {{F_1}l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}^2} - \left( {{l_ - } + {F_2}} \right)l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}\left( {{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}}{{{{\left( {{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}^2}}}\nonumber\\
&+ \frac{3}{4}\frac{{\dot r_s^2}}{{r_s^2}} - \frac{{(l + {l_ + })\left( {{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} - l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}}{{2\left( {{l_ + }{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + l{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}}\frac{{{{\ddot r}_s}}}{{{r_s}}}.\end{aligned}$$ This represents the desired equation already presented in a more compact fashion in Eq.. For the purpose of this Appendix of recovering some limit-cases we will explicitly keep the terms in Eq. written in their full extension. ${\gamma ^2}$ relates to the growth of the perturbation for which we were searching (it is indeed called the growth factor). This completes our theoretical framework and equips us with the tools to investigate the growth of the instabilities by compression or instabilities that lead to star formation.
Before embarking onto the analysis of the growth factor, we recover some classical literature limits to validate the physics we will encounter.
### Special limits {#SpLims}
We start by remarking how in the case of a non-inertial reference frame ${S_1}$, the instability condition reduces to the study of the positivity of the last row (i.e. the third) of Eq. (that we rewrite in a compact way as (with Eq. of Section \[GeometricalSoR\]): $$\label{Eq34}
\left( {l + \frac{1}{2}} \right){\rm A} + \frac{{3\dot r_s^2}}{{4r_s^2}} > 0.$$ This equation was already presented by @1954JAP....25...96P (his Eq.(17) with zero surface tension).
Another important limit to recover is the plane case. In the spherical geometry that we have assumed, the plane case can be achieved by taking $l \to \infty$ and $R \to \infty $ and keeping the wave number of the perturbation, $k$, constant. This is not a trivial task for the presence of the special functions ${F_1}$ and ${F_2}$ defined in Eq. and whose dependence on $l$ involves the determination of the Euler Gamma function for large values of the index $l$. We refer the interested reader to Appendix B for the computation of their asymptotic behaviour for large $l$ because of its exclusively mathematical nature. Using the results of Appendix B we can show that Eq. behaves in the plane case as $$\label{Eq35}
\gamma _{{\rm{plane}}}^2 \simeq \frac{{k{a_{O'}}\cos \vartheta \left( {{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} - {\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}} \right)}}{{{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}} - \frac{9}{4}\frac{{{k^2}{{\sin }^2}\theta {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}v_{{\rm{rel}}}^2}}{{{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}} - \frac{{k\left( {{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} - {\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}} \right){{\ddot r}_s}}}{{{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}}.$$ Then, if we define, as usual, the acceleration to be ${\ddot r_s} = g$ the previous equation reduces to $$\label{Eq36}
\gamma _{{\rm{plane}}}^2 \simeq \frac{{k\left( {{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}} - {\rho _{{\rm{in}}}}} \right)\left( {{a_ \bot } - g} \right)}}{{{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}} - \frac{9}{4}\frac{{{k^2}{{\sin }^2}\theta {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}\left( {{v_{{\rm{in}}}} - {v_{{\rm{out}}}}} \right)}}{{{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}} + {\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}}},$$ which can be easily interpreted remembering the plane case in the literature as discussed for Eq.. We indicated with ${a_ \bot }$ the acceleration orthogonal to the surface that in the plane case represents the vertical direction. Hence, the first term is exactly the instability criterion for the RT effect where the effective acceleration ${g_{{\rm{eff}}}} = {a_ \bot } - g$ has been corrected for the presence of the corrective-term ${a_ \bot }$. In the same way, the second term retains the key dependencies from the relative velocity ${v_{{\rm{rel}}}} = {v_{{\rm{in}}}} - {v_{{\rm{out}}}}$ between the fluid above and below the surface dividing the two sliding fluids that are the basis of the KH instability. These criteria become equivalent to the RT and KH criteria (apart from the numerical factors $9/4{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}}$) at the stagnation point, where $\cos \vartheta = 1$ and ${\sin ^2}\theta = 0$ and at the tangent to the sphere $\cos \vartheta = 0$ and ${\sin ^2}\theta = 1$ respectively.
Asymptoctic expansion of the functions ${F_1}$ and ${F_2}$ {#SpecialFunc}
==========================================================
We elaborate in this appendix on more mathematical theorems that can be skipped in a first reading.
We are interested in the limits of the special functions ${F_1}$ and ${F_2}$ defined and in their asymptotic expansion. A plot of the two functions for the instability mode of interest ($l=2$) and the angular dependence of interest $\theta \in \left[ {0,\frac{\pi }{2}} \right]$, is presented in Fig.\[FigS1l2\], where ${\hat F_1} = {F_1}\left( {\theta ,2,0} \right) = - \frac{{6\sin (2\theta )}}{{3\cos (2\theta ) + 1}} \simeq - 3\theta + O{\left( \theta \right)^2}$ and ${\hat F_2} = {F_2}\left( {\theta ,2,0} \right) = \frac{4}{{3\cos (2\theta ) + 1}} - 4 \simeq - 3 + O{\left( \theta \right)^2}$ respectively.
{width="\columnwidth"}
As the index $l$ tends to approach $\infty $ we can write for $\theta \in \left[ { - \frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2}} \right]$ $$\begin{aligned}
{F_1} &\equiv \frac{1}{{Y_l^m}}\frac{{\partial Y_l^m}}{{\partial \theta }}\\
&= \frac{{P_l^{m + 1}(\cos (\theta ))}}{{P_l^m(\cos (\theta ))}} + m\cot (\theta ),\end{aligned}$$ while $$\begin{aligned}
{F_2} &\equiv \frac{1}{{Y_l^m}}\frac{{{\partial ^2}Y_l^m}}{{\partial {\theta ^2}}}\\
&= \frac{{P_l^{m + 2}\left( {\cos \theta } \right) + (2m + 1)\cot \theta P_l^{m + 1}\left( {\cos \theta } \right)}}{{P_l^m\left( {\cos \theta } \right)}} + m\left( {m{{\cot }^2}\theta - {{\csc }^2}\theta } \right).\end{aligned}$$ As already discussed in association with Fig.\[TTEvol\] there is no observational evidence of strong azimuthal asymmetries in dwarf galaxies of the Local Group, thus it is safe to assume the perturbation to be well represented by modes with $m = 0$. With this assumption, in the stagnation point direction $\theta = 0$ is $$\begin{aligned}
{F_1}\left( {0,\infty ,0} \right) &= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{l \to \infty } \left( {\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\theta \to 0} {{\left. {\frac{1}{{Y_l^m}}\frac{{\partial Y_l^m}}{{\partial \theta }}} \right|}_{m = 0}}} \right)\\
&= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{l \to \infty } \frac{{P_l^1\left( 1 \right)}}{{P_l^0\left( 1 \right)}}\\
&= 0.\end{aligned}$$ More cumbersome is the same limit for the case $\theta = \frac{\pi }{2}$. We get $$\begin{aligned}
{F_1}\left( {\frac{\pi }{2},\infty ,0} \right) &= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{l \to \infty } \left( {\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\theta \to \frac{\pi }{2}} {{\left. {\frac{1}{{Y_l^m}}\frac{{\partial Y_l^m}}{{\partial \theta }}} \right|}_{m = 0}}} \right)\\
&= 2\mathop {\lim }\limits_{l \to \infty } \frac{{\Gamma \left( {\frac{1}{2} - \frac{l}{2}} \right)\Gamma \left( {1 + \frac{l}{2}} \right)}}{{\Gamma \left( {\frac{1}{2} + \frac{l}{2}} \right)\Gamma \left( {0 - \frac{l}{2}} \right)}}\\
&= 2\mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } \frac{{\Gamma \left( {\frac{1}{2} - n} \right)\Gamma (n + 1)}}{{\Gamma (n)\Gamma \left( {n + \frac{1}{2}} \right)}}\\
&\simeq \mathop {\lim }\limits_{n \to \infty } 2{e^{n\left( {2 + \log \left( {\frac{1}{n}} \right)} \right) + O{{\left( {\frac{1}{n}} \right)}^2}}}\sec \left( {n\pi } \right)\left( {\frac{n}{2} + \frac{1}{{24}} + O{{\left( {\frac{1}{n}} \right)}^2}} \right)\\
&= 0,\end{aligned}$$ where in order to prove this theorem the Stirling expansion for the Gamma function has to be considered.
By analogy with the previous proofs we get $$\begin{aligned}
{F_2}\left( {0,\infty ,0} \right) &= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{l \to \infty } \left( {\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\theta \to 0} {{\left. {\frac{1}{{Y_l^m}}\frac{{{\partial ^2}Y_l^m}}{{\partial {\theta ^2}}}} \right|}_{m = 0}}} \right)\\
&= O\left( { - \frac{{l(l + 1)}}{2}} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where we used the “big-O” to express that the limit is increasing to infinity as the power written. Once introduced in Eq. this behaviour cancels out to the desired limit offering the finite limit we wrote in Eq. . With the same abuse of notation now clearly we can write $$\begin{aligned}
{F_2}\left( {\frac{\pi }{2},\infty ,0} \right) &= \mathop {\lim }\limits_{l \to \infty } \left( {\mathop {\lim }\limits_{\theta \to \frac{\pi }{2}} {{\left. {\frac{1}{{Y_l^m}}\frac{{{\partial ^2}Y_l^m}}{{\partial {\theta ^2}}}} \right|}_{m = 0}}} \right)\\
&= O\left( {\frac{{(l - 1)l(l + 1)(l + 2)\Gamma \left( {\frac{1}{2} - \frac{l}{2}} \right)\Gamma \left( {\frac{l}{2} + 1} \right)}}{{4\Gamma \left( {\frac{3}{2} - \frac{l}{2}} \right)\Gamma \left( {\frac{l}{2} + 2} \right)}}} \right)\\
&= O\left( { - l\left( {l + 1} \right)} \right).\end{aligned}$$ This proves the asymptotic behaviour at the leading order of the special functions ${F_1}$ and ${F_2}$.
[^1]: Note how our definition differs from Eq. (14) in @1954JAP....25...96P (and the form widely used in literature) because in the original definition the dependence of ${\rm A} = {\rm A}\left( {l,{\rho _{{\rm{in}}}},{\rho _{{\rm{out}}}},{r_s},{{\ddot r}_s}} \right)$) while we prefer to keep the original dimensionless nature of the Atwood number.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Delivering sub-micrometer particles to an intense x-ray focus is a crucial aspect of single-particle diffractive-imaging experiments at x-ray free-electron lasers. Enabling direct visualization of sub-micrometer aerosol particle streams without interfering with the operation of the particle injector can greatly improve the overall efficiency of single-particle imaging experiments by reducing the amount of time and sample consumed during measurements. We have developed in-situ non-destructive imaging diagnostics to aid real-time particle injector optimization and x-ray/particle-beam alignment, based on laser illumination schemes and fast imaging detectors. Our diagnostics are constructed to provide a non-invasive rapid feedback on injector performance during measurements, and have been demonstrated during diffraction measurements at the FLASH free-electron laser.'
address: |
$^1$Center for Free-Electron Laser Science, DESY, Notkestrasse 85,22607 Hamburg, Germany\
$^2$The Hamburg Center for Ultrafast Imaging, University of Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany\
$^3$Department of Physics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA\
$^4$Laser Physics Centre, Research School of Physics and Engineering, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia\
$^5$Department of Physics, University of Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761 Hamburg, Germany
author:
- 'Salah Awel,$\!^{1,2}$ Richard A. Kirian,$\!^{1,3}$ Niko Eckerskorn,$\!^{4}$ Max Wiedorn,$\!^{1,5}$ Daniel A. Horke,$\!^{1,2}$ Andrei V. Rode,$\!^{4}$ Jochen Küpper,$\!^{1,2,5*}$ and Henry N. Chapman$^{1,2,5*}$'
bibliography:
- 'string.bib'
- 'cmi.bib'
title: 'Visualizing aerosol-particle injection for diffractive-imaging experiments'
---
=1
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
The emergence of x-ray free-electron lasers (XFELs) has inspired the development of new particle-injection instruments capable of delivering nano- and micro-particles to the intense $0.1$–$5$ focus of a few-femtosecond duration x-ray beam. Single-particle diffractive imaging (SPI) is among the methods that rely on the development of such particle-beam injectors, as it requires a series of isolated molecules, viruses, cells or microcrystals to be directed across the x-ray beam. Three-dimensional diffraction intensity maps can be constructed by assembling numerous two-dimensional diffraction patterns from particles exposed in different orientations [@Bogan:AST44:i; @Seibert:Nature470:78]. In this way, three-dimensional images can be formed from reproducible targets. If successful, SPI will allow for the determination of high-resolution structures of radiation-sensitive targets [@Neutze:Nature406:752], without the need to grow large well-ordered crystals, which is often the principal bottleneck to macromolecular structure determination.
In SPI experiments, it is important to precisely deliver the target particles to the most intense region of the focused x-ray beam in rapid succession, since each particle is completely destroyed through photoionization-induced damage processes [@Chapman:NatMater8:299]. Liquid jets formed by gas-dynamic virtual nozzles (GDVN) [@DePonte:JPD41:195505], aerodynamic aerosol focusing [@Bogan:NanoLett8:310], or gas-phase supersonic jet/molecular beam injectors [@Kuepper:PRL112:083002] are among the most common techniques used to deliver particles. For SPI work, gas-phase injectors are preferred since a surrounding liquid reduces contrast and increases background scatter, which makes data analysis difficult, if not impossible. Aerodynamical-lens-stack aerosol particle injectors (ALS) [@Liu:AST22:293] are presently the most common injector used for SPI experiments, which can create a collimated aerosol beam when particles suspended in a carrier gas pass through a series of concentric apertures. Alternative injectors, , convergent-orifice nozzles, are also under development for SPI experiments [@Kirian:SD2:041717].
During SPI experiments, aerosol injectors must be monitored frequently in order to maintain optimal hit fraction and delivery efficiency, , the fraction of x-ray pulses that intercept a particle and the fraction of particles that are intercepted by an x-ray pulse, respectively. Particle-beam diagnostics are important because XFEL facilities are costly to operate, and many samples are also costly to obtain in significant quantities. X-ray diffraction patterns themselves are the ultimate diagnostic of injection efficiency, but this diagnosis is limited by the XFEL pulse repetition rate, detector readout rate, data processing rate, and availability of the x-ray source. It is desirable to have complimentary real-time diagnostics that assist the injection optimization process, both offline as well as online, during diffraction measurements. As we show below, direct visualization of particle beams through laser illumination is a simple yet powerful means to optimize injection efficiency. In addition to improving SPI experiment efficiency, imaging diagnostics can greatly accelerate the development of new aerosol injector schemes.
Aerosolized nanoparticles are not easily visible, and particle injection environments are not always easily accessible for probing due to ancillary measurement tools. Therefore, *in-situ* diagnostics can be challenging to implement within existing x-ray diffraction apparatuses. Early experimental work utilized greased plates onto which aerosol particles adhere [@Rao:JAerosolSci24:879; @Benner:JAerosolSci39:917], allowing the transverse particle beam profile to be estimated. This method is commonly employed in SPI experiments, however such particle depositions, examined under a microscope, are not easy to interpret quantitatively. In the context of SPI work, the first detailed experimental characterization of aerodynamically focused particles was carried out by Benner [@Benner:JAerosolSci39:917]. Here, particle velocities and positions were determined from the image charges of particles transmitted through a metal tube. Aerosol beams have also been directly imaged in the past [@Fuerstenau:JAerosolSci25:165; @Farquar:JAerosolSci39:10], but so far the great utility of this approach that we emphasize here has not been integrated into SPI experiments. More generally, the determination of particle-laden flow fields has been studied extensively within the field of particle image velocimetry (PIV) and its variants [@Adrian:PIV:2011; @Willert:ExpFluids10:181].
In this paper, we present simple direct optical imaging diagnostics for online monitoring of particle injection during XFEL experiments, as well as for general aerosol beam characterization and injector optimization. We have utilized both continuous-wave (CW) and pulsed nanosecond illumination along with high-speed cameras, and nearly real-time analysis software, that can measure particle speeds, injector transmission efficiency, and projected particle beam density profiles. We have also implemented an in-vacuum inverted microscope for imaging particles that adhere to a gel.
Theory and Background {#sec:TheoryBackground}
=====================
Efficiencies of single-particle imaging
---------------------------------------
Direct optical imaging can reveal most of the key parameters needed to optimize SPI sample injection, which we discuss here. The first key parameter is known as the “hit fraction” or “hit rate”, and is equal to the fraction of x-ray pulses that intercept a particle. For femtosecond XFEL illumination, this quantity depends on the instantaneous projection of the particle number density along the x-ray beam path, and can be approximated as $H\approx{}fT\sigma/(vd)$, where $f$ is the rate at which particles enter the injector, $T$ the injector transmission efficiency (ratio of the number of particles that enter and exit the injector), $\sigma$ the effective illumination area that produces useful diffraction, $v$ the velocity of the particles, and $d$ the particle beam diameter. In this formulation, we assume that the particle beam has a diameter smaller than the depth of focus of the x-ray beam, which is almost always satisfied in SPI experiments. We also assume that the x-ray beam diameter is significantly smaller than the particle beam diameter. We assume that $H < 1$, since x-ray diffraction patterns containing multiple particles illuminated simultaneously tend to complicate the diffraction analysis.
Another key parameter is known as the “delivery efficiency”, equal to the fraction of consumed particles that are intercepted by an x-ray pulse. Delivery efficiency for continuous flow of particles can be approximated as $\epsilon\approx{}HF/f$, where $F$ is the XFEL pulse repetition rate, and it is assumed that $F\ll{}f$. Notably, a hit fraction of $H\approx1$ can be achieved while having delivery efficiency $\epsilon \ll 1$.
In order to score a higher hit fraction and delivery efficiency, one typically needs to find an optimal compromise between the three parameters $v$, $d$, and $T$. Importantly, for a given injector geometry, it might not be possible to vary these parameters independently of each other [@Wang:AST40:320]. Different types of injectors can also introduce tradeoffs – for instance, a convergent-orifice injector can create a tightly focused particle beam that approaches the size of micro-focused x-ray beams, but apparently produces particles with greater speeds than typical ALS injectors [@Kirian:SD2:041717]. Tightly focused beams *necessitate* the use of an *in-situ* direct imaging system since one would otherwise need to perform a three-dimensional scan of the x-ray beam in order to properly position the interaction region, whereas a collimated particle beam requires only a two-dimensional scan.
In general, independent of the type of injector used, the aerosol beams we consider here are composed of fast, nearly-unidirectional, and sparsely placed small particles confined to a narrow beam in a low-pressure environment. Typically, on the order of $10^{7}$ particles enter the injector per second and expand into the vacuum with a speed that can reach several hundred m/s. This leads to hit fractions well below 0.1% for current injectors and nano-focused x-ray beams, thus rendering x-ray diffraction-based diagnostics inefficient, highlighting the need for complementary rapid-feedback diagnostics.
Direct side-view particle imaging schemes {#sec:imaging-schemes}
-----------------------------------------
We can classify the direct side-view imaging of particles presented here into three regimes, principally identified by three characteristic times: $\tau=d/v$ – the time it takes for a particle with velocity $v$ to move over its diameter $d$, exposure time $t_\text{exp}$ – the camera integration time or duration of the illumination pulse, and $t_\text{fov}$ – the time taken for a particle to move across the full field of view (FOV). $d$ is the diffraction-limited spot size of the particle if the particle is smaller than the resolution limit of the of the imaging system.
### “Long exposure” imaging {#sec:long-exposure-imaging}
In the “long exposure” mode, the particle beam is illuminated either with a continuous or pulsed light source with a very long exposure time ($t_\text{exp}\gg{}t_\text{fov}$) on the camera [@Fuerstenau:JAerosolSci25:165]. This mode does not allow for the determination of particle velocities, but is straightforward to implement with relatively inexpensive equipment. In many cases the resulting integrated image intensity is directly proportional to the projection of the particle density along the optical axis. However, since elastic scattering in both the Mie and Rayleigh regime scales exponentially with particle diameter (for Rayleigh scattering, the intensity scales with the sixth power of particle diameter), one must ensure that all particles are of the species of interest, and not aggregated clusters of particles (for example) that would tend to dominate the intensity profile of the image.
### “Streak” imaging {#sec:streak-imaging}
Visualizing *individual*, fast-moving, sub-micrometer particles requires $t_\text{exp}<t_\text{fov}$, such that the entire image is contained within the field of view. In the “streak” imaging mode, $t_\text{exp}$ is chosen such that particles appear as streaks across the imaging plane $(\tau<t_\text{exp}<t_\text{fov})$. If $t_\text{exp}$ is known and the entire streak is contained in the image, the velocity can be determined from the streak length. If the particle density is sufficiently low to avoid overlapped particle images, the number density of particles can also be determined by analyzing the intensity centroid of each streak. Ideally, the illumination source should have a well-defined top-hat temporal profile as well as uniform spatial intensity profile. This can be achieved with CW lasers, provided a fast shutter is available for either the laser or the imaging device. Longer streak lengths lead to better measurement accuracy, but also increase the chance of particle streaks overlapping and of streaks that partly fall out of the field of view. The optimum $t_\text{exp}$ should be chosen according to these two factors.
### “Snapshot” imaging {#sec:snapshot-imaging}
In the “snapshot” imaging mode, when $t_\text{exp}\ll\tau$, point-like particle images are produced on the detector, mitigating motion blur [@Thoroddsen:ARFMech40:257; @Versluis:ExpFluids54:1]. For example, particles moving at $v=200$ m/s with $d=1~\um$ require a 5 ns exposure time to freeze the motion. The snapshot image can be achieved with short camera integration times or short illumination sources, , pulsed lasers, flash lamps, or spark discharges [@Adrian:PIV:2011]. We note that in the cases of streaked and snapshot imaging modes, one can determine particle positions at a resolution better than the resolution of the optical system through intensity centroid analysis, akin to super resolution microscopy molecule localization techniques [@Betzig:Science313:1642; @Henriques:Biopolymers95:322]. The snapshot imaging mode has several advantages over the long-exposure imaging mode: it enables straightforward quantitative determination of particle beam density, and in principle one can infer particle volumes through integrated scattering intensity, if the system is well calibrated. The velocity and acceleration of particles can also be measured from snapshot images with the use of multiple exposures with known delays, provided that all particle images appear in the same field of view [@VanDerBos:PhysRev1:014004; @Adrian:PIV:2011].
Provided that detector readout noise is not significant, snapshot imaging maximizes the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) since unnecessary exposure time is avoided, and all scattered light entering the optics is focused to a single resolution element. Imaging based on continuous illumination and short camera integration time usually suffers from lower signal levels compared with pulsed illumination (assuming similar average optical power). This is due to the fact that in the latter case the intensity of a particle image is fixed by the intensity of the illumination, whereas in the former case only a small fraction of the CW laser power is used to illuminate the particle, , most of the laser power is unused [@Thoroddsen:ARFMech40:257; @Adrian:PIV:2011].
Transverse-plane particle imaging {#sec:Invaccum}
---------------------------------
Simple imaging of the transverse profile of the particle beam can be achieved with the help of a flat, sticky surface placed transverse to the particle beam propagation. The particle beam diameter can be roughly estimated from the deposition of particles on the plate, imaged either directly *in-situ*, or by analyzing the deposition under an external microscope [@Rao:JAerosolSci24:879; @Benner:JAerosolSci39:917]. Unlike side- view imaging techniques, this does not contain any information regarding particle dynamics, but nonetheless gives useful and rapid feedback on the performance of an injector. For instance, asymmetry of the particle beam in the transverse plane is difficult to observe with side-view imaging, but can be observed easily using this technique.
Laser scattering intensity
--------------------------
Imaging sub-micrometer particles through elastic scattering raises considerable concerns regarding scattering intensity at the detector. As we show below, a relatively modest setup can be used to image particles with diameters of a few hundred nanometers, where Mie scattering dominates. Mie scattering theory is typically applied for particle diameters down to approximately one tenth of the scattering wavelength, below which the simple Rayleigh theory becomes applicable. The latter is generally considered valid for the case $d\pi/\lambda<1$, where $d$ is the particle diameter and $\lambda$ the wavelength of light. For a wavelength of 532 nm, this corresponds to $d\sim$170 nm. In the regime $\sim 50-170$ nm both Mie and Rayleigh theories can be considered valid and yield comparable scattering cross-sections (see below). However, they differ significantly in theoretical treatment. Mie theory is based on an infinite series of spherical partial waves to describe scattering, whereas the Rayleigh approximation can be summarized as a single analytical expression. The former calculates the (complex) scattering phase functions, and therefore yields a directional scattering dependence, while Rayleigh theory assumes an isotropic scattering distribution (apart from a polarization correction). In the following basic theoretical treatment we focus on Rayleigh scattering theory, due to its mathematical simplicity and because it is a valid approximation in the size range of typical biological molecules.
![Total number of scattered photons as a function of particle diameter for several wavelengths. Solid lines are calculated using the Rayleigh formalism, dashed lines are calculated from Mie theory. The calculation is done for 100 mJ pulses ($N_0\approx10^{17}$ photons) focused to a top-hat spatial intensity profile with diameter $\omega_0=1$ mm.[]{data-label="fig:rayleigh"}](figure/MieVSRayleigh){width="0.6\linewidth"}
The total Rayleigh scattering cross section for a sphere of diameter $D$ and relative permittivity $\epsilon$ is [@Miles:MST12:R33] $$\sigma =\frac{8\pi^5d^6}{3\lambda^4} \left(\frac{\epsilon-1}{\epsilon+2}\right)^2 \;$$ For a beam of diameter $g$ and pulse energy $E_0$, the scattered energy is $E = 4E_0\sigma/\pi g^2$, and the number of scattered photons is $N=E\lambda/hc$, where $h$ is Planck’s constant, and $c$ is the speed of light. Thus, we have $$N = \frac{32E_0\pi^4d^6}{3\lambda^3g^2hc}\left(\frac{\epsilon-1}{\epsilon+2}\right)^2 \;$$ The relative permittivity for proteins can vary significantly [@Li:JCTC9:2126], but $\epsilon\approx2\text{--}4$ is a reasonable assumption; polystyrene has $\epsilon\approx2.6$. shows total scattering calculations for the Rayleigh and Mie regime for different particle diameters and laser wavelengths for the case $\epsilon=2.6$. We must reduce the total scattered photon number $N$ according to the fraction of photons observed. This results in a number of photons $N_\Omega$ captured in the solid angle $\Omega$ of the optical system. Neglecting polarization factors, we obtain $$N_\Omega = \frac{16E_0\pi^4d^6}{3\lambda^3g^2hc} \left(\frac{\epsilon-1}{\epsilon+2}\right)^2 (1-\cos\theta)$$ where $\theta$ (measured from the optical axis of the imaging system) is the maximum scattering angle collected by the optical system (the numerical aperture is defined as $\text{NA}=sin\theta$). This provides a lower bound for experiments with the polarization axis of a linearly-polarized laser perpendicular to the optical axis of the imaging system.
The SNR of an imaging system depends on several factors. Since the typical size of single particle scattered intensity spans very few pixels on the detector, a pixel will collect approximately $N_\Omega$ photons from a particle. If the dominant noise sources of the imaging chip are the dark current, readout noise, background photons, and Poisson noise, the signal-to-noise ratio can be expressed as $$SNR = \frac{N_\Omega Q}{\sqrt{N_\Omega Q + N_b Q + N_d + \sigma_r^2}}$$ where $Q$ is the quantum efficiency of the chip (number of electrons per photon), $N_d$ is the mean number of dark current electrons, $\sigma_r$ is the RMS readout noise (in number of electrons), and $N_b$ is the number of background photons per pixel. This estimate assumes that all photons collected by the objective are directed to a single pixel. As an example, the camera utilized in our measurements (Photron SA4) contains a CMOS chip that has a readout noise of 38 electrons, and a quantum efficiency of about 33% at 530 nm. Assuming that background photon levels can be reduced to nearly zero, a minimum of about $38/0.33 \approx 120$ photons per pixel would be required to obtain a SNR of 1 with this chip. Factoring in the collection angle of the optics, we can roughly estimate that particles down to about 50 nm could likely be imaged with this detector. Smaller particles may require the use of single-photon detectors, such as EMCCD and SPAD detectors [@Fowler:SPI:159; @Krishnaswami:OptNano3:1].
Experimental setup
==================
{width="1\linewidth"}
Our experiment is constructed within a vacuum chamber that hosts an aerosol injector and, in some cases, x-ray diffraction detectors. For nebulization we use a gas-dynamic virtual nozzle (GDVN) [@DePonte:JPD41:195505; @Seibert:Nature470:78]. The aerosol stream is delivered either by an ALS injector (Uppsala University, Sweden) or by a convergent-nozzle injector [@Kirian:SD2:041717].
Side-view imaging in all three modes is implemented using a high-speed imaging configuration based on a high-frame-rate camera or on pulsed-illumination, as shown in . Imaging in the transverse plane is achieved with an inverted in-vacuum microscope that views particles as they adhere to a glass microscope slide coated with a sticky purified gel film (TELTEC, P/N DGL-20/17-X8).
Side-view imaging configuration {#sec:SideImaging}
-------------------------------
The key components in our side-imaging system are a high-frame-rate camera, both pulsed and CW illumination lasers, and imaging optics optimized for either a wide field of view or a high magnification. We discuss these components and their configurations below. We generally work in a quasi-dark-field imaging mode, where images are formed from scattered light without allowing the direct beam to enter the optical system. For wide-field views, we use a long-working-distance (LWD) microscope (Infinity model K2, working distance 225–300 mm, depth of focus (DOF) $\approx\!100~\um$, magnification 2.13, and FOV $11.7\times11.7\text{~mm}^2$) mounted outside of the vacuum chamber. For high-magnification views, a $10\times$ infinity-corrected objective (Mitutoyo, working distance 38 mm, DOF 3.5 , magnification $28$, FOV $850\times850~\um^2$) is used, mounted on a three-axis motorized stage inside the vacuum chamber. Switching between these two configurations only involves swapping in/out the K2 objective and translating the high-magnification objective into position. The scattered light from the particle beam exits the chamber through a standard viewport and forms an image on a translatable high-frame-rate CMOS camera (Photron SA4) that is typically located about 350 mm outside of the chamber, see .
Our illumination system consists of three different optical lasers and two different illumination geometries. In the first configuration the full particle beam is illuminated with a collimated, counter-propagating CW laser (Coherent Verdi V5, 532 nm, 5 W), as depicted in . The laser beam is expanded and collimated not only to illuminate the whole particle beam, but also to avoid particle deflection [@Eckerskorn:OE21:30492; @Kirian:SPIE:2015; @Eckerskorn:PRAppl4:064001] and damage from the tightly focused beam. This geometry allows one to introduce a second illumination source or two simultaneous viewing axes and an x-ray beam for diffractive imaging. The latter has been implemented during SPI experiments at the FLASH FEL facility in Hamburg, as discussed in . In the second illumination configuration we use a laser beam propagating perpendicular to the particle beam direction, as show in . This can be implemented alongside a counter-propagating illumination scheme. We have utilized two short-pulse lasers, either a Nd:YLF laser (Spectra Physics Empower ICSHG-30, 527 nm, pulse duration 100 ns, repetition rate 1 kHz, pulse energy 20 mJ, average power 20 W), or a fiber-coupled diode laser (DILAS High-Power Diode Laser IS21.16-LC, 640 nm, average power 10 W). The later is powered by high speed diode driver (Dr. Heller Elektronik, UHS-500-12.8 A, repetition rate up to 1 MHz, pulse durations $10$–$100$ ns) and mounted in oblique orientation to maximize forward scattering. The diode laser is the least expensive option and delivers a top-hat intensity profile.
Transverse-plane imaging configuration {#sec:transverse-imaging}
--------------------------------------
An inverted microscope is located directly below the aerosol injector to image 2D transverse beam profiles in real time, as shown in . A $5\times$ infinity-corrected objective forms images as particles adhere to a transparent gel on a microscope slide that is manipulated with a three-axis translation stage. A polarizing beam splitter is mounted below the microscope slide, which allows scattered light to be imaged while the counter-propagating laser illuminates the particle beam for side-view imaging. The entire microscope assembly is mounted on a three-axis motorized stage so that it can be moved in and out of the interaction region during experiments, or translated along the axis of the injector to probe the particle beam at variable distances from the tip of the injector. In addition to producing transverse views of the particle beam, the microscope slide is used to protect the counter-propagating laser optics (since few particles adhere to the bare glass slide) as well as to align the laser beam to the particle beam. This alignment is done by iteratively tilting the laser beam or translating the injector while viewing the particle/laser overlap at two different distances (50 mm apart) along the axis of the injector.
Experimental results and discussion {#sec:experimental-results}
===================================
Side-view imaging
-----------------
Representative images from our side-view imaging scheme are shown in for the different imaging modes introduced in . , \[fig:streak-camera-shutter\], and \[fig:snapshot-empower\] show images of $d=2$ polystyrene-sphere particles (PS), and in shows an image of $d\approx300$ nm GV particles. The PS particles were injected with an ALS, whereas GV particles were injected with a convergent-nozzle injector. shows a typical long-exposure image collected with counter-propagating CW beam illumination, which may be interpreted as a projection of the particle beam density since the particle size distribution is relatively narrow (< 5%). The results of streak imaging for particles moving at two different speeds are shown in and \[fig:streak-DILAS\]. shows particle streaks recorded using counter-propagating CW beam illumination and a short integration time of 13.5 on the camera, while is recorded with illumination by multiple 100-ns laser pulses and a long camera integration time of 1 ms. A snapshot image with $t_\text{exp}<\tau$ of 2 PS moving at approximately $18$ m/s is shown in . Here, short illumination times (100 ns) and relatively slow particle speed lead to distinct single spots on the camera, highlighted in by red circles, which are centered around the calculated centroid positions of individual particles.
In the following we demonstrate how these data can be used to reconstruct the particle-beam density and velocity distributions.
\
\
Two-dimensional particle density maps generated from raw side-view images are shown in . For CW illumination in the long-exposure mode, the image intensity is directly proportional to the projected particle density, provided that only a single particle species is present. This allows for direct monitoring of the injector behavior through the observation of relative image intensities, but does not readily allow for a quantitative evaluation of particle number densities without careful calibration measurements. On the other hand, streak and snapshot imaging modes allow for direct and quantitative measurements of the particle beam density without the need for intensity calibrations, since particle image centroids (for both streaks or spots) can be determined with a precision better than diffraction limit [@Betzig:Science313:1642; @Henriques:Biopolymers95:322]. From these centroids (seen in ), projected particle density maps can be produced, which allow quantitative estimates of expected hit fractions in SPI experiments.
The streak imaging technique allows for the estimation of particle velocities through evaluation of the streak length with a single pulse using a well-calibrated imaging system, as indicated in \[fig:streak-camera-shutter\]. A velocity measurement is also feasible using snapshot imaging if more than one illumination pulse occurs while the particle is in the field of view, either in the same frame or successive frames. We note several pitfalls that need to be avoided for accurate determination of particle velocity distributions from side-view imaging measurements:
1. The temporal illumination intensity profile of a pulsed laser source will be reflected in the spatial intensity of the particle streak; often one might observe long, faint trails from each particle, due to a slow decay of the laser pulse intensity. An accurate determination of the velocity requires knowledge of the temporal laser profile to disentangle the spatial image of the particle. Ideally, the illumination source should have a top-hat temporal profile.
2. Particles moving out of the illuminated volume or FOV during the exposure time will appear to produce shorter streaks. This can be avoided by ensuring the illumination to be large enough to cover the entire particle beam in the FOV and ignoring streaks that lead to the edge of the image during velocity analysis.
3. Particles that move outside of the depth-of-focus of the imaging system will result in de-focused images and in some cases non-uniform streaks. If not corrected for, this will result in systematic errors in velocity estimates. However, the inclusion of image de-focus in the analysis algorithm could, in principle, reveal 3D information from a single view upon careful calibration [@Willert:ExpFluids12:353; @Guerrero:MST17:2328]. For the narrow particle beams considered here, de-focus is typically not a significant problem and can be ignored.
Once particle densities and velocity distributions are obtained, the injector transmission efficiency can be determined by comparing the rate ($R_\text{in}$) at which particles enter and the rate ($R_\text{out}$) at which they leave the injector. $R_\text{out}$ can be calculated from the expression $n=R_\text{out}l/v$, where $n$ is the total number of particles contained within a planar slab of thickness $l$, where particles are injected at a frequency $f$ at a velocity $v$ in the direction normal to the slab [@Kirian:SD2:041717].
Transverse-plane imaging
------------------------
Poorly performing injectors sometimes generate asymmetric particle beams, analogous to astigmatisms in optical systems. This is not readily detectable in side-view imaging configurations, but is clearly visible through transverse-plane imaging with the inverted microscope discussed previously. shows particle-deposition images at different distances from the tip of an ALS injector, and a clear variation in particle beam asymmetry with position. For particles larger than 1 , individual particles can be detected as they adhere to the gel, allowing semi-quantitative analysis of the particle beam width on the transverse plane in real time, as shown in (c).
![Imaging of 2 PS particles from a beam focused by an ALS injector and deposition on transparent gel through an in-vacuum inverted microscope. (a) A series of images recorded at different distances from the injector tip. (b) A lateral scan of the microscope slide at a distance of 35 mm from the injector tip, recording particle distributions following a 1 min particle deposition per spot. (c) The transverse particle-beam density profile obtained in a measurement similar to (b), but under conditions where individual particles could be observed and their centroids determined. (d, e) 1 min particle depositions from a poorly performing injector, which, perhaps, is caused by dispersion in particle sizes and/or asymmetry in the particle source at the inlet of the injector.[]{data-label="fig:dustingspot"}](figure/fig5){width="90.00000%"}
However, the accuracy of the analysis is limited by our understanding of how particles adhere to the gel surface – most importantly, how the likelihood of particle adherence changes with time, , as particles accumulate. For particles on the order of 100 nm or smaller, a detectable particle-deposition image is obtained after a few seconds of accumulation time, depending on the concentration and size of particles.
Injector optimization
---------------------
The presented characterization methods offer a powerful means to optimize the performance of particle injectors, both *online* during SPI measurements at XFEL facilities, as well as offline in the preparation laboratory. As discussed in , the 2D projected number density of the particle beam is the most important parameter that needs to be optimized, since it scales directly with the hit fraction in an SPI experiment. The hit fraction depends on particle velocity, injector transmission, and particle beam diameter, which are ideally measured independently while developing and optimizing aerosol injectors. shows a typical plot for injector optimization, including the velocity and particle-beam diameter in the case of 2-PS particles measured 35 mm downstream from the tip of the injector, as a function of the upstream pressure of the injector. The downstream chamber pressure is maintained below $10^{-2}$ mbar and does not significantly effect the particle speed or beam diameter. The velocity increases linearly with the upstream pressure. However, the particle beam size exhibits a distinctive minimum around 30 FWHM, at an upstream pressure of 0.63 mbar. As seen from , the particles are moving at an average velocity of 18.49 m/s with standard deviation of 0.28 m/s at this upstream pressure. Ignoring the transmission efficiency for now, the optimum operating pressure of the injector for maximum hit fraction should be chosen such that the product of these two parameters is minimized (see ), , for 2 PS particles, the injector should be operated at 0.6 mbar for maximum hit fraction. Alternatively, one may simply measure the projected particle beam density, which automatically accounts for the contributions of velocity, transmission efficiency, and particle beam diameter. In practice, the assumption of a constant transmission efficiency is not valid over a large pressure range, and this needs to be taken into account. We note that using streak or multiple-exposure snapshot imaging allows a quantitative measure of the transmission efficiency.
Integration with x-ray experiments {#sec:integration-x-ray}
----------------------------------
We demonstrated the utility of optical particle-beam imaging using a custom SPI experimental apparatus at the FLASH free-electron laser facility in Hamburg, Germany. Due to space limitations, we utilized a counter-propagating 5W CW laser, as shown in . An in-line microscope with a long-exposure CCD was placed on the same axis as the x-rays, in addition to a high-speed camera that imaged the particle beam from a viewpoint perpendicular to the x-ray beam axis. This enabled us to have, simultaneously, two orthogonal side views of the particle beam. The long exposure images from the in-line microscope were used to position of the injector for maximum hit rate, whereas images from the high-speed camera were used to position the beam with respect to the x-ray focus and to provide real-time estimates of the particle velocity and number density. As seen from , the counter-propagating illumination scheme leaves plenty of spaces around the interaction region for multiple views and additional diagnostics. However, it requires careful alignment of the laser with the particle beam, especially for the case of CW lasers that must be focused to smaller diameters (approximately 100 $\mu$m in this particular case) than pulsed lasers of equivalent average power. We therefore installed translation and tilting stages inside the vacuum chamber for steering and translating the laser beam. In order to mask the scattering light from the injector tip we constructed a light shielding around the objective lens. As seen in , once the CW laser is properly aligned, the average intensity from a beam of GV particles is easily visible to a typical CCD (in this case, a consumer single-lens reflex camera). The ability to immediately see a particle beam drastically reduced the time needed to align the injector, and immediately revealed the typical fluctuations in the injector transmission efficiency.
![The SPI setup at FLASH. The photograph of the setup shows the space around the interaction region of the laser beam with a stream of GV. This photo was taken by a DSLR camera through a window on the experimental vacuum chamber.[]{data-label="fig:FLASH-setup-photo"}](figure/FLASHSetupPhoto2){width="60.00000%"}
Summary and conclusion
======================
We demonstrated the utility of direct optical imaging of micro- and nano-particle aerosol beams for the purpose of improving the overall efficiency of single-particle x-ray diffractive imaging (SPI) experiments. We find that direct imaging of the particle beam is a straightforward means to quantitatively measure particle density maps, particle velocity distribution, and injector transmission efficiency, which are key diagnostics for optimizing SPI experiments at large-scale x-ray facilities where the time available for measurements is rather limited. A modest setup with an off-the-shelf CW laser of $\sim$1–5 W power can readily reveal the time-averaged position and width of a typical particle beam, which greatly simplifies the procedure of positioning the injector with respect to the x-ray beam. The overall brightness of the particle beam is also indicative the injector performance. Remarkably, such a simple diagnostic can save many hours of effort, and corresponding facility costs, compared to “shooting blind”, , when injection is optimized based on x-ray diffraction data. We also showed that pulses of well-defined duration as well as a CW laser combined with a camera with a fast shutter can simultaneously produce quantitative particle-density and velocity-distribution maps. Our side-view imaging schemes were complemented by a compact in-vacuum microscope that enables indirect particle beam imaging in the transverse plane, which readily reveals particle-beam astigmatism that is not easily observed from viewpoints that are orthogonal to the particle beam.
In the configurations considered here, we have also imaged individual $200$ nm diameter particles moving at speeds of $300$ m/s [@Kirian:SD2:041717] with a modest short-pulse laser ($100$ ns and 10 W average power). Simple scattering estimates suggest that much smaller particles, perhaps down to few tens of nanometers, should also be visible with a sufficiently intense illumination (approximately 100 mJ pulses focused to about 1 mm diameter) and a very-high-sensitivity imaging device. Although velocity measurements can be made from short pulses that create streaked particle images, it appears that the optimal method for determining velocities, from a signal-to-noise standpoint, is through the use of two time-delayed pulses of duration short enough to produce “snapshot” diffraction-limited particle images. Pulse durations of approximately 5 ns are required to freeze the motion of particles moving at 200 m/s for an image resolution of 1 $\mu$m, but Q-switched lasers that produce such pulses are common and relatively inexpensive.
We tested three different imaging modes that differ in terms of illumination geometry, optics, and the illumination source. Each of them can be implemented relatively straightforwardly in typical SPI experiments with only minor modifications. A counter-propagating geometry, in which the particle and laser beams oppose each other, maximizes the space available for ancillary diagnostics such as time-of-flight spectrometers, but requires a transparent shield to maintain clean beam-steering optics below the injector and unnecessarily exposes upstream particles to laser illumination. For imaging the smallest of particles, it may become necessary to operate above the damage threshold of the particles. Hence, a transverse illumination scheme would be required to avoid damaging particles prior to probing with x-rays.
Thus far, our apparatus has been used to characterize the injection process downstream of the injector, close to the interaction region of particles and x-rays. It would be advantageous to include similar imaging diagnostics at positions upstream of the injector exit, so that the aerosol formation and pre-collimation (prior to focussing) can also be monitored and de-coupled from the downstream particle-beam focusing components. Ideally, these diagnostics would be extended to include particle size measurements through careful calibrations of integrated scattering intensity, Mie scattering profiles, or other interferometric methods. Such *in-situ* measurements would allow us to monitor particle aggregation and evaporation rate of the liquid buffer from the initial droplets generated by the nebulization device [@Vervoort:JCA1189:92].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
In addition to DESY, this work has been supported by the excellence cluster “The Hamburg Center for Ultrafast Imaging—Structure, Dynamics and Control of Matter at the Atomic Scale” of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (CUI, DFG-EXC1074) and by the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (DP110100975). R.A.K. acknowledges support from an NSF STC Award (1231306). J.K. acknowledges support by the European Research Council through the Consolidator Grant COMOTION (ERC-614507).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We give recurrence and transience criteria for two cases of time-homogeneous Markov chains on the real line with transition kernel $p(x,dy)=f_x(y-x)dy$, where $f_x(y)$ are probability densities of symmetric distributions and, for large $|y|$, have a power-law decay with exponent $\alpha(x)+1$, with $\alpha(x)\in(0,2)$.
If $f_x(y)$ is the density of a symmetric $\alpha$-stable distribution for negative $x$ and the density of a symmetric $\beta$-stable distribution for non-negative $x$, where $\alpha,\beta\in(0,2)$, then the chain is recurrent if and only if $\alpha+\beta\geq2.$
If the function $x\longmapsto f_x$ is periodic and if the set $\{x:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\}$ has positive Lebesgue measure, then, under a uniformity condition on the densities $f_x(y)$ and some mild technical conditions, the chain is recurrent if and only if $\alpha_0\geq1.$
author:
- |
Nikola Sandrić\
Department of Mathematics\
Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia\
Email: [email protected]
bibliography:
- 'References.bib'
title: 'Recurrence and transience criteria for two cases of stable-like Markov chains'
---
[**Keywords and phrases:** characteristics of semimartingale, Feller process, Harris recurrence, Markov chain, Markov process, recurrence, stable distribution, stable-like process, T-model, transience]{}
Introduction
============
Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ be a probability space and let $\{Z_n\}_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$ be a sequence of i.i.d. random variables on $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P})$ taking values in ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{d}$. Let us define $S_n:=\sum_{i=1}^{n}Z_i$ and $S_0:=0$. The sequence $\{S_n\}_{n\geq0}$ is called a *random walk* with jumps $\{Z_n\}_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$. The random walk $\{S_n\}_{n\geq0}$ is said to be *recurrent* if $$\mathbb{P}\left(\liminf_{n\longrightarrow\infty}|S_n|=0\right)=1,$$ and *transient* if $$\mathbb{P}\left(\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}|S_n|=\infty\right)=1.$$ It is well known that every random walk is either recurrent or transient (see [@durrett Theorem 4.2.1]). In the case $d=1$, a symmetric $\alpha$-stable random walk, i.e., a random walk with jump distribution with characteristic function $\varphi(\xi)=\exp(-\gamma|\xi|^{\alpha})$, where $\alpha\in(0,2]$ and $\gamma\in(0,\infty)$, is recurrent if and only if $\alpha\geq1$ (see the discussion after [@durrett Lemma 4.2.12]). For recurrence and transience properties of random walks see [@chung; @durrett]. In this paper we generalize one-dimensional symmetric $\alpha$-stable random walks in the way that the index of stability of the jump distribution depends on the current position, and we study the recurrence and transience property of the generalization.
From now on, using the notation from [@taqqu], we will write S$\alpha$S for the one-dimensional symmetric $\alpha$-stable distribution. Let us denote by $\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ the Borel $\sigma$-algebra on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and by $\lambda(\cdot)$ the Lebesgue measure on $\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$. Furthermore, let us introduce the notation $f(y)\sim g(y),$ when $y\longrightarrow y_0$, for $\lim_{y\longrightarrow y_0}f(y)/g(y)=1,$ where $y_0\in[-\infty,\infty]$. Recall that if $f(y)$ is the density of S$\alpha$S distribution with characteristic function $\varphi(\xi)=\exp(-\gamma |\xi|^{\alpha})$, where $\alpha\in(0,2)$ and $\gamma\in(0,\infty)$, then $$f(y)\sim c_{\alpha}|y|^{-\alpha-1},$$ when $|y|\longrightarrow\infty,$ where $c_1=\frac{\gamma}{2}$ and $c_{\alpha}=\frac{\gamma}{\pi}\Gamma(\alpha+1)\sin\left(\frac{\pi\alpha}{2}\right),$ for $\alpha\neq1,$ (see [@taqqu Property 1.2.15]).
Let $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $c:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ be arbitrary functions and let $\{f_x\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be a family of probability densities on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ satisfying:
1. $x\longmapsto f_x(y)$ is a Borel measurable function for all $y\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and
2. $f_x(y)\sim c(x)|y|^{-\alpha(x)-1},$ for $|y|\longrightarrow\infty$.
We define a Markov chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ by the following transition kernel $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1.1}p(x,dy):=f_{x}(y-x)dy.\end{aligned}$$ Transition densities of the chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ are asymptotically equivalent to the densities of symmetric stable distributions. We call the Markov chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ a *stable-like Markov chain*.
For Borel measurable functions $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$, let $f_{(\alpha(x),\gamma(x))}(y)$ be the density of a S$\alpha(x)$S distribution given by the following characteristic function $\varphi(x;\xi)=\exp(-\gamma(x)|\xi|^{\alpha(x)})$. A special case of the stable-like chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is a Markov chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ given by the following transition kernel $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1.2}p(x,dy):=f_{(\alpha(x),\gamma(x))}(y-x)dy.\end{aligned}$$ The stable-like chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ has state dependent stable jumps, i.e., it jumps from the state $x$ by a S$\alpha(x)$S law.
The recurrence and transience problem for the stable-like chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ (the chain given by (\[eq:1.1\])) was already treated in [@ja]. Using the Foster-Lyapunov drift criterion for recurrence and transience of Markov chains, under a uniformity condition on the densities $f_{x}(y)$ and some mild technical conditions (see conditions (C1)-(C5) in [@ja]) it is proved that if $\liminf_{|x|\longrightarrow\infty}\alpha(x)>1$, then the stable-like chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent, and if $\limsup_{|x|\longrightarrow\infty}\alpha(x)<1$, then the stable-like chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is transient. Results in [@ja] give us only sufficient conditions for recurrence and transience. In this paper we treat two special cases of the stable-like chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ not covered in [@ja], and give their recurrence and transience criteria. For recurrence and transience properties of Markov chains on general state space see [@meyn].
As already mentioned, we treat only two special cases of stable-like chains:
1. Let $\alpha,\beta\in(0,2)$ and $\gamma, \delta\in(0,\infty)$ be arbitrary. Let ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be a stable-like chain given by transition densities with following characteristic functions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1.3}\varphi(x;\xi)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\exp(-\gamma|\xi|^{\alpha}), & x<0 \\
\exp(-\delta|\xi|^{\beta}),&
x\geq0.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
2. Let $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $c:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ be arbitrary Borel measurable functions and let $\{f_x\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be an arbitrary family of probability densities on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ with $f_x(-y)=f_x(y)$ for all $x,y\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Furthermore, let us assume that the function $x\longmapsto f_x$ is a periodic function with period $\tau>0$ and that the following conditions are satisfied:
**(PC1)**
: the function $(x,y)\longmapsto f_x(y)$ is continuous and strictly positive;
**(PC2)**
: $f_x(y)\sim c(x)|y|^{-\alpha(x)-1}$, when $|y|\longrightarrow\infty$, for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$;
**(PC3)**
: $\displaystyle\lim_{|y|\longrightarrow\infty}\sup_{x\in[0,\tau]}\left|f_x(y)\frac{|y|^{\alpha(x)+1}}{c(x)}-1\right|=0;$
**(PC4)**
: $\displaystyle\inf_{x\in
[0,\tau]}c(x)>0$.
Let ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be a stable-like chain, called a *periodic stable-like chain*, given by the transition kernel \[eq:1.4\] p(x,dy):=f\_x(y-x)dy.
Note that $\tau$-periodicity of the function $x\longrightarrow f_x$ implies $\tau$-periodicity of the functions $\alpha(x)$ and $c(x)$. Indeed, let $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ be arbitrary, then, by (PC2), we have: $$\begin{aligned}
1&=\lim_{|y|\longrightarrow\infty}f_{x+\tau}(y)\frac{|y|^{\alpha(x+\tau)+1}}{c(x+\tau)}\\&=\lim_{|y|\longrightarrow\infty}\left(f_{x}(y)\frac{|y|^{\alpha(x)+1}}{c(x)}\frac{c(x)}{c(x+\tau)}|y|^{\alpha(x+\tau)-\alpha(x)}\right)\\&=\frac{c(x)}{c(x+\tau)}\lim_{|y|\longrightarrow\infty}|y|^{\alpha(x+\tau)-\alpha(x)}.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, both stable-like chains ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ satisfy conditions (C1)-(C5) from [@ja]. In particular, both stable-like chains ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ are irreducible with respect to the Lebesgue measure (see [@ja Proposition 2.1]). Thus, we have recurrence-transience dichotomy in both cases. Further, together with the $\tau$-periodicity of the function $c(x)$, condition (PC3) implies \[eq:1.5\]\_[x]{}c(x)=\_[x[$\mathbb{R}$]{}]{}c(x)<(see [@ja Remark 1.1]).
From now on, we assume that the stable-like chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ (the chain given by (\[eq:1.1\])) satisfies conditions (C1)-(C5). Note that, in general, this is not the case for the stable-like chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ given by (\[eq:1.2\]) (for sufficient conditions see [@ja Proposition 5.5]). We refer the reader to [@ja] for more details about conditions (C1)-(C5).
An example of the periodic stable like-chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ satisfying conditions (PC1)-(PC4) is given as follows: Let $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ be an arbitrary continuous periodic function with period $\tau>0$ and define the family of density functions $\{f_x\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ by $$f_x(y):=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha(x)}{\alpha(x)+1} , & |y|\leq 1 \\
\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha(x)}{\alpha(x)+1}|y|^{-\alpha(x)-1} , &
|y|\geq 1
\end{array}\right.$$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}.$ In this case $c(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha(x)}{\alpha(x)+1}
$.
Now, let us state the main results of this paper:
\[tm1.1\] The stable-like chain ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent if and only if $\alpha+\beta\geq2.$
\[tm1.2\] If the set $\{x:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\}$ has positive Lebesgue measure, then the periodic stable-like chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent if and only if $\alpha_0\geq1$.
As a simple consequence of Theorems \[tm1.1\] and \[tm1.2\] we get the following well-known recurrence and transience criterion for the random walk case:
\[c1.3\]A S$\alpha$S random walk on the real line is recurrent if and only if $\alpha\geq1$.
The same problem was already treated, but in continuous-time case, in [@bjoern] and [@franke; @frankeerata]. In [@bjoern] it is proved that the stable-like process ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ with the symbol $p(x,\xi)=\gamma(x)|\xi|^{\alpha(x)}$ is recurrent if and only if $\alpha+\beta\geq2$, where $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ are continuously differentiable functions with bounded derivative such that $$\alpha(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha, & x<-k \\
\beta,&
x>k
\end{array}\right.\quad\textrm{and}\quad\gamma(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma, & x<-k \\
\delta,&
x>k
\end{array}\right.$$ for $\alpha,\beta\in(0,2)$, $\gamma,\delta\in(0,\infty)$ and $k>0$. In [@franke] the author considers the recurrence and transience problem of the stable-like process ${\{X^{p}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ with the symbol $p(x,\xi)=\gamma(x)|\xi|^{\alpha(x)}$, where $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ are continuously differentiable and periodic functions with bounded derivative, and proves that if the set $\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\}$ has positive Lebesgue measure, then the process is recurrent if and only if $\alpha_0\geq1.$ Both results and technics, in [@bjoern] and [@franke], will be crucial in proving our results.
Now we explain our strategy of proving the main results. In [@bjoern] it is proved that the stable-like process ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is recurrent if and only if $\alpha+\beta\geq2$, and in [@bjoernschilling] it is proved that ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ can be approximated by a sequence of Markov chains ${\{X^{(m)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$, $m\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, such that ${\{X^{(1)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}\stackrel{\hbox{\scriptsize
d}}{=}{\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}.$ In Theorem \[tm1.1\] we prove that all chains ${\{X^{(m)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$, $m\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, are either recurrent or transient at the same time and we prove that their recurrence property is equivalent with the recurrence property of the stable-like process ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$. This accomplishes the proof of Theorem \[tm1.1\]. In Theorem \[tm1.2\] we subordinate the periodic stable-like chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ with the Poisson process ${\{N_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ with parameter $1$ and, following the ideas form [@franke], prove that the sequence of strong Markov processes $\{n^{-\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}X^{p}_{N_{nt}}\}_{t\geq0}$, $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, converges in distribution, with respect to the Skorohod topology, to symmetric $\alpha_0$-stable Lévy process. Furthermore, we prove that all the processes $\{n^{-\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}X^{p}_{N_{nt}}\}_{t\geq0}$, $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, are either recurrent or transient at the same time, their recurrence property is equivalent with the recurrence property of a symmetric $\alpha_0$-stable Lévy process and recurrence properties of the process $\{X^{p}_{N_{t}}\}_{t\geq0}$ and the periodic stable-like chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ are equivalent. This accomplishes the proof of Theorem \[tm1.2\].
Let us remark that the idea of studying recurrence and transience property of a Markov process in terms of the property of the associated Markov chain is studied in [@tuo].
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we introduce some preliminary and auxiliary results which will be needed to make the connection with results proved in [@bjoern] and [@franke]. In Sections 3 and 4 we give proofs of Theorems \[tm1.1\] and \[tm1.2\] and in Section 5 we treat discrete version of the stable-like chains ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and we derive the same recurrence and transience criteria as in Theorems \[tm1.1\] and \[tm1.2\].
Throughout the paper we use the following notation. We write ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_+$ and ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$, respectively, for nonnegative integers and nonnegative real numbers. For $x,y\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ let $x\wedge
y:=\min\{x,y\}$ and $x\vee y:=\max\{x,y\}$. For two functions $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ we write $f(x)=o(g(x)),$ when $x\longrightarrow x_0$, if $\lim_{x\longrightarrow x_0}f(x)/g(x)=0$, where $x_0\in[-\infty,\infty].$ Write $B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, $C({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, $C_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, and $C_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, respectively, for the sets of bounded Borel measurable functions, continuous functions, continuous bounded functions and continuous functions vanishing at infinity. Together with the supnorm $||\cdot||_\infty:=\sup_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}|\cdot|$, $B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, $C_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ and $C_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ are a Banach spaces. Furthermore, $({\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}},\{\mathbb{P}^{x}\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}})$, $({\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}},\{\mathbb{P}^{x}\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}})$, $({\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}},\{\mathbb{P}^{x}\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}})$ and $({\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}},\{\mathbb{P}^{x}\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}})$ will denote the stable-like chains on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))$ given by (\[eq:1.1\]), (\[eq:1.2\]), (\[eq:1.3\]) and (\[eq:1.4\]), respectively, while $({\{Y_n\}_{n\geq0}},\{\mathbb{P}^{x}\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}})$ and $({\{Y_t\}_{t\geq0}},\{\mathbb{P}^{x}\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}})$ will denote an arbitrary Markov chain and an arbitrary càdlàg strong Markov process on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))$ given by transition kernels $p(x,B)$ and $p^{t}(x,B)$, for $x\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, $B\in \mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ and $t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$, respectively. Using the notation from [@tweedie], we use the term *Markov model* and notation $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$, where $\mathbb{T}$ is either ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_+$ or ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$, when the result holds regardless of the time set involved. For $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, $B\in \mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ and $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, let $p^{n}(x,B):=\mathbb{P}^{x}(Y_n\in B)$. For $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $B\in \mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ we put $\eta_B:=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}1_{\{Y_n\in
B\}}$ or $\eta_B:=\int_{0}^{\infty}1_{\{Y_t\in
B\}}dt$, $\tau_B:=\inf \{n\geq0:
Y_n\in B\}$ or $\tau_B:=\inf \{t\geq0:
Y_t\in B\}$, $Q(x,B):=\mathbb{P}^{x}(\eta_B=\infty)$, $L(x,B):=\mathbb{P}^{x}(\tau_B<\infty)$ and $U(x,B):=\mathbb{E}^{x}(\eta_B).$
Preliminary and auxiliary results
=================================
In this section we give some preliminary and auxiliary results needed for proving the main results of this paper.
A Markov model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))$ is *$\varphi$-irreducible* if there exists a probability measure $\varphi(\cdot)$ on $\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ such that, whenever $\varphi(B)>0$, we have $U(x,B)>0$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
Note that the stable-like chains ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ (the chains given by (\[eq:1.1\]) and (\[eq:1.2\])) are $\varphi-$irreducible for any probability measure $\varphi(\cdot)$ on $\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ which is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure (see [@ja Proposition 2.1]).
In [@tweedie Theorem 2.1] it is shown that the irreducibility measure can always be maximized. If $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is a $\varphi$-irreducible Markov model on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))$, then there exists a probability measure $\psi(\cdot)$ on $\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ such that the model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is $\psi$-irreducible and $\bar{\varphi}\ll\psi$, for every irreducibility measure $\bar{\varphi}(\cdot)$ on $\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ of the model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$. The measure $\psi(\cdot)$ is called the *maximal irreducibility measure* and from now on, when we refer to the irreducibility measure we actually refer to the maximal irreducibility measure. For the $\psi$-irreducible Markov model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))$ set $\mathcal{B}^{+}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})=\{B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}):\psi(B)>0\}.$ The maximal irreducibility measure for the stable-like chains ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is equivalent, in absolutely continuous sense, with the Lebesgue measure (see [@ja Proposition 2.1]).
Recall that a function $f:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ is called *lower semicontinuous* if $\liminf_{y\longrightarrow x}f(y)\geq f(x)$ holds for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
Let $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ be a Markov model on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))$.
1. A set $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ is *uniformly transient* if there exists a finite constant $M\geq0$ such that $U(x,B)\leq M$ holds for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. The model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is *transient* if it is $\psi$-irreducible and if there exists a countable cover of ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ with uniformly transient sets.
2. A set $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ is *recurrent* if $U(x,B)=\infty$ holds for all $x\in
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. The model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is *recurrent* if it is $\psi$-irreducible and if every set $B\in \mathcal{B}^{+}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ is recurrent.
3. A set $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ is *Harris recurrent*, or *H-recurrent*, if $Q(x,B)=1$ holds for all $x\in
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. The model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is *H-recurrent* if it is $\psi$-irreducible and if every set $B\in \mathcal{B}^{+}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ is H-recurrent.
4. The model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is called a *T-model* if for some distribution $a(\cdot)$ on $\mathbb{T}$ there exists a kernel $T(x,B)$ with $T(x,{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}) > 0$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, such that the function $x\longmapsto
T(x,B)$ is lower semicontinuous for all $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, and $$\int_{\mathbb{T}}p^{t}(x,B)a(dt)\geq T(x,B)$$ holds for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}).$
Let us remark that the H-recurrence property can be defined in the equivalent way: The model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is H-recurrent if it is $\psi$-irreducible and if $L(x,B) = 1$ holds for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all $B\in\mathcal{B}^{+}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ (see [@tweedie Theorem 2.4]). In general, recurrence and H-recurrence properties are not equivalent (see [@tweedie Chapter 9]). Obviously, H-recurrence implies recurrence. In the case of a Markov model which is a $\lambda$-irreducible T-model, these two properties are equivalent (see [@ja Proposition 5.3] and [@bjoern Theorem 4.2]).
In the following proposition, by assuming certain continuity properties, we determine “nice" sets for Markov models.
\[p2.3\] Let $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ be a $\psi$-irreducible Markov model, then:
1. the model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is either recurrent or transient.
In addition, if we assume that $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is a T-model, then:
1. the model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is H-recurrent if and only if there exists a H-recurrent compact set.
2. assume the following additional assumption in the continuous-time case: for every compact set $C\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ there exists a distribution $a_C(\cdot)$ on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$, such that \[eq:2.1\] \_[xC]{}\_0\^\^[x]{}(X\_tB)a\_C(dt) >0holds for all $B\in\mathcal{B}^{+}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{d})$. Then the model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is transient if and only if every compact set is uniformly transient.
3. under the assumption (\[eq:2.1\]) for the continuous-time case, the model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is recurrent if and only if there exists a recurrent compact set.
- The proof is given in [@tweedie Theorem 2.3].
- The proof is given in [@meyn Proposition 9.1.7] and [@meyntweedie Theorem 3.3].
- The proof for the discrete-time case is given in [@meyn Theorems 8.3.5]. If the process $\{Y_t\}_{t\geq0}$ is transient, then there exists at least one uniformly transient set $B\in\mathcal{B}^{+}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$. By assumption (\[eq:2.1\]), $$\delta_C:=\inf_{x\in
C}\int_0^{\infty}\mathbb{P}^{x}(X_t\in B)a_C(dt)
>0$$ holds for every compact set $C\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$. Using the Chapman-Kolmogorov equation we have: $$\begin{aligned}
U(x,B)&=\int_0^{\infty}U(x,B)a_C(dt)=
\int_0^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}p^{s}(x,B)dsa_C(dt)\\
&\geq\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}p^{s+t}(x,B)dsa_C(dt)=\int_{0}^{\infty}\int_0^{\infty}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}p^{s}(x,dy)p^{t}(y,B)dsa_C(dt)\\
&\geq\delta_C\int_0^{\infty}\int_{C}p^{s}(x,dy)ds=\delta_CU(x,C).\end{aligned}$$
- The proof follows directly from (i) and (iii).
Now, we derive the recurrence and transience dichotomy by using sample-paths properties of Markov models. Let $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ be arbitrary and let $\mathbb{D}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ be the space of real-valued càdlàg functions equipped with the Skorohod topology. In the continuous-time case, define the *set of recurrent paths* by: $$R(B):=\{\omega\in\ \mathbb{D}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}):\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}},\ \exists t\geq n \ \textrm{such that} \ \omega(t)\in B\},$$ and the *set of transient paths* by: $$T(B):=\{\omega\in\ \mathbb{D}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}):\exists s\geq0 \ \textrm{such that} \ \omega(t)\not\in B, \ \forall t\geq s
\}.$$ It is clear that $T(B)=R(B)^{c}$, and for any open set $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, by the right continuity, $R(O)$ and $T(O)$ are measurable (with respect to the Borel $\sigma$-algebra generated by the Skorohod topology). In the discrete-time case, using the same notation, we similarly define the *set of recurrent paths* by: $$R(B):=\{\omega\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_+}:\forall n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}},\ \exists m\geq n \ \textrm{such that} \ \omega(m)\in B\},$$ and the *set of transient paths* by: $$T(B):=\{\omega\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_+}:\exists m\geq0 \ \textrm{such that} \ \omega(n)\not\in B, \ \forall n\geq
m \}.$$ Clearly, $T(B)=R(B)^{c}$ and for any $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, $R(B)$ and $T(B)$ are $\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})^{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}_+}$ measurable.
\[p2.4\] Let $\textbf{Y}=\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ be a $\lambda$-irreducible T-model, and let us assume (\[eq:2.1\]) holds for the continuous-time case. Then the following 0-1 property must be met: $$\mathbb{P}^{x}\left(\eta_O=\infty\right)=0 \quad \textrm{for all} \ x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\ \textrm{and all open bounded sets}\ O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$$ or $$\mathbb{P}^{x}\left(\eta_O=\infty\right)=1 \quad \textrm{for all} \ x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\ \textrm{and all open bounded sets}\quad
O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}.$$ In particular, the model $\textbf{Y}$ is recurrent if and only if $\mathbb{P}^{x}_\textbf{Y}(R(O))=1$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, and it is transient if and only if $\mathbb{P}^{x}_\textbf{Y}(T(O))=1$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
The 0-1 property in the discrete-time case follows from [@ja Proposition 5.3] and [@meyn Theorems 6.2.5 and 8.3.5]. The claim in the continuous-time case follows from Proposition \[p2.3\], [@tweedie Theorem 5.1] and [@bjoern Theorem 4.2]. Now, the characterization by sample paths easily follows from the 0-1 property and [@meyntweedie Theorem 3.3].
As already mentioned, the stable-like chains ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ (the chains given by (\[eq:1.1\]) and (\[eq:1.2\])) are $\lambda$-irreducible and, by [@ja Proposition 5.2], the stable-like chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is a T-model. In the following proposition we give sufficient conditions for the stable-like chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ to be a T-model.
\[p2.5\]Let $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ be continuous functions. Then the stable-like chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is a T-model. In particular, ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is H-recurrent if and only if it is recurrent.
Let us define $a(\cdot):=\delta_1(\cdot)$ and $T(x,B):=p(x,B)$ for $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$. We prove that the function $x\longmapsto T(x,B)$ is lower semicontinuous for every $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}).$ Let $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ be arbitrary and such that $\lambda(B)<\infty$. By the dominated convergence theorem and continuity of the functions $\alpha(x)$ and $\gamma(x)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{y\longrightarrow x}p(y,B)&=\lim_{y\longrightarrow
x}\int_Bf_{(\alpha(y),\gamma(y))}(z-y)dz\\&=(2\pi)^{-1}\lim_{y\longrightarrow
x}\int_{B}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\cos (\xi(z-y))
e^{-\gamma(y)|\xi|^{\alpha(y)}}d\xi dz\\&=\int_{B}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\cos
(\xi(z-x)) e^{-\gamma(x)|\xi|^{\alpha(x)}}d\xi
dz\\&=p(x,B).\end{aligned}$$ Let $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ be arbitrary, then, by Fatou’s lemma, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.2}\liminf_{y\longrightarrow
x}p(y,B)=&\liminf_{y\longrightarrow x}\sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}p(y,B\cap(
n,n+1]) \geq \sum_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}p(x,B\cap( n,n+1])=p(x,B).\end{aligned}$$
Recall that a Markov model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is said to satisfy the *$C_b$-Feller property* if for all $f\in C_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ and all $t\in\mathbb{T}$ the function $x\longmapsto\int_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}p^{t}(x,dy)f(y)$ is in the space $C_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$. Furthermore, a Markov model $\{Y_t\}_{t\in\mathbb{T}}$ is said to satisfy the *strong Feller property* if for all $f\in B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ and all $t\in\mathbb{T}\setminus\{0\}$ the function $x\longmapsto\int_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}p^{t}(x,dy)f(y)$ is in the space $C_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$. In [@meyn Proposition 6.1.1] it is shown that the $C_b$-Feller property (respectively the strong Feller property) of a Markov model is equivalent with the lower semicontinuity of the function $x\longmapsto p^{t}(x,O)$ (respectively the function $x\longmapsto
p^{t}(x,B)$) for all open sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ (respectively all Borel sets $B\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$) and all $t\in\mathbb{T}\setminus\{0\}$. Note that (\[eq:2.2\]) reads that the stable-like chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ satisfies the $C_b$-Feller property and the strong Feller property.
Unfortunately, the stable-like chain ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ (the chain given by (\[eq:1.3\])) does not satisfy the $C_b$-Feller property and the strong Feller property ($\liminf_{y\longrightarrow0} p(y,O)\geq p(0,O)$ does not hold for some open sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$). We introduce its “continuous" and in the recurrence and transience sense equivalent version: Let $k>0$ be arbitrary and let ${\{\bar{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be the stable-like Markov chain defined by transition densities with following characteristic functions $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\varphi}(x;\xi)=
\exp(-\bar{\gamma}(x)|\xi|^{\bar{\alpha}(x)}),\end{aligned}$$ where functions $\bar{\alpha}:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $\bar{\gamma}:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ are continuous functions such that $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\alpha}(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha, & x<-k \\
\beta, & x>k
\end{array}\right. \quad \textrm{and}\quad \bar{\gamma}(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma, & x<-k \\
\delta,&
x>k.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$
\[p2.6\] The stable-like chain ${\{\bar{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent if and only if the stable-like chain ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent.
By [@ja Propostion 5.4], it suffices to prove that condition (C5) holds, i.e., that there exists $l
> 0$ such that for all compact sets $C\subseteq[-l, l]^{c}$ with $\lambda(C) > 0,$ we have $$\inf_{x\in[-k,k]}\int_{C-x}f_{(\bar{\alpha}(x),\bar{\gamma}(x))}(dy)>0.$$ Let us take $l=k$. Without loss of generality, let $C\subseteq(
k,\infty)$ be a compact set with $\lambda(C) > 0$. Then by symmetry and bell-shaped property of densities $f_{(\bar{\alpha}(x),\bar{\gamma}(x))}(y)$ (see [@gawronski Theorem 1]), we have $$\inf_{x\in[-k,k]}\int_{C-x}f_{(\bar{\alpha}(x),\bar{\gamma}(x))}(y)dy\geq
\inf_{x\in[-k,k]}\int_{C+k}f_{(\bar{\alpha}(x),\bar{\gamma}(x))}(y)dy.$$ Let us assume that $\inf_{x\in[-k,k]}\int_{C-x}f_{(\bar{\alpha}(x),\bar{\gamma}(x))}(y)dy=0$. Then there exists a sequence $\{x_n\}_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}\subseteq[-k,k]$, such that $\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}x_n=x_0\in[-k,k]$ and $$\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\int_{C+k}f_{(\bar{\alpha}(x_n),\bar{\gamma}(x_n))}(y)dy=(2\pi)^{-1}\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\int_{C+k}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\cos (\xi y) e^{-\bar{\gamma}(x_n)|\xi|^{\bar{\alpha}(x_n)}}d\xi dy=0.$$ Now, by the dominated convergence theorem and continuity of the functions $\bar{\alpha}(x)$ and $\bar{\gamma}(x)$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
0&=(2\pi)^{-1}\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\int_{C+k}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\cos
(\xi y)e^{-\bar{\gamma}(x_n)|\xi|^{\bar{\alpha}(x_n)}}d\xi dy\\
&=(2\pi)^{-1}\int_{C+k}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\cos (\xi y)
e^{-\bar{\gamma}(x_0)|t|^{\bar{\alpha}(x_0)}}d\xi dy=
\int_{C+k}f_{(\bar{\alpha}(x_0),\bar{\gamma}(x_0))}(y)dy.\end{aligned}$$ This is impossible since $\lambda(C)>0$.
For a Markov process ${\{Y_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ we define a family of operators ${\{P_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ on $B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ by $P_tf(x):= \mathbb{E}^{x}(f(Y_t))$. Since ${\{Y_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is a Markov process, the family ${\{P_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ forms a *semigroup* of linear operators on $(B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}),||\cdot||_\infty)$, i.e., $P_t\circ P_s=P_{t+s}$ and $P_0=I$. Furthermore, the semigroup ${\{P_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is *contractive* ($||P_tf||_{\infty}\leq||f||_{\infty}$ for all $f\in B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$) and *positivity preserving* ($P_tf\geq 0$ whenever $f\geq0$, $f\in B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$). The process ${\{Y_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is said to be a $C_0$-*Feller process* if the semigroup ${\{P_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ forms a *Feller semigroup*. This means that:
1. the family ${\{P_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is a semigroup of linear operators on the space $C_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$;
2. the family ${\{P_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is *strongly continuous*, i.e., $\lim_{t\longrightarrow0}||P_tf-f||_{\infty}=0$.
The *infinitesimal generator* $\mathcal{A}$ of the semigroup ${\{P_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is defined by $$\mathcal{A}f:=
\lim_{t\longrightarrow0}\frac{P_tf-f}{t}$$ on $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{A}}:=\{f\in B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}):
\lim_{t\longrightarrow0}\frac{P_t f-f}{t} \quad \textrm{exists in
supnorm}\}$. If the set of smooth functions with compact support $C_c^{\infty}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ is contained in $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{A}}$ and $\mathcal{A}(C_c^{\infty}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))\subseteq C({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, then $\mathcal{A}|_{C_c^{\infty}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})}$ is a *pseudo-differential operator*, i.e., it can be written in the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1}\mathcal{A}|_{C_c^{\infty}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})}f(x) = -\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}p(x,\xi)e^{ix\xi}
\widehat{f}(\xi) d\xi,\end{aligned}$$ where $\widehat{f}(\xi)=
(2\pi)^{-1} \int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}} e^{-ix\xi} f(x) dx$ is the Fourier transform of $f(x)$ (see [@courege Theorem 3.4]). The function $p :
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\times {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ is called the *symbol* of the pseudo-differential operator. It is measurable and locally bounded in $(x,\xi)$ and continuous and negative definite as a function of $\xi$. Hence, by [@jacobI Theorem 3.7.7], $\xi\longmapsto
p(x,\xi)$ has for each $x$ the Lévy-Khinchine representation, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2}p(x,\xi) =a(x)- ib(x)\xi +
\frac{1}{2}c(x)\xi^{2} -
\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\left(e^{iy\xi}-1-iy\xi1_{\{z:|z|\leq1\}}(y)\right)\nu(x,dy),\end{aligned}$$ where $a(x)\geq0$, $b(x)\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $c(x)\geq0$ are Borel measurable functions and $\nu(x,\cdot)$ is a Borel kernel on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\times
\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, such that $\nu(x,\{0\})=0$ and $\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}(1\wedge
y^{2})\nu(x,dy)<\infty$ holds for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. The quadruple $(a(x),b(x),c(x),\nu(x,\cdot))$ is called the *Lévy-quadruple* of the pseudo-differential operator $\mathcal{A}|_{C_c^{\infty}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})}$. In the following we assume, without loss of generality, that every Feller process has càdlàg paths (see [@revuzyor Theorem III.2.7]).
\[p2.7\]Let $a\neq0$ be arbitrary and let ${\{N^{\kappa}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ be the Poisson process with parameter $\kappa>0$ independent of a Markov chain ${\{Y_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))$. Then the process ${\{Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$, defined by $Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t:=aY_{N^{\kappa}_t}$, is
1. \[(i)\] a strong Markov process with the strongly continuous semigroup ${\{P^{(a,\kappa)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ and the infinitesimal generator $$\mathcal{A}^{(a,\kappa)}f(x)=\kappa\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}(f(y)-f(x))p\left(a^{-1}x,a^{-1}dy\right)$$ with the domain $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{A}^{(a,\kappa)}}=B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{d});$
2. $\lambda$-irreducible and recurrent (respectively H-recurrent) if and only if the chain ${\{Y_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is $\lambda$-irreducible and recurrent (respectively H-recurrent).
- First, note that if ${\{Y_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is a Markov chain with respect to the family of probability measures $\{\mathbb{P}^{x}\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}^{d}}$, then ${\{aY_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is a Markov chain with respect to the family of probability measures $\{\mathbb{Q}^{x}:=\mathbb{P}^{a^{-1}x}\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$. Hence, the process ${\{Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is a strong Markov process. Clearly, its transition kernel is given by $$p^{t}(x,dy)=e^{-\kappa
t}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(\kappa
t)^{n}}{n!}p^{n}\left(a^{-1}x,a^{-1}dy\right).$$ Now, the claim easily follows.
- The equivalence of $\lambda$-irreducibility and recurrence between the process ${\{Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ and the chain ${\{Y_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ easily follows from the definition and the fact that the exponential distribution has finite all moments. In the case of H-recurrence we have $$L^{(a,\kappa)}(x,B)=\mathbb{Q}^{x}(\tau^{(a,\kappa)}_B<\infty)=\mathbb{P}^{a^{-1}x}(\tau_{a^{-1}B}<\infty)=L(a^{-1}x,a^{-1}B).$$ Hence, the process ${\{Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is H-recurrent if and only if the chain ${\{Y_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is H-recurrent.
It is natural to expect that if the functions $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ are continuous, the process ${\{Y^{\alpha(x)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}:=\{aX^{\alpha(x)}_{N^{\kappa}_t}\}_{t\geq0}$ is a $C_0$-Feller process. We need the following lemma.
\[l2.8\]Let $0<\varepsilon<2$ and $C>0$ be arbitrary, and let $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(\varepsilon,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,C)$ be arbitrary functions. Furthermore, let $\{f_{(\alpha(x),\gamma(x))}\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be a family of S$\alpha(x)$S densities given by the following characteristic functions $\varphi(x;\xi)=
\exp(-\gamma(x)|\xi|^{\alpha(x)}).$ Then the following uniformity condition holds $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.3}\lim_{b\longrightarrow\infty}\sup_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\int_b^{\infty}f_{(\alpha(x),\gamma(x))}(y)dy=0.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{|y|\longrightarrow\infty}\sup_{\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\,\alpha(x)<1\}}\left|f_{(\alpha(x),\gamma(x))}(y)\frac{|y|^{\alpha(x)+1}}{c(x)}-1\right|=0,\end{aligned}$$ where $$c(x)=\frac{\gamma(x)}{\pi}\Gamma(\alpha(x)+1)\sin\left(\frac{\pi\alpha(x)}{2}\right).$$
Let $0<\rho<\varepsilon$ be arbitrary and let $\{Z_x\}_{x\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be a family of random variables with S$\alpha(x)$S distributions with densities $\{f_{(\alpha(x),\gamma(x))}\}_{x\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$. Then we have $$\sup_{x\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\int_b^{\infty}f_{(\alpha(x),\gamma(x))}(y)dy=\sup_{x\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\mathbb{P}(Z_x\geq b)\leq\sup_{x\in
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\mathbb{P}(|Z_x|\geq b)\leq\frac{1}{b^{\rho}}\sup_{x\in
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\mathbb{E}|Z_x|^{\rho}.$$ Since $\sup_{x\in
{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\mathbb{E}|Z_x|^{\rho}$ is finite (see [@sato page 163]), the first claim easily follows.
To prove the second part of lemma we use [@zolotarev Theorem 2.4.2]. Since $\alpha(x)<1$, for $|y|\geq1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|f_{(\alpha(x),\gamma(x))}(y)\frac{|y|^{\alpha(x)+1}}{c(x)}-1\right|\\
&=\frac{1}{\Gamma(\alpha(x)+1)\sin\left(\frac{\pi\alpha(x)}{2}\right)}\left|\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}(-1)^{n+1}\frac{\Gamma(n\alpha(x)+1)}{n!}\sin\left(\frac{n\pi\alpha(x)}{2}\right)\left(\frac{\gamma(x)}{|y|^{\alpha(x)}}\right)^{n-1}\right|\\
&\leq\frac{1}{\Gamma(\varepsilon+1)\sin\left(\frac{\pi\varepsilon}{2}\right)}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{C}{|y|^{\varepsilon}}\right)^{n}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, by taking $\sup_{\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\,\alpha(x)<1\}}$ and letting $|y|\longrightarrow\infty$, we get the desired result.
\[p2.9\]Let $0<\varepsilon<2$ and $C>0$ be arbitrary, let $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(\varepsilon,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,C)$ be continuous functions. Furthermore, let $a\neq0$ be arbitrary and let ${\{N^{\kappa}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ be the Poisson process with parameter $\kappa>0$ independent of the stable-like chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ (the chain given by (\[eq:1.2\])). Then the process ${\{Y^{\alpha(x)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}:=\{aX^{\alpha(x)}_{N^{\kappa}_t}\}_{t\geq0}$ is
1. a $C_0$-Feller process with the symbol $$p(x,\xi)=a^{-1}\kappa\left(1-\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}e^{i\xi y}f_{(\alpha(a^{-1}x),\gamma(a^{-1}x))}(a^{-1}y)dy\right)$$ and the Lévy quadruple $(0,0,0,a^{-1}\kappa
f_{(\alpha(a^{-1}x),\gamma(a^{-1}x))}(a^{-1}y)dy),$ and it satisfies the $C_b$-Feller property and the strong Feller property;
2. a T-model.
By Proposition \[p2.7\], the semigroup of the process ${\{Y^{\alpha(x)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is given by $$P^{\alpha(x)}_tf(x)=e^{-\kappa
t}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(\kappa
t)^{n}}{n!}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}p^{n}\left(a^{-1}x,a^{-1}dy\right)f(y),$$ for $f\in
B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, and the generator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3}\mathcal{A}^{\alpha(x)}f(x)=a^{-1}\kappa\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}(f(y+x)-f(x))f_{(\alpha(a^{-1}x),\gamma(a^{-1}x))}(a^{-1}y)dy\end{aligned}$$ with the domain $\mathcal{D}_{\mathcal{A}^{\alpha(x)}}=B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}).$ Furthermore, it is shown that the semigroup is strongly continuous.
1. The $C_b$-Feller property easily follows from (\[eq:2.2\]) and Fatou’s lemma. Now, let us show that $P^{\alpha(x)}_t(C_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))\subseteq C_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ for all $t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$. For $f\in C_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, by the $C_b$-Feller property, $P^{\alpha(x)}_tf\in C_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ for all $t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$. Next we show that $P^{\alpha(x)}_tf(x)$ vanishes at infinity for all $f\in
C_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ and all $t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$. Let $f\in C_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ and $\epsilon>0$ be arbitrary such that $||f||_\infty\leq M$, for some $M\geq0$. Since $C_c({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ is dense in $(C_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}),||\cdot||_\infty)$, there exists $f_\epsilon\in C_c({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ such that $||f-f_\varepsilon||_\infty<\epsilon$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\int_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}p(a^{-1}x,a^{-1}dy)f(y)\right|&\leq\int_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}p(a^{-1}x,a^{-1}dy)|f(y)|<\int_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}p(a^{-1}x,a^{-1}dy)|f_\epsilon(y)|+\epsilon\\&=a^{-1}\int_{\rm{supp}\,\it{f}_\epsilon-x}f_{\alpha(a^{-1}x),\gamma(a^{-1}x))}(a^{-1}y)|
f_\epsilon(y+x)|dy+\epsilon\\&\leq
a^{-1}(M+\epsilon)\int_{\rm{supp}\,\it{f}_\epsilon-x}f_{\alpha(a^{-1}x),\gamma(a^{-1}x))}(a^{-1}y)dy+\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ Since $\rm{supp}\,\it{f}_\epsilon$ is a compact set, by applying Lemma \[l2.8\], the function $x\longmapsto\int_{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}p(a^{-1}x,a^{-1}dy)f(y)$ is a $C_0({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ function. Thus, by the dominated convergence theorem we have the claim, i.e., the process ${\{Y^{\alpha(x)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is a $C_0$-Feller process.
The second part of the proposition easily follows from the relations (\[eq:1\]), (\[eq:2\]) and (\[eq:3\]), and the strong Feller property follows from [@rene-wang-feller Theorem 1.1]
2. The claim follows from [@tweedie Theorem 7.1].
Let us recall the notion of characteristics of a semimartingale (see [@jacod] or [@schnurr]). Let $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},{\{F_t\}_{t\geq0}},\mathbb{P},{\{S_t\}_{t\geq0}})$, ${\{S_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ in the sequel, be a semimatingale and let $h:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ be a truncation function (i.e., a continuous bounded function such that $h(x)=x$ in a neighborhood of the origin). We define two processes $$\check{S}(h)_t:=\sum_{s\leq t}(\Delta S_s-h(\Delta S_s))\quad
\textrm{and} \quad S(h)_t:=S_t-\check{S}(h)_t,$$ where the process ${\{\Delta S_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is defined by $\Delta S_t:=S_t-S_{t-}$ and $\Delta S_0:=S_0$. The process ${\{S(h)_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is a special semimartingale. Hence, it admits the unique decomposition $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2.4}S(h)_t=S_0+M(h)_t+B(h)_t,\end{aligned}$$ where ${\{M(h)_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is a local martingale and ${\{B(h)_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is a predictable process of bounded variation.
Let ${\{S_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ be a semimartingale and let $h:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ be the truncation function. Furthermore, let ${\{B(h)_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ be the predictable process of bounded variation appearing in (\[eq:2.4\]), let $N(\omega,ds,dy)$ be the compensator of the jump measure $$\mu(\omega,ds,dy)=\sum_{s:\Delta S_s(\omega)\neq 0}\delta_{(s,\Delta S_s(\omega))}(ds,dy)$$ of the process ${\{S_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ and let ${\{C_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ be the quadratic co-variation process for ${\{S^{c}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ (continuous martingale part of ${\{S_t\}_{t\geq0}}$), i.e., $$C_t=\langle S^{c}_t,S^{c}_t\rangle.$$ Then $(B,C,N)$ is called the *characteristics* of the semimartingale ${\{S_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ (relative to $h(x)$). If we put $\tilde{C}(h)_t:=\langle
M(h)_t,M(h)_t\rangle$, where ${\{M(h)_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is the local martingale appearing in (\[eq:2.4\]), then $(B,\tilde{C},N)$ is called the *modified characteristics* of the semimartingale ${\{S_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ (relative to $h(x)$).
\[p2.11\] Let $a\neq0$ be arbitrary and let $\{f_x\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be a family of probability densities on the real line such that $x\longmapsto
f_x(y)$ is a Borel measurable function for all $y\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Let ${\{Y_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be a Markov chain on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))$, with respect to the filtration ${\{\mathcal{F}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$, given by the transition kernel $p(x,dy):=f_x(y-x)dy$. Furthermore, let ${\{Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ be the process defined by $Y^{\kappa}_t:=aY_{N^{\kappa}_t},$ where ${\{N^{\kappa}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is the Poisson process, with respect to the filtration ${\{\mathcal{G}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$, with parameter $\kappa>0$ independent of the chain ${\{Y_n\}_{n\geq0}}.$ Then the process ${\{Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is a semimartingale with respect to the filtration $\{\sigma\{\mathcal{F}_\infty\cup\mathcal{G}_t\}\}_{t\geq0}$, where $\mathcal{F}_{\infty}=\bigcup_{n=0}^{\infty}\mathcal{F}_n$, and its characteristics and the modified characteristics, relative to the truncation function $h(x)$, are given by: $$\begin{aligned}
B^{(a,\kappa)}_t&=a^{-1}\kappa\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}h(y)f_{Y_{N^{\kappa}_{s}}}(a^{-1}y)dyds,\\
C^{(a,\kappa)}_t&=0,\\
\tilde{C}^{(a,\kappa)}_t&= a^{-1}\kappa\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}h^{2}(y)f_{Y_{N^{\kappa}_{s}}}(a^{-1}y)dyds\quad and \\
N^{(a,\kappa)}(ds,dy)&=a^{-1}\kappa
f_{Y_{N^{\kappa}_{s}}}(a^{-1}y)dyds.\end{aligned}$$
Clearly, the process ${\{Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is a semimartingale. By Proposition \[p2.7\], the infinitesimal generator of the process ${\{Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ is given by $\mathcal{A}^{(a,\kappa)}f(x)=a^{-1}\kappa\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}(f(y+x)-f(x))f_{a^{-1}x}(a^{-1}y)dy,$ $f\in B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$. Furthermore, by [@ethier Poposition IV.1.7], for every $f\in B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ the process $$M^{f}_t:=f(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t)-f(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_0)-\int_0^{t}\mathcal{A}^{(a,\kappa)}f(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_{s-})ds$$ is a martingale. Let $h(x)$ be the truncation function and let $f\in
C_b^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$. Then ${\{M^{f}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ can be rewritten in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
M^{f}_t&=f(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t)-f(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_0)-a^{-1}\kappa\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\left(f(y+Y^{(a,\kappa)}_{s-})-f(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_{s-})\right)f_{Y_{N^{\kappa}_{s-}}}(a^{-1}y)dyds\\
&=f(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_t)-f(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_0)-a^{-1}\kappa\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}f'(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_{s-})h(y)f_{Y_{N^{\kappa}_{s-}}}(a^{-1}y)dyds\\
&\ \ \ \
-a^{-1}\kappa\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\left(f(y+Y^{(a,\kappa)}_{s-})-f(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_{s-})-f'(Y^{(a,\kappa)}_{s-})h(y)\right)f_{Y_{N^{\kappa}_{s-}}}(a^{-1}y)dyds.\end{aligned}$$ Now, from [@jacod Proposition II.2.17 and Theorem II.2.42], the claim follows.
We refer the reader to [@jacod; @schilling; @schnurr] for more details about characteristics of a semimartingale and connection with Feller processes.
As we know, the recurrence property of S$\alpha$S random walk, given by the characteristic function $\varphi(\xi)=\exp(-\gamma|\xi|^{\alpha})$, depends only on the index of stability $\alpha\in(0,2]$ and it does not depend on the scaling constant $\gamma\in(0,\infty)$. In the following proposition we show that this is also the case with the stable-like chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ (the chain given by (\[eq:1.2\])).
\[p2.13\] Let ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be the stable-like chain defined in Proposition \[p2.9\]. Furthermore, let $c>0$ be arbitrary and let ${\{X^{(\alpha(x),c)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be the stable-like chain which we get by replacing the scaling function $\gamma(x)$ by the scaling function $c\gamma(x)$. Then the stable-like chain ${\{X^{(\alpha(x),c)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent if and only if the stable-like chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent.
Let ${\{N^{1}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ be the Poisson process with parameter $1$ independent of the stable-like chain ${\{X^{(\alpha(x),c)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$. Let us define the process $\textbf{X}^{c}={\{X^{c}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ by $X^{c}_t:=X^{(\alpha(x),c)}_{N_t}.$ By Proposition \[p2.11\], the process $\textbf{X}^{c}$ has the modified characteristics (relative to the truncation function $h(x)$) given by: $$\begin{aligned}
B^{c}_t&=\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\setminus\{0\}}h(y)f_{(\alpha(X^{c}_{s}),c\gamma(X^{c}_{s}))}(y)dyds,\\
C^{c}_t&=0,\\
\tilde{C}^{c}_t&= \int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\setminus\{0\}}h^{2}(y)f_{(\alpha(X^{c}_{s}),c\gamma(X^{c}_{s}))}(y)dyds\quad and \\
N^{c}(ds,dy)&= f_{(\alpha(X^{c}_{s}),c\gamma(X^{c}_{s}))}(y)dyds.\end{aligned}$$
Let $c_0>0$ be arbitrary and fixed and let us show that $$\textbf{X}^{c}\stackrel{\hbox{\scriptsize d}}{\longrightarrow}
\textbf{X}^{c_0},\ \ \textrm{when}\ \ c\longrightarrow c_0,$$ where $\stackrel{\hbox{\scriptsize d}}{\longrightarrow}$ denotes the convergence in the space of càdlàg functions equipped with the Skorohod topology. We only have to check assumptions 4.3, 4.7, 4.9, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 from [@jacod Theorem IX.4.8]. Assumptions 4.3, 4.7, 4.10 and 4.12 can be easily verified by use of [@durrett Theorem 3.3.5], continuity assumption of the functions $\alpha(x)$ and $\gamma(x)$, the dominated convergence theorem and Propositions \[p2.9\] and \[p2.11\], while assumption 4.9 follows from Lemma \[l2.8\]. To verify assumption 4.11 we have to show that $$\lim_{c\longrightarrow
c_0}\sup_{x\in[a,b]}\left|\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}g(y)\left(f_{(\alpha(x),c_0\gamma(x))}(y)-f_{(\alpha(x),c\gamma(x))}(y)\right)dy\right|=0$$ holds for all $g\in C_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ and all $[a,b]\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}.$ If that would not be the case, then there would exist $g\in C_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, $[a,b]\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, $\delta>0$ and sequences $\{c_n\}_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$ and $\{x_n\}_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}\subseteq[a,b]$ with limits $c_0$ and $x_0\in[a,b],$ respectively, such that \[eq:2.8\]|\_[[$\mathbb{R}$]{}]{}g(y)(f\_[((x\_n),c\_0(x\_n))]{}(y)-f\_[((x\_n),c\_n(x\_n))]{}(y))dy|>holds for all $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$. Let $M\geq0$ be such that $||g(x)||_{\infty}\leq M$ and let $R>0$ be arbitrary. We have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\left|\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}g(y)\left(f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_0\gamma(x_n))}(y)-f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_n\gamma(x_n))}(y)\right)dy\right|\nonumber\\
&&\begin{split}\leq&\left|\int_{-R}^{R}g(y)\left(f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_0\gamma(x_n))}(y)-f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_n\gamma(x_n))}(y)\right)dy\right|\\&+\left|\int_{|y|\geq
R}g(y)\left(f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_0\gamma(x_n))}(y)-f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_n\gamma(x_n))}(y)\right)dy\right|.\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ From continuity of the functions $\alpha(x)$ and $\gamma(x)$ and from [@ushakov Corollary 1.2.4], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\left|\int_{-R}^{R}g(y)\left(f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_0\gamma(x_n))}(y)-f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_n\gamma(x_n))}(y)\right)dy\right|=0.\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, by Lemma \[l2.8\] we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\lim_{R\longrightarrow\infty}\sup_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}\left|\int_{|y|\geq
R}g(y)\left(f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_0\gamma(x_n))}(y)-f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_n\gamma(x_n))}(y)\right)dy\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq M\lim_{R\longrightarrow\infty}\sup_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}\int_{|y|\geq
R}f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_0\gamma(x_n))}(y)+M\lim_{R\longrightarrow\infty}\sup_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}\int_{|y|\geq
R}f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_n\gamma(x_n))}(y)=0.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, $$\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\left|\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}g(y)\left(f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_0\gamma(x_n))}(y)-f_{(\alpha(x_n),c_n\gamma(x_n))}(y)\right)dy\right|=0,$$ what is in contradiction with (\[eq:2.8\]). The locally uniform convergence of the other two characteristics easily follows from [@durrett Theorem 3.3.5], the continuity assumption of the functions $\alpha(x)$ and $\gamma(x)$ and the dominated convergence theorem.
Let $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ be arbitrary and let $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ be an arbitrary open bounded set. Since the process $\textbf{X}^{c_0}$ satisfies the $C_b$-Feller property, by [@franke Lemmas 2 and 3], we have $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{c_0}}(\partial R(O))=0.$ Here $\partial A$ denotes the boundary of the set $A$. Therefore, by [@bil Theorem 2.1], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{c\longrightarrow c_0}\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{c}}(R(O))=\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{c_0}}(R(O))\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and for all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Hence, for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, the function $$c\longmapsto
\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{c}}(R(O))$$ is a continuous function on $(0,\infty)$. Note that (\[eq:2.1\]) is satisfied if for the distribution $a_C(\cdot)$ we take $a_C(\cdot):=\delta_{t_0}(\cdot)$, where $t_0>0$ is arbitrary. Since the processes $\textbf{X}^{c}$ are $\lambda$-irreducible T-models, by Proposition \[p2.4\], $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{c}}(R(O))=1$ for all $c\in(0,\infty)$, all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, or $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{c}}(R(O))=0$ for all $c\in(0,\infty)$, all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. This means, again by Proposition \[p2.4\], that all processes $\textbf{Y}^{c}$, $c\in(0,\infty)$, are either recurrent or transient at the same time. Now, by Proposition \[p2.7\], the desired result follows.
Proof of Theorem 1.1
====================
In this section we give a proof of Theorem \[tm1.1\]. Let the function $p : {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\times {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ be given by $p(x,\xi)=\gamma(x)|\xi|^{\alpha(x)}$, for some functions $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$. In [@bass] it is shown that if the functions $\alpha(x)$ and $\gamma(x)$ satisfy:
1. $0<\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\leq\sup_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)<2$ and $0<\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\gamma(x)\leq\sup_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\gamma(x)<\infty$,
2. $\beta(z)=o(1/|\ln(z)|),$ when $z\longrightarrow0$, where $\beta(z):=\sup_{|x-y|\leq
z}|\alpha(x)-\alpha(y)|$,
3. $\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\beta(z)}{z}dz<\infty,$ i.e., the function $\alpha(x)$ is Dini continuous and
4. $\gamma\in C({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$,
then the function (symbol) $p(x,\xi)=\gamma(x)|\xi|^{\alpha(x)}$ defines $C_b$-Feller process on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))$ called a *stable-like process*. Note that if the function $\alpha(x)$ is Lipschitz continuous, i.e., if there exists $L>0$, such that $|\alpha(x)-\alpha(y)|\leq L|x-y|$ holds for all $x,y\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, then it is also Dini continuous and condition (ii) is satisfied. Write $C^{1}_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ for the set of bounded continuously differentiable functions with bounded derivative. Clearly, $\alpha\in C_b^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ implies Lipschitz continuity of $\alpha(x)$. Furthermore, by [@rene-wang-feller Theorems 1.1 and 3.3], $\alpha,\gamma\in C_b^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ imply that the corresponding stable-like process is a $C_0$-Feller process and it satisfies the $C_b$-Feller property and the strong Feller property.
Let $k>0$ be arbitrary and let $\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}={\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ be the stable-like process on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ which corresponds to the symbol $p(x,\xi)=\gamma(x)|\xi|^{\alpha(x)}$, where the functions $\alpha,\gamma \in C_b^{1}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ are such that $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha, & x<-k \\
\beta, & x>k
\end{array}\right. \quad \textrm{and}\quad \gamma(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\gamma, & x<-k \\
\delta,&
x>k.
\end{array}\right.\end{aligned}$$ By [@kolokoltsov Theorem 5.1], transition kernel $\mathbb{P}^{x}(X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_t\in dy)$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure, and by [@rene-wang-feller Theorem 3.3], $\mathbb{P}^{x}(X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_t\in B)>0$ holds for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, all $t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$ and all $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ with $\lambda(B)>0$. Therefore, the stable-like process $\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ is $\lambda-$irreducible and, by [@tweedie Theorem 7.1], it is a T-model. Hence, from [@bjoern Theorem 4.2], H-recurrence and recurrence properties of the stable-like process $\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ are equivalent. Furthermore, from [@bjoern Corollary 5.5], the stable-like process $\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ is recurrent if and only if $\alpha+\beta\geq2$.
By [@bjoernschilling], the stable-like process $\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ can be approximated by a sequence of Markov chains, i.e., for a sequence of Markov chains $\{X^{(m)}_n\}_{n\geq0}$, $m\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, on $({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}},\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}))$ given by a sequence of transition kernels $p_m(x,dy)$, $m\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, such that $$\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}e^{i\xi y}p_m(x,dy)=e^{i\xi x-\frac{1}{m}\eta(x,\xi)}=e^{i\xi x-\frac{\gamma(x)}{m}|\xi|^{\alpha(x)}},$$ we have that $$\textbf{X}^{(m)}\stackrel{\hbox{\scriptsize
d}}{\longrightarrow} \textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)},\ \ \textrm{as}\ \
m\longrightarrow\infty,$$ where $\textbf{X}^{(m)}=\{X^{(m)}_{\lfloor
mt\rfloor}\}_{t\geq0}$. Again, $\stackrel{\hbox{\scriptsize
d}}{\longrightarrow}$ denotes convergence in distribution in the space of càdlàg functions equipped with the Skorohod topology. By Proposition \[p2.13\], the chains $\{X^{(m)}_n\}_{n\geq0}$, $m\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, are either recurrent or transient at the same time. Hence, the rest of proof is devoted to prove that this dichotomy is equivalent with the recurrence-transience dichotomy of the stable like process $\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$.
Since the stable-like process $\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ is a $C_b$-Feller process, by [@franke Lemmas 2 and 3] we have $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}}(\partial R(O))=0$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Therefore, by [@bil Theorem 2.1], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:3.1}\lim_{m\longrightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{(m)}}(R(O))=\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}}(R(O))\end{aligned}$$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and for all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
Let us assume that $\alpha+\beta\geq2$. Hence, the stable-like process $\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ is recurrent. Note that assumption (\[eq:2.1\]) follows if for the distribution $a_C(\cdot)$ we take $a_C(\cdot):=\delta_{t_0}(\cdot),$ where $t_0>0$ is arbitrary, and apply the strong Feller property. Hence, by the 0-1 property (Proposition \[p2.4\]) $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}}(R(O))=1$ holds for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. From (\[eq:3.1\]), for any starting point $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and any open bounded set $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ there exists $m_0\geq1$ such that $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{(m_0)}}(R(O))>0$, i.e., $\mathbb{P}^{x}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}1_{\{X^{(m_0)}_n\in
O\}}=\infty\right)>0.$ But, since the stable-like chain $\{X^{(m_0)}_n\}_{n\geq0}$ is $\lambda-$irreducible T-model, by 0-1 property, $$\mathbb{P}^{x}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}1_{\{X^{(m_0)}_n\in
O\}}=\infty\right)=1$$ holds for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, i.e., the stable like chain $\{X^{(m_0)}_n\}_{n\geq0}$ is recurrent. Now, by applying Proposition \[p2.13\], all stable-like chains $\{X^{(m)}_n\}_{n\geq0}$, $m\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, are recurrent. Therefore, since $\{\bar{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}\stackrel{\hbox{\scriptsize
d}}{=}\{X^{(1)}_n\}_{n\geq0}$ (recall that the stable-like chain $\{\bar{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}$ is defined in Proposition \[p2.6\]), by Propositions \[p2.6\] the stable-like chain ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent.
Let us now show that the recurrence property of the stable-like chain ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ implies $\alpha+\beta\geq2.$ Let us assume that this is not the case, i.e., let us assume that $\alpha+\beta<2$. Hence, the stable-like process $\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}$ is transient, i.e., $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}}(T(O))=1$ holds for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Now, by (\[eq:3.1\]), we have $$\lim_{m\longrightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{(m)}}(T(O))=
\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}}(T(O))=1.$$ Hence, for any starting point $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and any open bounded set $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, there exists $m_0\geq1$ such that $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{X}^{(m_0)}}(T(O))>0$. Therefore, $\mathbb{P}^{x}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}1_{\{X^{(m_0)}_n\in
O\}}=\infty\right)<1.$ Again, by the 0-1 property, we have $$\mathbb{P}^{x}\left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}1_{\{X^{(m_0)}_n\in
O\}}=\infty\right)=0$$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Hence, the stable like chain $\{X^{(m_0)}\}_{n\geq0}$ is transient. Therefore, by Proposition \[p2.13\], all the stable-like chains $\{X^{(m)}_n\}_{n\geq0}$, $m\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, are transient. Since $\{\bar{X}^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}\stackrel{\hbox{\scriptsize
d}}{=}\{X^{(1)}_n\}_{n\geq0}$, by Proposition \[p2.6\], the stable-like chain ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is also transient. But this is in contradiction with recurrence assumption of the stable-like chain ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$. Hence, we have proved the desired result.
Proof of Theorem 1.2
====================
In this section we give a proof of Theorem \[tm1.2\]. Recall that the functions $x\longmapsto f_x$, $\alpha(x)$ and $c(x)$ are $\tau$-periodic, the function $(x,y)\longmapsto f_x(y)$ is continuous and strictly positive and $\alpha(x)$ and $c(x)$ are Borel measurable. Let us put $\Lambda:=\tau{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and let $\Pi_{\Lambda} : {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda$ be the covering map. We denote by ${\{X^{\Lambda p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ the process on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda$ obtained by projection of the stable-like chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ (the chain given by (\[eq:1.4\])) with respect to $\Pi_{\Lambda}(x)$. By [@vasili-book Proposition 3.8.8], the process ${\{X^{\Lambda p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is a Markov chain on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda$ with transition density function $$p^{\Lambda}(x,y)=\sum_{k\in\Lambda}p(z_x,z_y+k)=\sum_{k\in\Lambda}f_{z_x}(z_y-z_x+k)$$ for all $x,y\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda$, where $z_x$ and $z_y$ are arbitrary points in $\Pi^{-1}_{\Lambda}(\{x\})$ and $\Pi^{-1}_{\Lambda}(\{y\})$, respectively. Furthermore, by [@benso-lions-book Theorem III.3.1], the chain ${\{X^{\Lambda p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ possesses an invariant measure $\pi(\cdot)$, with $\pi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda)<\infty$, and there exist constants $C>0$ and $c>0$, such that for all $\tau$-periodic functions $f\in B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ we have $$\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}f(z_x)\pi(dx)=0\quad\Longrightarrow\quad
\left|\left|\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}p_n(\cdot,dy)f(y)\right|\right|_{\infty}\leq
C||f||_{\infty}e^{-cn}\quad\textrm{for all}\quad n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}.$$ Since $\pi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda)<\infty$, without loss of generality, we assume that $\pi({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda)=1.$ Following the ideas from the proof of [@franke Theorem 1], we give the proof of Theorem \[tm1.2\].
Let ${\{X^{\Lambda p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be as above. Let us suppose that the set $\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\}$ has positive Lebesgue measure. By $\lambda$-irreducibility of the stable-like chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$, this is equivalent with $\pi(\Pi_{\Lambda}(\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\}))>0$. Indeed, since $\pi(\cdot)$ is the invariant measure of the chain ${\{X^{\Lambda p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$, $$\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}p^{\Lambda}(x,B)\pi(dx)=\pi(B)$$ holds for all $B\in\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda)$, where $\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda)$ denotes the Borel $\sigma$-algebra with respect to the quotient topology. Let us put $A:=\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\}$ and $B:=\Pi_{\Lambda}(A).$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(B)&=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}p^{\Lambda}(x,B)\pi(dx)=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}p(z_x,\Pi_{\Lambda}^{-1}(B))\pi(dx)=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}p(z_x,A)\pi(dx).\end{aligned}$$ Now, if $\lambda(A)>0$, then $p(z_x, A)>0$ for all $z_{x}\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Therefore, $\pi(B)>0$ as well. On the other hand, if $\lambda(A)=0$, then $p(z_x,A)=0$ for all $z_{x}\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Hence, $\pi(B)=0$.
In the sequel (because of $\tau$-periodicity) we use the abbreviation $\alpha(x)$ and $c(x)$, for $\alpha\left(z_x\right)$ and $c\left(z_x\right)$, where $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda$ and $z_x\in\Pi^{-1}_{\Lambda}(\{x\})$ are arbitrary.
Let ${\{N^{1}_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ be the Poisson process with parameter $1$ independent of the periodic stable-like chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and let us define a $\lambda$-irreducible Markov process $\textbf{Y}^{p}:=\{X^{p}_{N_t}\}_{t\geq0}.$ By Proposition \[p2.7\], the semigroup of the process $\textbf{Y}^{p}$ is given by $$P_tf(x)=e^{-t}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{t^{n}}{n!}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}p^{n}(x,dy)f(y)$$ for $f\in B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ and $t\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+$. Hence, for every $\tau$-periodic function $f\in B_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ we have \[eq:4.1\]||P\_tf||\_C||f||\_e\^[-t]{}\_[n=0]{}\^e\^[-cn]{}=C||f||\_e\^[-t(1-e\^[-c]{})]{}.
Let us define the sequence of semimartingales $\textbf{Y}^{p}_{n}:=\{n^{-\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}X^{p}_{N_{nt}}\}$, $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$. Now, we prove that the sequence of processes $\textbf{Y}^{p}_{n}$, $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, converges in distribution to a symmetric $\alpha_0$-stable Lévy process $\textbf{L}={\{L_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ with the modified characteristics (relative to the truncation function $h(x)$) $$\begin{aligned}
B^{0}_t&=\Theta t\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}(h(y)-y1_{|y|\leq1})\frac{dy}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}},\\
\tilde{C}^{0}_t&=\Theta t\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}h^{2}(y)\frac{dy}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}} \quad \textrm{and} \\
N^{0}(ds,dy)&=\Theta\frac{dyds}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}},\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta:=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}1_{\{\alpha(x)=\alpha_0\}}c(x)\pi(dx)$ (see [@schilling Theorem 3.5]). Without loss of generality, we take all the processes $\textbf{Y}^{p}_{n}$, $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, and $\textbf{L}$ to be defined on the same probability spaces $(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\{\mathbb{P}^{x}\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}})$. In order to prove this convergence, by [@jacod Theorem VIII.2.17] it suffices to show that initial distributions of $\textbf{Y}^{p}_{n}$ converge to initial distribution of $\textbf{L}$ (what is trivially satisfied) and the modified characteristics $(B^{n},\widetilde{C}^{n},N^{n})$ of the processes $\textbf{Y}^{p}_{n}$, $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, converge in probability to the modified characteristics $(B^{0},\tilde{C}^{0},N^{0})$, when $n\longrightarrow\infty$. By Proposition \[p2.11\], the modified characteristics $(B^{n},\tilde{C}^{n},N^{n})$ of the process $\textbf{Y}^{p}_{n}$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
B^{n}_t&=n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}h(y)f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)dyds,\\
\tilde{C}^{n}_t&= n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}h^{2}(y)f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)dyds\quad and \\
N^{n}(ds,dy)&=n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{X^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)dyds.\end{aligned}$$Note that (PC4), (\[eq:1.5\]) and $\lambda(\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\})>0$, i.e., $\pi(\Pi_{\Lambda}(\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\}))>0$, imply $0<\Theta<\infty,$ therefore the above $\alpha_0$-stable Lévy process characteristics are well defined.
Recall that for a Borel measurable function $g:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and a random measure $\mu(\omega,ds,dx)$ on $\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}_+)\times\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$, the $\ast$-product is defined by $$g\ast\mu_t(\omega):=\left\{\begin{array}{cc} \int_{[0,t]\times{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}g(x)\mu(\omega,ds,dx), & \int_{[0,t]\times{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}|g(x)|\mu(\omega,ds,dx)<\infty \\
\infty,
& \textrm{otherwise},
\end{array}\right.$$ (see [@jacod Definition II.1.3] for details). Let $g\in C_b({\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}})$ vanish in a neighborhood of the origin. We have $$\begin{aligned}
g\ast N^{n}_t=&\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}g(y)N^{n}(ds,dy)\nonumber\\
=&\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}g(y)n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)dyds\nonumber\\
=&\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}g\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}-\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}}y\right)dyds\nonumber\\
=&\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(X^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}g\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}-\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}}y\right)dyds\nonumber\\
&+\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})>\alpha_0\}}g\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}-\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}}y\right)dyds\nonumber\\
=\label{eq:4.2}&\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}g\left(y\right)\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}dyds\\
&\label{eq:4.3}+\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}g\left(y\right)\left(n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)-\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}\right)dyds\\
&\label{eq:4.4}+\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})>\alpha_0\}}g\left(y\right)n^{1-\frac{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}{\alpha_0}}\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})+1}}dyds\\
&\label{eq:4.5}+\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})>\alpha_0\}}g\left(y\right)\left(n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)-n^{1-\frac{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}{\alpha_0}}\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})+1}}\right)dyds.\end{aligned}$$ Let $0<\varepsilon<1$ be arbitrary. Then, by (PC3), there exists $y_{\varepsilon}\geq1$, such that \[eq:4.6\](1-)<f\_x(y)<(1+)holds for all $|y|\geq y_{\varepsilon}$ and all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Since the function $g(x)$ vanishes in a neighborhood of the origin, by (\[eq:4.6\]) and the dominated convergence theorem, (\[eq:4.3\]) and (\[eq:4.5\]) converge to $0$, $\mathbb{P}^{x}$-a.s., when $n\longrightarrow\infty.$ Let us prove that (\[eq:4.4\]) converges in $L^{2}(\Omega,\mathbb{P}^{x})$ to $0$, when $n\longrightarrow\infty$. We define $$U_n(z):=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}g(y)\left(1_{\{\alpha(z)>\alpha_0\}}n^{1-\frac{\alpha(z)}{\alpha_0}}\frac{c(z)}{|y|^{\alpha(z)+1}}-\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}1_{\{\alpha(x)>\alpha_0\}}n^{1-\frac{\alpha(x)}{\alpha_0}}\frac{c(x)}{|y|^{\alpha(x)+1}}\pi(dx)\right)dy.$$ By $\tau$-periodicity of functions $\alpha(x)$ and $c(x)$, the function $U_n(z)$ is $\tau$-periodic and $$\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}U_n(z)\pi(dz)=0.$$ Using integration by parts formula, Markov property and (\[eq:4.1\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{E}^{x}\left[\left(\int_0^{t}U_n(Y^{p}_{ns})\right)^{2}\right]&=2\int_0^{t}\int_0^{s}\mathbb{E}^{x}[U_n(Y^{p}_{ns})U_n(Y^{p}_{nr})]drds\nonumber\\
&=2\int_0^{t}\int_0^{s}\mathbb{E}^{x}[\mathbb{E}^{x}[U_n(Y^{p}_{ns})|\mathcal{F}_{nr}]U_n(Y^{p}_{nr})]drds\nonumber\\&=2\int_0^{t}\int_0^{s}\mathbb{E}^{x}[P_{n(s-r)}U_n(Y^{p}_{nr})U_n(Y^{p}_{nr})]drds\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:4.7}=2\int_0^{t}\int_0^{s}Ce^{-n(1-e^{-c})(s-r)}||U_n||^{2}_\infty=\frac{2C||U_n||^{2}_\infty}{n(1-e^{-c})}\int_0^{t}(1-e^{-n(1-e^{-c})s})ds\leq\frac{C||U_n||^{2}_{\infty}}{
n(1-e^{-c})}.\end{aligned}$$ Note that, by (\[eq:1.5\]), $$|U_n(z)|\leq\sup_{z\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\left(\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}|g(y)|\frac{c(z)}{|y|^{\alpha(z)+1}}dy+\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}|g(y)|\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}\frac{c(x)}{|y|^{\alpha(x)+1}}\pi(dx)dy\right)<\infty,$$ i.e., $||U_n||_{\infty}$ remains bounded as $n$ grows. Hence $$\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\mathbb{E}^{x}\left[\left(\int_0^{t}U_n(Y^{p}_{ns})\right)^{2}\right]=0.$$ Furthermore, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:4.8}&\left(\mathbb{E}^{x}\left[\left(\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})>\alpha_0\}}g\left(y\right)n^{1-\frac{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}{\alpha_0}}\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})+1}}dyds\right)^{2}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
&\leq
\left(\mathbb{E}^{x}\left[\left(\int_0^{t}U_n(Y^{p}_{ns})\right)^{2}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\nonumber\\
& \quad
+\left(\mathbb{E}^{x}\left[\left(\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}1_{\{\alpha(x)>\alpha_0\}}n^{1-\frac{\alpha(x)}{\alpha_0}}g(y)\frac{c(x)}{|y|^{\alpha(x)+1}}\pi(dx)dy\right)^{2}\right]\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.\end{aligned}$$ By the dominated convergence theorem, (\[eq:4.8\]) converges to zero, when $n\longrightarrow\infty$, i.e., (\[eq:4.4\]) converges in $L^{2}(\Omega,\mathbb{P}^{x})$ to $0$, when $n\longrightarrow\infty.$ Now, let us prove that (\[eq:4.2\]) converges in $L^{2}(\Omega,\mathbb{P}^{x})$ to $$g\ast N_t^{0}=t\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}1_{\{\alpha(x)=\alpha_0\}}g(y)\frac{c(x)}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}\pi(dx)dy,$$ when $n\longrightarrow\infty.$ We define $$U(z):=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}g(y)\left(1_{\{\alpha(z)=\alpha_0\}}\frac{c(z)}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}-\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}1_{\{\alpha(x)=\alpha_0\}}\frac{c(x)}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}\pi(dx)\right)dy.$$ By $\tau$-periodicity of functions $\alpha(x)$ and $c(x)$, the function $U(z)$ is $\tau$-periodic and $$\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}U(z)\pi(dz)=0.$$ Hence, in the same way as for (\[eq:4.4\]), it can be shown that $g\ast N^{n}_t$ converges in probability to $g\ast N_t^{0}$. In the same way one can prove that $B_t^{n}$ converges in probability to $B_t^{0},$ when $n\longrightarrow\infty.$
At the end, let us show that $\widetilde{C}_t^{n}$ converges in probability to $\tilde{C}_t^{0}$, when $n\longrightarrow\infty$. Recall that the truncation function $h(x)$ is a bounded Borel measurable function satisfying $h(x)=x$ in a neighborhood of the origin. Let $\delta>0$ be small enough and such that $h(x)=x$ for all $x\in(-\delta,\delta).$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{C}_t^{n}=&\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}h^{2}(y)n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)dyds\nonumber\\
=&\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}h^{2}\left(y\right)n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)dyds\nonumber\\
&+\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})>\alpha_0\}}h^{2}\left(y\right)n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)dyds\nonumber\\
\label{eq:4.9}=&\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}h^{2}\left(y\right)\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}dyds\\
\label{eq:4.10}&+\int_0^{t}\int_{(-\delta,\delta)^{c}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}h^{2}\left(y\right)\left(n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)-\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}\right)dyds\\
\label{eq:4.11}&+\int_0^{t}\int_{(-\delta,\delta)}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}y^{2}\left(n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)-\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}\right)dyds\\
\label{eq:4.12}&+\int_0^{t}\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})>\alpha_0\}}h^{2}\left(y\right)n^{1-\frac{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}{\alpha_0}}
\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})+1}}dyds\\
\label{eq:4.13}&+\int_0^{t}\int_{(-\delta,\delta)^{c}}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})>\alpha_0\}}h^{2}\left(y\right)\left(n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)-n^{1-\frac{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}{\alpha_0}}
\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})+1}}\right)dyds\\
\label{eq:4.14}&+\int_0^{t}\int_{(-\delta,\delta)}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})>\alpha_0\}}y^{2}\left(n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)-n^{1-\frac{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})}{\alpha_0}}
\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})+1}}\right)dyds.\end{aligned}$$ By (\[eq:4.6\]) and the dominated convergence theorem, (\[eq:4.10\]) and (\[eq:4.13\]) converge to $0$ $\mathbb{P}^{x}$-a.s., when $n\longrightarrow\infty.$ Let us prove that (\[eq:4.11\]) converges to $0$ $\mathbb{P}^{x}$-a.s., when $n\longrightarrow\infty$ and $\delta\longrightarrow0$, respectively. By using (\[eq:4.6\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_0^{t}\int_{(-\delta,\delta)}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}y^{2}\left(n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)-\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}\right)dyds\\&&\begin{split}
=&\int_0^{t}\int_{(-n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}\delta,n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}\delta)}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}y^{2}n^{1-\frac{2}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(y\right)dyds\\
&-\int_0^{t}\int_{(-\delta,\delta)}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}|y|^{1-\alpha_0}c(Y^{p}_{ns})dyds\\
=&\int_0^{t}\int_{(-y_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}y^{2}n^{1-\frac{2}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(y\right)dyds\\
&+\int_0^{t}\int_{(-n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}\delta,-y_{\varepsilon})\cup(
y_{\varepsilon},n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}\delta)}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}y^{2}n^{1-\frac{2}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(y\right)dyds\\
&+\frac{2}{2-\alpha_0}\delta^{2-\alpha_0}\int_0^{t}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}c(Y^{p}_{ns})ds\\
\leq&
n^{1-\frac{2}{\alpha_0}}\int_0^{t}\int_{(-y_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}y^{2}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(y\right)dyds\\
&+(1+\varepsilon)n^{1-\frac{2}{\alpha_0}}\int_0^{t}\int_{(-n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}\delta,-y_{\varepsilon})\cup(
y_{\varepsilon},n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}\delta)}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{(n)}_{s})=\alpha_0\}}y^{2}\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}
dyds\\
&+\frac{2}{2-\alpha_0}\delta^{2-\alpha_0}\int_0^{t}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}c(Y^{p}_{ns})ds
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=&n^{1-\frac{2}{\alpha_0}}\int_0^{t}\int_{(-y_{\varepsilon},y_{\varepsilon})}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}y^{2}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(y\right)dyds\\
&+(1+\varepsilon)\frac{2}{2-\alpha_0}\delta^{2-\alpha_0}\int_0^{t}
1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}c(Y^{p}_{ns})ds \\
&-(1+\varepsilon)n^{1-\frac{2}{\alpha_0}}\frac{2}{2-\alpha_0}y_{\varepsilon}^{2-\alpha_0}\int_0^{t}
1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}c(Y^{p}_{ns})ds\\
&+\frac{2}{2-\alpha_0}\delta^{2-\alpha_0}\int_0^{t}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}c(Y^{p}_{ns})ds.\end{aligned}$$ Now, by (\[eq:1.5\]) and the dominated convergence theorem, we have $$\lim_{\delta\longrightarrow0}\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\int_0^{t}\int_{(-\delta,\delta)}1_{\{\alpha(Y^{p}_{ns})=\alpha_0\}}y^{2}\left(n^{1+\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}
f_{Y^{p}_{ns}}\left(n^{\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}y\right)-\frac{c(Y^{p}_{ns})}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}\right)dyds=0
\quad \mathbb{P}^{x}\textrm{-a.s.}$$ In completely the same way one can prove that (\[eq:4.14\]) converges to 0 $\mathbb{P}^{x}$-a.s., when $n\longrightarrow\infty$ and $\delta\longrightarrow0$, respectively. In order to prove that (\[eq:4.12\]) converges in $L^{2}(\Omega,\mathbb{P}^{x})$ to $0$, when $n\longrightarrow\infty$, we define $$V_n(z):=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}h^{2}(y)\left(1_{\{\alpha(z)>\alpha_0\}}n^{1-\frac{\alpha(z)}{\alpha_0}}\frac{c(z)}{|y|^{\alpha(z)+1}}-\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}1_{\{\alpha(x)>\alpha_0\}}(x)n^{1-\frac{\alpha(x)}{\alpha_0}}\frac{c(x)}{|y|^{\alpha(x)+1}}\pi(dx)\right)dy$$ and proceed as for (\[eq:4.4\]). It remains to prove that (\[eq:4.9\]) converges in $L^{2}(\Omega,\mathbb{P}^{x})$ to $\tilde{C}_t^{0}$, when $n\longrightarrow\infty$. Let us define $$V(z):=\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}h^{2}(y)\left(1_{\{\alpha(z)=\alpha_0\}}\frac{c(z)}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}-\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}1_{\{\alpha(x)=\alpha_0\}}\frac{c(x)}{|y|^{\alpha_0+1}}\pi(dx)\right)dy.$$ By $\tau$-periodicity of the functions $\alpha(x)$ and $c(x)$, the function $V(z)$ is $\tau$-periodic and $$\int_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}/\Lambda}V(z)\pi(dz)=0.$$ Hence, by repeating the same calculation as for (\[eq:4.4\]), we have the claim. Therefore, by [@jacod Theorem VIII.2.17], we have proved that the sequence of processes $\textbf{Y}^{p}_{n}$ converges in distribution to symmetric $\alpha_0$-stable Lévy process $\textbf{L}$ with the compensator (Lévy measure) $N^{0}(ds,dy).$
Now, let us prove that the periodic stable-like chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent if and only if $\alpha_0\geq1$. By [@franke Lemmas 2 and 3], the set of recurrent paths $R(O)$ is a continuity set for the probability measure $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{L}}(\cdot)$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Furthermore, since $\textbf{L}$ is a $\lambda$-irreducible T-model (note that (\[eq:2.1\]) is trivially satisfied), by Proposition \[p2.4\], $\textbf{L}$ is recurrent if and only if $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{L}}(R(O))=1$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$, and it is transient if and only if $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{L}}(T(O))=1$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$.
Let $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ be an arbitrary starting point and let $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ be an arbitrary open bounded set. By [@bil Theorem 2.1], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:4.15}\lim_{n\longrightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{Y}^{p}_{n}}(R(O))=\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{L}}(R(O)).\end{aligned}$$ If the stable-like chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent, since it is $\lambda$-irreducible T-model, it is H-recurrent as well. Hence, by Proposition \[p2.7\], all the processes $\textbf{Y}^{p}_{n}$, $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, are H-recurrent. This implies $$\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{Y}^{n}_{n}}(R(O))=1\quad\textrm{for
all}\quad n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}.$$ Therefore, by (\[eq:4.15\]), $\mathbb{P}_{\textbf{L}}(R(O)_x)=1$, i.e., $\textbf{L}$ is recurrent.
Let us assume that the periodic stable-like chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is transient. Then, by Proposition \[p2.4\], $\mathbb{P}^{x}\left(\tau_O<\infty\right)=0$ for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Hence, by Proposition \[p2.7\], $\mathbb{P}^{x}\left(\tau^{n}_O<\infty\right)=0$, i.e., $$\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{Y}^{p}_{n}}(R(O))=0$$ for all $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and all open bounded sets $O\subseteq{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Therefore, by (\[eq:4.15\]), $\mathbb{P}^{x}_{\textbf{L}}(R(O))=0$, i.e., $\textbf{L}$ is transient. Finally, by [@sato Corollary 37.17], $\textbf{L}$ is recurrent if and only if $\alpha_0\geq1$. This accomplishes the proof.
1. In Theorem \[tm1.2\] we assume that the densities $\{f_x\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$ satisfy $f_x(-y)=f_x(y)$ for all $x,y\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $f_x(y)\sim c(x)|y|^{-\alpha(x)-1},$ when $|y|\longrightarrow\infty.$ This assumptions can be relaxed. Let $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $c_+,
c_-:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ be Borel measurable functions and let $\{f_x\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$ be an arbitrary family of probability densities on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$. Furthermore, let us assume that the function $x\longmapsto f_x$ is a periodic function with period $\tau>0$ and that the following conditions are satisfied:
**(PC1’)**
: the function $(x,y)\longmapsto f_x(y)$ is continuous and strictly positive;
**(PC2’)**
: $f_x(y)\sim c_+(x)y^{-\alpha(x)-1}$, when $y\longrightarrow\infty$, and
$f_x(y)\sim c_-(x)(-y)^{-\alpha(x)-1},$ when $y\longrightarrow-\infty$, for all $x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$;
**(PC3’)**
: $\displaystyle\lim_{y\longrightarrow\infty}\sup_{x\in[0,\tau]}\left|f_x(y)\frac{y^{\alpha(x)+1}}{c_+(x)}-1\right|=0\quad \textrm{and}$ $\displaystyle\lim_{y\longrightarrow-\infty}\sup_{x\in[0,\tau]}\left|f_x(y)\frac{|y|^{\alpha(x)+1}}{c_-(x)}-1\right|=0;$
**(PC4’)**
: $\displaystyle\inf_{x\in
[0,\tau]}(c_-(x)\wedge c_+(x))>0$.
Hence, the densities $\{f_x\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$ have two-tail behavior. Let ${\{\bar{X}^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be a Markov chain given by the transition kernel $ \bar{p}(x,dy):=f_x(y-x)dy.$ By completely the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem \[tm1.2\], we can deduce recurrence and transience property of the chain ${\{\bar{X}^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$. If the set $\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\}$ has positive Lebesgue measure, then by subordination of the chain ${\{\bar{X}^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ with the Poisson process ${\{N_t\}_{t\geq0}}$ with parameter $1$ (independent of the chain ${\{\bar{X}^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$), one can prove that the process $\{n^{-\frac{1}{\alpha_0}}\bar{X}^{p}_{N_{nt}}\}_{t\geq0}$ converges in distribution, with respect to the Skorohod topology, to $\alpha_0$-stable Lévy process. In general, this $\alpha_0$-stable Lévy process is not symmetric anymore. Non-symmetry of the densities $\{f_x\}_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}$ implies that the $\alpha_0$-stable Lévy process has a nonzero shift parameter, and two-tail behavior implies that the $\alpha_0$-stable Lévy process has a nonzero skewness parameter. Hence, by [@sato Corollary 37.17], the only recurrent cases are if either $\alpha_0>1$ and shift parameter vanishes or $\alpha_0=1$ and skewness parameter vanishes.
2. As already mentioned, it is shown in [@franke] that if the functions $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ are continuously differentiable with bounded derivative and periodic and if the set $\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\}$ has positive Lebesgue measure, then the stable-like process with the symbol $p(x,\xi)=\gamma(x)|\xi|^{\alpha(x)}$ is recurrent if and only if $\alpha_0\geq1.$ In general, we cannot apply Theorem \[tm1.2\] for the discrete-time version of this stable-like process, i.e., for the stable-like chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ (the chain given by (\[eq:1.2\])), since we do not have a proof that its transition densities satisfy condition (PC3). But, by repeating the proof of Theorem \[tm1.1\] we deduce: If $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ are continuously differentiable and periodic functions with bounded derivative and if the set $\{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}:\alpha(x)=\alpha_0:=\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\alpha(x)\}$ has positive Lebesgue measure, then the stable-like chain ${\{X^{\alpha(x)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent if and only if $\alpha_0\geq1$.
Similarly, by repeating the proof of Theorem \[tm1.1\], we can prove transience property of the discrete-time version of the stable-like process considered in [@rene-wang-feller], i.e., the process given by the symbol $p(x,\xi)=\gamma(x)|\xi|^{\alpha(x)}$, where $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $\gamma:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ are continuously differentiable functions with bounded derivative and such that $\limsup_{|x|\longrightarrow\infty}\alpha(x)<1$ and $0<\inf_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\gamma(x)\leq\sup_{x\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}}\gamma(x)<\infty$.
Discrete state case
===================
In this section we derive the same recurrence and transience criteria as in Theorems \[tm1.1\] and \[tm1.2\] for discrete version of the stable-like chains ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ (the chains given by (\[eq:1.3\]) and (\[eq:1.4\])). Without loss of generality, we treat the case on the state space ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Let $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $c:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ be arbitrary functions and let $\{f_{i}\}_{i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}$ be a family of probability functions on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ which satisfies $f_{i}(j)\sim c(i)|j|^{-\alpha(i)-1},$ when $|j|\longrightarrow\infty$. Let ${\{X^{d}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be a Markov chain on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ given by the following transition kernel $$p(i,j):=f_{i}(j-i).$$ The chain ${\{X^{d}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ can be understood as a discrete version of the stable-like chain ${\{X_n\}_{n\geq0}}$, i.e., the probability functions $f_{i}(j)$ are discrete versions of densities $f_{x}(y).$ It is clear that if $f_{i}(j)>0$ for all $i,j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$, then the chain ${\{X^{d}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is irreducible. Therefore, it is either recurrent or transient. If the following conditions are satisfied
**(CD1)**
: $f_i(j)\sim c(i)|j|^{-\alpha(i)-1},$ when $|j|\longrightarrow\infty$, for all $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$;
**(CD2)**
: there exists $k\in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{|j|\longrightarrow\infty}\sup_{i\in\{-k,\ldots,k\}^{c}}\left|f_{i}(j)\frac{|j|^{\alpha(i)+1}}{c(i)}-1\right|=0,\end{aligned}$$
then the chain ${\{X^{d}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent if $\liminf_{|i|\longrightarrow\infty}\alpha(i)>1$, and it is transient if $\limsup_{|i|\longrightarrow\infty}\alpha(i)<1$ (see [@ja]). Note that conditions (CD1) and (CD2) also implies irreducibility of the chain ${\{X^{d}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ in the case when $f_{i}(j)>0$ is not satisfied for all $i,j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$.
Step case
---------
Let ${\{X^{d(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be a discrete version of the stable-like chain ${\{X^{(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ given by (\[eq:1.3\]), i.e., a special case of the chain ${\{X^{d}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ given by the following step functions $$\alpha(i)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha, & i<0 \\
\beta,&
i\geq0
\end{array}\right. \quad \textrm{and} \quad c(i)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
c, & i<0 \\
d,&
i\geq0,
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\alpha,\beta\in(0,2)$ and $c,d\in(0,\infty)$.
Recall that a random walk ${\{S_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is *attracted* to a random variable $X$ if there exist sequences of real numbers $\{A_n\}_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$ and $\{B_n\}_{n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}}$, $B_n>0$ for all $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, such that $$\frac{S_n}{B_n}-A_n\stackrel{\hbox{\scriptsize d}}{\longrightarrow} X.$$ Here $\stackrel{\hbox{\scriptsize d}}{\longrightarrow}$ denotes convergence in distribution. Furthermore, if $A_n=0$ for all $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, then we say that the random walk ${\{S_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is *strongly attracted* to $X$. The random variable $X$ can only have a stable distribution (see [@ibragimov-linnik Theorem 2.1.1]). Now, from [@gnedenko Theorem 35.2] which gives necessary and sufficient conditions in order that a random walk ${\{S_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is attracted to a random variable with stable distribution with the index of stability $\alpha\in(0,2)$, we easily derive:
\[p5.2\] Let $\alpha\in(0,2)$ and $c\in(0,\infty)$ be arbitrary and let $f_{(\alpha,c)}:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\longrightarrow{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}$ be an arbitrary probability function such that $f_{(\alpha,c)}(j)\sim c|j|^{-\alpha-1},$ when $|j|\longrightarrow\infty$. Let us assume that $f_{(\alpha,c)}(-j)=f_{(\alpha,c)}(j)$ holds for all $j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ if $\alpha=1$, and $\sum_{j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}jf_{(\alpha,c)}(j)=0$ holds if $\alpha>1$. Then the random walk ${\{S_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ with the jump distribution $$\left(\begin{array}{ll}
\ldots\ \ -1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 \ \ \ \ \ldots \\
\ldots f_{(\alpha,c)}(-1) \ f_{(\alpha,c)}(0) \ f_{(\alpha,c)}(1) \
\ldots
\end{array}
\right)$$ is strongly attracted to S$\alpha$S distribution.
From Proposition \[p5.2\], as a special case of [@rogozin Theorem 2], we have:
If the probability functions $f_{(\alpha,c)}(j):=f_i(j)$, for $i<0$, and $f_{(\beta,d)}(j):=f_i(j)$, for $i\geq0$, appearing in the definition of the chain ${\{X^{d(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$, satisfy $f_{(\alpha,c)}(j)=f_{(\alpha,c)}(-j)$ and $f_{(\beta,d)}(j)=f_{(\beta,d)}(-j)$ for all $j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$, then the chain ${\{X^{d(\alpha,\beta)}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is recurrent if $\alpha+\beta>2$, and it is transient if $\alpha+\beta<2.$
Note that previous theorem does not say anything about the case when $\alpha+\beta=2.$ This case is not covered by [@rogozin] and it seems to be much more complicated.
Periodic case
-------------
In this subsection we consider a discrete version of the periodic stable-like chain ${\{X^{p}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ given by (\[eq:1.4\]). Let ${\{X^{dp}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be a Markov chain on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ given by $$\alpha(i)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
\alpha, & i\in 2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\\
\beta,&
i\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1
\end{array}\right.\quad \textrm{and} \quad c(i)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc}
c, & i\in 2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\\
d,&
i\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1,
\end{array}\right.$$where $\alpha,\beta\in(0,2)$ and $c,d\in(0,\infty)$, and let us assume that probability functions $f_{(\alpha,c)}(j):=f_{2i}(j)$ and $f_{(\beta,d)}(j):=f_{2i+1}(j)$, $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$, satisfy $f_{(\alpha,c)}(-j)=f_{(\alpha,c)}(j)$ and $f_{(\beta,d)}(-j)=f_{(\beta,d)}(j)$ for all $j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Let us define the following stopping times inductively: $T_0^{\alpha}:=0$, $T_0^{\beta}:=0$, $T_n^{\alpha}:=\inf\{k>T_{n-1}^{\alpha}:X^{dp}_k\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\}$ and $T_n^{\beta}:=\inf\{k>T_{n-1}^{\beta}:X^{dp}_k\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1\},$ for $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$.
\[p5.4\] $\mathbb{P}^{i}(T_n^{\alpha}<\infty)=\mathbb{P}^{i}(T_n^{\beta}<\infty)=1$ for all $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and all $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}.$
Let us prove that $\mathbb{P}^{i}(T_n^{\alpha}<\infty)=1$ for all $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and all $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$ by induction. Let $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ be arbitrary and let $n=1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{i}(T_1^{\alpha}=\infty)=&\mathbb{P}^{i}(X^{pd}_k\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1, \ \forall
k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}})=\displaystyle\lim_{k\longrightarrow\infty}\mathbb{P}^{i}(X^{dp}_l\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1,\
1\leq l\leq k)\\
=&\displaystyle\lim_{k\longrightarrow\infty}\displaystyle\sum_{i_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(i,i_1)\displaystyle\sum_{i_2\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(i_1,i_2)
\ldots\displaystyle\sum_{i_{k-1}\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(i_{k-2},i_{k-1})p(i_{k-1},2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1).\end{aligned}$$ Note that $p(2i+1,2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1)=\sum_{j\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}f_{(\beta,d)}(j)<1$ for all $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Therefore, if we put $C:=\sum_{j\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}f_{(\beta,d)}(j)$ and $C_i:=p(i,2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1)$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{i}(T_1^{\alpha}=\infty)=\displaystyle\lim_{k\longrightarrow\infty}C_iC^{k-1}=0,\end{aligned}$$ i.e., $\mathbb{P}^{i}(T^{\alpha}_1<\infty)=1$. Let us assume that $\mathbb{P}^{i}(T_{n-1}^{\alpha}<\infty)=1$ and let us prove that $\mathbb{P}^{i}(T_n^{\alpha}<\infty)=1$. By denoting $N:=T_{n-1}^{\alpha}$ and using strong Markov property we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{i}(T_n^{\alpha}<\infty)=\mathbb{E}^{i}[\mathbb{E}^{i}[1_{\{T_1^{\alpha}<\infty\}}\circ\theta_N|\mathcal{F}_N]]
=\mathbb{E}^{i}[\mathbb{E}^{X_N}[1_{\{T^{\alpha}_1<\infty\}}]]=\sum_{j\in
2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathbb{E}^{i}[1_{\{X_N=j\}}]=1,\end{aligned}$$ where $\theta_n$ is the shift operator on the canonical state space ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}^{\{0,1,\ldots\}}$. In the completely analogously way we prove that $\mathbb{P}^{i}(T_n^{\beta}<\infty)=1$ for all $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and all $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$.
For $n\geq0$, let us put $Y^{\alpha}_n=X^{dp}_{T_n^{\alpha}}$ and $Y^{\beta}_n=X^{dp}_{T_n^{\beta}}$, then, from Proposition \[p5.4\], ${\{Y^{\alpha}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{Y^{\beta}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ are well defined Markov chains. Let $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and let us define the following stopping times: $\tau_i:=\inf\{n\geq1: X^{dp}_n=i\}$, $\tau^{\alpha}_i:=\inf\{n\geq1: Y^{\alpha}_n=i\}$ and $\tau^{\beta}_i=\inf\{n\geq1: Y^{\beta}_n=i\}$.
\[p5.5\] For all $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$, $n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}$, $j_1,\ldots,j_n\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and all $k_1,\ldots,k_n\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1$ we have $\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1,\ldots, Y_n^{\alpha}=j_n)>0$ and $\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\beta}=k_1,\ldots, Y_n^{\beta}=k_n)>0$. In particular, the chains ${\{Y^{\alpha}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{Y^{\beta}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ are irreducible on their state spaces.
The set $2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ is the state space of the chain ${\{Y^{\alpha}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$, and the set $2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1$ is the state space of the chain ${\{Y^{\beta}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ . Let $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $j_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ be arbitrary, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1)=&p(i,j_1)+\displaystyle\sum_{i_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(i,i_1)p(i_1,j_1)+\displaystyle\sum_{i_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(i,i_1)\displaystyle\sum_{1_2\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(i_1,i_2)p(i_2,j_1)+\ldots\\
\geq&\displaystyle\sum_{i_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(i,i_1)p(i_1,j_1).\end{aligned}$$ If $i\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$, then we take $i_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1$ such that $f_{(\alpha,c)}(i_1-i)>0$ and $f_{(\beta,d)}(j_1-i_1)>0$. Therefore, $$\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1)\geq f_{(\alpha,c)}(i_1-i)f_{(\beta,d)}(j_1-i_1)>0.$$ If $i\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1$, then we take $i_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1$ such that $f_{(\beta,d)}(i_1-i)>0$ and $f_{(\beta,d)}(j_1-i_1)>0$. Hence, we have $$\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1)\geq f_{(\beta,d)}(i_1-i)f_{(\beta,d)}(j_1-i_1)>0.$$ Let $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $j_1,j_2\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ be arbitrary, then we have $$\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1,Y_2^{\alpha}=j_2)=\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_2^{\alpha}=j_2|Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1)\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1)=\mathbb{P}^{j_1}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_2)\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1)>0.$$ Let $n>2$. Let us suppose that for all $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and for all $j_1,\ldots j_{n-1}\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ we have $$\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1,\ldots,Y^{\alpha}_{n-1}=j_{n-1})>0.$$ Let $j_n\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ be arbitrary, then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1,\ldots,Y^{\alpha}_{n}=j_{n})=&\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_n^{\alpha}=j_n|Y_{n-1}^{\alpha}=j_{n-1},\ldots,
Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1)\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1,\ldots,Y_{n-1}^{\alpha}=j_{n-1})\\=&\mathbb{P}^{j_{n-1}}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_{n})\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j_1,\ldots,Y^{\alpha}_{n-1}=j_{n-1})>0.\end{aligned}$$ Analogously we prove the claim for the chain ${\{Y^{\beta}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$. Let $i,j\in 2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ be arbitrary, then we have $$\mathbb{P}^{i}(\tau_j^{\alpha}<\infty)\geq
\mathbb{P}^{i}(\tau_j^{\alpha}=1)=\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y_1^{\alpha}=j)>0.$$ Similarly, for arbitrary $i,j\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1$ we have $$\mathbb{P}^{i}(\tau_j^{\beta}<\infty)>0.$$ Hence, the chains ${\{Y^{\alpha}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{Y^{\beta}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ are irreducible.
\[p5.6\] The Markov chains ${\{X^{dp}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$, ${\{Y^{\alpha}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{Y^{\beta}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ have the same recurrence property.
Let $i\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ be arbitrary, then we have $$\mathbb{P}^{i}(\tau^{\alpha}_i=\infty)=\mathbb{P}^{i}(Y^{\alpha}_n\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\setminus\{i\},\ n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}})=\mathbb{P}^{i}(X^{dp}_n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\setminus\{i\},\
n\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}})=\mathbb{P}^{i}(\tau_i=\infty).$$ Similarly, for arbitrary $i\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1$ we have $\mathbb{P}^{i}(\tau_i=\infty)=\mathbb{P}^{i}(\tau^{\beta}_i=\infty).$
\[p5.7\]Chains ${\{Y^{\alpha}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ and ${\{Y^{\beta}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ are symmetric random walks with jump distributions $\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y_1^{\alpha}\in\cdot)$ and $\mathbb{P}^{1}(Y_1^{\beta}-1\in\cdot)$.
Note first that for arbitrary $i,j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}=2i-2j|Y^{\alpha}_{n}=0)=&p(0,2i-2j)+\displaystyle\sum_{k_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(0,k_1)p(k_1,2i-2j)\\&+\displaystyle\sum_{k_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(0,k_1)\displaystyle\sum_{k_2\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(k_1,k_2)p(k_2,2i-2j)+\ldots\\=&p(2i,2j)+\displaystyle\sum_{k_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(2j,k_1+2j)p(k_1+2j,2i)\\&+\displaystyle\sum_{k_1\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(2j,k_1+2j)\displaystyle\sum_{k_2\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(k_1+2j,k_2+2j)p(k_2+2j,2i)+\ldots\\=&\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}=2i|Y^{\alpha}_{n}=2j).\end{aligned}$$ Let us prove that the random variables $Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}-Y^{\alpha}_n$, $n\geq0$, are symmetric i.i.d. random variables with respect to the probability measure $\mathbb{P}^{0}(\cdot)$. Let $n\geq0$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}-Y^{\alpha}_n=2i)=&\displaystyle\sum_{j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}=2i+2j,
\
Y^{\alpha}_n=2j)\\=&\displaystyle\sum_{j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}=2i+2j|Y^{\alpha}_n=2j)\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_n=2j)=\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y_1^{\alpha}=2i).\end{aligned}$$ Let $n\geq1$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}-Y^{\alpha}_n=2i,\
Y^{\alpha}_{n}-Y^{\alpha}_{n-1}=2j)\\&=\displaystyle\sum_{k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}=2i+2j,\
Y^{\alpha}_n=2k,\
Y^{\alpha}_{n-1}=2k-2j)\\&=\displaystyle\sum_{k\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}=2i+2k|Y^{\alpha}_n=2k)\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n}=2k|Y^{\alpha}_{n-1}=2k-2j)
\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n-1}=2k-2j)\\&=\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_1=2i)\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_1=2j)=\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}-Y^{\alpha}_n=2i)\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y^{\alpha}_{n}-Y^{\alpha}_{n-1}=2j).\end{aligned}$$ This proves that the random variables $Y^{\alpha}_{n+1}-Y^{\alpha}_n$, $n\geq0$, are i.i.d. random variables. Symmetry is obvious. Completely analogously we prove that the random variables $Y^{\beta}_{n+1}-Y^{\beta}_n$, $n\geq0$, are i.i.d. symmetric random variables with respect to the probability measure $\mathbb{P}^{1}(\cdot)$.
\[p5.8\] If $\alpha\wedge\beta<1$, then the chain ${\{X^{dp}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is transient.
Without loss of generality, let us suppose that $\alpha\wedge\beta=\alpha<1$. By Proposition \[p5.6\], it is enough to prove that the chain ${\{Y^{\alpha}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is transient. From Proposition \[p5.7\] we know that the chain ${\{Y^{\alpha}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is symmetric random walk on $2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ with respect to the probability measure $\mathbb{P}^{0}(\cdot).$ For every $i\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ we have $$\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y_1^{\alpha}=2i)=p(0,2i)+\displaystyle\sum_{j\in2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}+1}p(0,j)p(j,2i)+\ldots\geq
f_{(\alpha,c)}(2i).$$ Let $\varphi(\xi)$ be the characteristic function of the distribution $\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y_1^{\alpha}\in\cdot)$. From the symmetry property of the distribution $\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y_1^{\alpha}\in\cdot)$, we have $$\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{1}{1-\varphi(\xi)}\right)=\frac{1}{\displaystyle\sum_{j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}(1-\cos (2j\xi))\mathbb{P}^{0}(Y_1^{\alpha}=2j)}\leq\frac{1}{\displaystyle\sum_{j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}(1-\cos (2j\xi))f_{(\alpha,c)}(2j)}.$$ Note that $\sum_{j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}}\cos (2j\xi)f_{(\alpha,c)}(2j)$ is the Fourier transform of the symmetric sub-probability measure on $2{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$. Using completely the same arguments as in [@spitzer page 88], from [@durrett Theorem 3.2.9] we get the desired result.
Let $m\geq1$, $\alpha_0,\ldots,\alpha_{m-1}\in(0,2)$ and $c_0,\ldots,c_{m-1}\in(0,\infty)$ be arbitrary. Let ${\{X^{dp}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ be a Markov chain on ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ given by $$\alpha(i)=\alpha_j\quad \textrm{and} \quad c(i)=c_j$$ for $i\equiv j\, \mathrm{mod}\,(m)$, i.e., the functions $\alpha:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\longrightarrow(0,2)$ and $c:{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}\longrightarrow(0,\infty)$ are periodic functions with period $m$. Furthermore, let us suppose that probability functions $f_{(\alpha_i,c_i)}(j)$, $i=0,\dots,m-1$, satisfy $f_{(\alpha_i,c_i)}(-j)=f_{(\alpha_i,c_i)}(j)$ for all $j\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $i=0,\dots,m-1$. Then, it is not hard to prove that Propositions \[p5.4\], \[p5.5\], \[p5.6\] and \[p5.7\], except perhaps the symmetry property of related chains (random walks) ${\{Y^{\alpha_i}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$, $i=0,\dots,m,$ are also valid in this periodic case. Therefore, analogously as in Proposition \[p5.8\] using $$\mathrm{Re}
\left(\frac{1}{1-z}\right)=\frac{1-a}{(1-a)^{2}+b^{2}}\leq\frac{1}{1-a}$$ for all $z=a+ib\in{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$ such that $|z|\leq1$, we have:
\[t5.9\] If $\alpha_0\wedge\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_{m-1}<1$, then the chain ${\{X^{dp}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$ is transient.
Clearly, the above statement should be an if and only if statement, i.e., there is no reason not to believe that $\alpha_0\wedge\alpha_1\wedge\dots\wedge\alpha_{m-1}=1$ implies recurrence of the chain ${\{X^{dp}_n\}_{n\geq0}}$. But this case is not covered by [@ja] and, again, it seems to be much more complicated.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
The author would like to thank Prof. Zoran Vondraček for many discussions on the topic and for helpful comments on the presentation of the results.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Phonons in nearly optimally doped HgBa$_2$CuO$_{4+\delta}$ were studied by inelastic X-ray scattering. The dispersion of the low energy modes is well described by a shell model, while the Cu-O bond stretching mode at high energy shows strong softening towards the zone boundary, which deviates strongly from the model. This seems to be common in the hole-doped high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ superconducting cuprates, and, based on this work, not related to a lattice distortion specific to each material.'
author:
- 'H. Uchiyama$^1$, A.Q.R. Baron$^2$, S. Tsutsui$^2$, Y. Tanaka$^3$, W.-Z. Hu$^1$, A.Yamamoto$^1$, S. Tajima$^1$, and Y. Endoh$^4$'
title: 'Softening of Cu-O bond stretching phonon in tetragonal HgBa$_2$CuO$_{4+\delta}$'
---
During the history of high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ superconductivity research, there have been many pieces of evidence pointing to strong electron-phonon coupling in these system. For example, electronic changes such as the superconducting transition or pseudo-gap opening definitely induce phonon renormalization effects[@IntroRaman]. Nevertheless, the phonon contribution to the electronic properties has been unclear or considered unimportant. Even though the Fermi surface shape favors formation of a charge-density-wave (CDW), no CDW gap has been observed. Instead, the parent compound is a Mott insulator. The carrier scattering mechanism responsible for the $T$-linear in-plane resistivity at the optimal doping is considered to be dominated by spin-fluctuation rather than by phonons[@resistivity].
Recently the role of phonons in the electronic state has been reassessed. The isotope effect on the magnetic penetration depth suggests a tight connection of the oxygen vibrations to the superfluid density or the effective mass relevant to the paring interaction[@Isotope]. Photoemission suggests that electron-phonon interaction causes a kink at 50-80 meV in the electronic dispersion for many cuprates[@Lanzara].
While phonon dispersion in high-$T_\mathrm{c}$ superconducting cuprates (HTSC) has been studied for a long time[@Pintschovius], recent interest has been stimulated by inelastic neutron scattering (INS)[@Mook; @PintschoviusLa214; @PintschoviusYBCO; @ElPhLa214; @ElPhYBCO] and inelastic X-ray scattering (IXS)[@Nd214IXS] studies that show anomalies in the copper-oxygen phonon branches. These anomalies were discussed in terms of spatial charge fluctuation[@PintschoviusYBCO; @PintschoviusLa214; @Mook] and connection to the mechanism of superconductivity[@ElPhLa214; @ElPhYBCO]. However, the studies to date have been limited to YBa$_2$Cu$_3$O$_{7-\delta}$ (YBCO) and La$_{2-x}$Sr$_x$CuO$_4$ (LSCO), except for the recent work with electron doped Nd$_{2-x}$Ce$_x$CuO$_4$ (NCCO). Thus, in order to really understand the physics of these phonon anomalies, it is strongly desirable to study phonons of different HTSCs.
HgBa$_2$CuO$_{4+\delta}$ (Hg1201) is, in principle, an excellent candidate for phonon studies. The crystal structure is tetragonal, forming a completely square and flat CuO$_2$ plane, as compared to the complexity of the chain structure in YBCO and the tetragonal to orthorhombic phase transitions in LSCO[@La214lattice]. Moreover, the absence of a 1/8-anomaly suggests that static stripes play a small role in Hg1201[@Yamamoto]. Hg1201 is also interesting because the structure is similar to LSCO while $T_\mathrm{c}$ ($\sim$98 K) is similar to YBCO, and, indeed, members of this (Hg based) family of HTSC also have the highest $T_\mathrm{c}$ demonstrated to date ($T_\mathrm{c}$ = $\sim$135 K). Despite these favorable properties, the Cu-O phonons in this material have not been studied, in large part because the material is not amenable to neutron scattering due to the very small size of the crystals.
We have performed IXS measurements on nearly optimally doped Hg1201, mapping the dispersion of the $\Delta_1$ symmetry phonons, including the Cu-O bond stretching mode. It is the small beam size in IXS experiments that makes it even conceivable to measure samples of size $<$0.1 mm$^3$. However, even so, this is a hard experiment since the sample contains heavy elements (Hg and Ba) which reduce the illuminated sample volume by a factor of about 3 compared to previously studied NCCO by IXS[@Nd214IXS]. Thus, in a recent report of IXS from this material[@Hg1201IXS] the relevant mode was only barely visible at one momentum transfer and its dispersion was not measured. However, at BL35XU of SPring-8[@Baron] we obtained high quality data, allowing us to show that this mode softens similarly to optimally doped YBCO and LSCO[@PintschoviusYBCO; @PintschoviusLa214]. Thus we can conclude the softening is a common feature in the hole-doped HTSCs, independent of lattice distortion and transition temperature.
Single crystals of Hg1201 were prepared with a solid-state reaction method[@Hu], from HgO (99.9 %), CuO (99.999 %) and BaO purified from BaCO$_3$ (99.995 %). The crystal with the size of 0.3$\times$0.3$\times$0.2 mm$^{3}$ was annealed at 340 $^\circ$C in O$_2$ for 1 week. Magnetic susceptibility measurement shows a sharp superconductivity transition at 94 K, indicating that the sample is nearly optimally doped (see Fig. 1(a)). The crystallinity was examined by X-ray diffraction and there was no trace of detectable impurity phase. The IXS spectrometer[@Baron] employed backscattering at the silicon (888) reflection, providing $\sim$3$\times$10$^{10}$ photons/s (spot size $\sim$150$\times 100$ $ \mu m ^2$) onto the sample in a 4 meV bandwidth at 15.816 keV. Four spherically curved analyzer crystals (each with an independent detector) were used on the 10 m horizontal arm to analyze the scattered radiation.Ê The energy resolution (6.0 - 6.3 meV, depending on analyzer crystal) was determined by measuring the elastic scattering of a standard poly-methyl methacrylate (PMMA) sample near to its structure factor maximum at 1 Å$ ^{-1}$, while the momentum resolution was set by the full (95 mm) diameter of the crystals, maximizing count rate.Ê The sample was mounted in a closed cycle He cryostat, with measurements performed at 55 K (well below $T_\mathrm{c}$=94 K). Typically, about 20 hours was needed to collect sufficient statistics in one spectrum (e.g. data in Fig. 1(b)).
IXS spectra were measured along the direction close to \[$\xi$00\], where $\xi$ is varied from 3.11 to 3.48. The simultaneous use of 4 analyzers gives actual momenta slight deviation from ($\xi$00) (exact values given in Fig. 1(b)). In this arrangement, the $\Delta _1$-symmetry phonon modes, which includes 8 branches in Hg1201, should have strong scattering cross section. Among the eight, one is the longitudinal acoustic (LA) mode, two are the $c$-polarized modes of apical oxygen and barium, which are Raman active with $A_{1g}$-symmetry at $\Gamma$. The others are the $a$-polarized phonons that are $E_u$ longitudinal optical (LO) modes at $\Gamma$. Fig. 1(b) shows the phonon distribution curves taken along the direction close to \[$\xi$00\] with experimental error bars. At each momentum, an elastic peak obtained from the standard material was subtracted. The peak positions indicated by short bars are determined by a voigt fit function, and the results of peak fitting are shown by red lines. Full components for fitting are indicated only for $\xi$=3.11 (blue lines). Some of the 8 phonon branches are not detected, because of their weak intensity. Peaks at energies lower than 50 meV have FWHM $\sim$7 meV, similar to that of the elastic peak. The highest energy peak over 50 meV has a wider FWHM, $>$10 meV. All presented data were collected at 55K (some spectra at 110 K showed negligible changes relative to 55K and are not shown).
The phonon dispersion (from our fits) is shown in Fig. 2 along with a simple shell model similar to that used previously to simulate cuprate phonon dispersion[@PintschoviusYBCO; @Shell; @Nd214IXS]. The parameters for this model were based on a common set for the cuprates[@Shell], with slight modification for Hg1201 [@Hg1201shell], and to fit the Raman $A_{1g}$ data[@Raman], and (though independently determined) were similar to those used in ref. [@Hg1201IXS]. Calculations were done using the ÒOpenphononÓ code[@Mirone] with carrier screening included by a Thomas-Fermi potential, $e^{-\kappa _sr}/ r$ ( $\kappa _s$ $\sim$0.41 Å$ ^{-1}$). For low energies, this simple shell model provides a reasonable description of the phonon dispersion, as has also been the case for other cuprates including LSCO, YBCO, and NCCO[@Shell; @Pintschovius; @Nd214IXS]. However, in the region above 50 meV the agreement is not so good, in particular for the highest energy $c$-polarized apical oxygen mode and the next highest $a$-polarized Cu-O bond stretching mode, and the Cu-O bond bending mode. Similar problems have been noted in calculations of YBCO[@PintschoviusYBCO], NCCO[@Nd214IXS], and LSCO[@PintschoviusLa214].
Modification of the shell model by including a next-nearest neighbor oxygen interaction, similar to ref. [@LNOTranq], was attempted. Such an interaction phenominalogically explains a Jahn-Teller type electron-phonon coupling that results in a rhombic distortion of the CuO$_2$ square[@Weber]. This interaction changes only the high-energy mode dispersion. Fig. 3(b) shows the results from this modified shell model: the apical oxygen mode softens slightly while the bond stretching mode softens more - in fact the strength of the coupling was chosen to match the experimental energy at $q$=3.48. However, this still does not provide an adequate model of the high energy phonon dispersion, failing to reproduce the sharp minimum in dispersion at $q$$\sim$0.3.
The assignment of the measured dispersion to the bond stretching mode deserves some additional consideration, given the presence, in calculation, of the other two modes in this energy region. The grounds for this assignment are the intensities and broadened FWHM of the observed peaks (shown by the bars in Fig. 3(b)). As regards intensity, our modified shell model shows that apical oxygen mode intensity is so weak as to be unobservable in our experiment, and, while stronger than the apical oxygen mode, the bond bending mode is also much weaker than the bond-stretching mode. Furthermore, the calculation also shows that the bond stretching mode, like the data, falls of with intensity as the zone boundary is approached ($q$=0.5), similar to the data (a structure factor effect). As to the FWHM, it was reported for YBCO and LSCO that the bond bending mode shows a narrow FWHM close to the resolution limit[@PintschoviusYBCO2; @privatecomm], while the broad FWHM was observed for the stretching mode in LSCO[@PintschoviusLa214]. The broad FWHM plotted in Fig. 3 is thus another support for the bond stretching mode. Since the observed peak approaches the calculated branch for the bending mode near the zone boundary, we cannot completely exclude a possibility of mixing of the the bending modes above $q$$\sim$0.3. However, judging from the broad FWHM, we expect a dominant contribution of the bond stretching mode also to the peaks at $q$$>$0.3.
The softening of the Cu-O stretching mode is also observed in LSCO[@Pintschovius; @PintschoviusLa214; @ElPhLa214] and YBCO[@Pintschovius; @PintschoviusYBCO; @ElPhYBCO]. Here, we focus on the hole-doped HTSC (LSCO, YBCO, Hg1201), as the limited data available for the electron doped materials[@Nd214IXS] apparently shows a different behavior[@comment]. Figure 4 shows a comparison of the bond stretching branches for Hg1201 (present results), LSCO[@PintschoviusLa214] and YBCO[@PintschoviusYBCO]. All three materials show similar softening of the Cu-O bond stretching mode, irrespective of the difference in crystal structure, band dispersions and $T_\mathrm{c}$. This implies that the similar type of electron-phonon coupling affects the CuO$_2$ plane in the hole-doped HTSC.
It should be noted that the bond stretching phonon softening in the \[100\] direction is also observed in doped La$_2$NiO$_4$[@LNOTranq; @LNOPintschovius], LaMnO$_3$[@BradenLMO; @ZhangLMO], and BaBiO$_3$[@Braden]. Therefore, the softening of the bond stretching phonon is a common property in the perovskite related materials. However, the cuprates show softening only in the \[100\] direction while for the other materials the softening is observed both in the \[100\] and \[110\] directions. Although the softening along the \[110\] direction is possibly induced by the Fermi surface nesting[@Weber2], the softening in the \[100\] direction can not be understood in the nesting scenario.
Various theoretical models have been used to explain the softening of the bond stretching phonon in the cuprates[@Weber; @Krakauer; @Bohnen; @Falter; @Bishop; @Mihailovic; @Kaneshita; @Park; @Bishop2; @Tachiki]. One is a shell model, as demonstrated in Fig. 3(b), while another is to treat band effects explicitly in a calculation such as LAPW (linearized augmented plane-wave linear-response) method. This model gives a gradual softening of the bond stretching phonon towards the zone boundary[@Krakauer; @Bohnen]. However, a rapid drop of the phonon branch at an intermediate $q$ is not explained by this model.
The abrupt phonon softening we observe suggests introduction of some kind of charge modulation[@Bishop; @Mihailovic; @Bishop2; @Kaneshita; @Park; @Falter; @Tachiki]. The mechanisms of charge inhomogeneity are different in different models. For example, the spin stripe order accompanied by the charge stripes is considered as a source of the additional feature in refs. [@Kaneshita; @Park], while the Jahn-Teller instability is a driving force in refs. [@Bishop; @Mihailovic]. In order to clarify the mechanism, further studies of various materials, and comparison between theory and experiment, is needed.
In summary, we have studied the phonon dispersion of Hg1201 by IXS. While the low-energy branches are well described by the poorly screened shell model, the Cu-O bond stretching branch is found to be radically softened towards $q$$\sim$0.3 along the \[100\] direction. This softening is quite similar to LSCO and YBCO, and thus we consider it a common property of the hole-doped HTSC, and independent of lattice distortion such as the orthorhombicity and the buckling of CuO$_2$ plane. The weak minimum with $q$ hints at some kind of inhomogeneous charge distribution.
We are grateful to L. Pintschovius for useful suggestions. This work was supported by the New Energy and Industrial Technology Department Organization (NEDO) as Collaborative Research and Development of Fundamental Technologies for Superconductivity Applications. The synchrotron radiation experiments were performed at the BL35XU in the SPring-8 with the approval of the Japan Synchrotron Radiation Research Institute (JASRI) (Proposal No.2002B0287-ND3-np, 2003A0555-ND3-np). H.U. acknowledges support by the JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists. S.T. was financially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.
For example, S.L. Cooper, F. Slakey, M.V. Klein, J.P. Rice, E.D. Bukowski, and D.M. Ginsberg, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 11934 (1988), M.F. Limonov, S. Tajima, and A. Yamanaka, $ibid$. [**62**]{}, 11859 (2000). M. Gurvitch, and A.T. Fiory, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 1337 (1987). G. Zhao, M.B. Hunt, H. Keller, and K.A. Müller, Nature [**385**]{}, 236 (1997). A. Lanzara, P.V. Bogdanov, X.J. Zhou, S.A. Kellar, D.L. Feng, E.D. Lu, T.Yoshida, H. Eisaki, A. Fujimori, K. Kishio, J.-I. Shimoyama, T. Noda, S. Uchida, Z. Hussain, and Z.-X. Shen, Nature [**412**]{}, 510 (2001). L. Pintschovius, W. Reichardt, in [*Neutron Scattering in Layered Copper-Oxide Superconductors*]{}, edited by A. Furrer (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998), p. 165, and references therein. L. Pintschovius, D. Reznik, W. Reichardt, Y. Endoh, H. Hiraka, J.M. Tranquada, H. Uchiyama, T. Masui, and S. Tajima, cond-mat/0310183. J.-H. Chung, T. Egami, R.J. McQueeney, M. Yethiraj, M. Arai, T. Yokoo, Y. Petrov, H.A. Mook, Y. Endoh, S. Tajima, C. Frost, and F. Dogan, Phys, Rev. B [**67**]{}, 014517 (2003). H.A. Mook and F. Doğan, Nature [**401**]{}, 145 (1999). L. Pintschovius and M. Braden, Phys. Rev. B [**60**]{}, R15039 (1999). R.J. McQueeney, Y. Petrov, T. Egami, M. Yethiraj, G. Shirane, and Y. Endoh, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 628 (1999). M. d’Astuto, P.K. Mang, P. Giura, A. Shukla, P. Ghigna, A. Mirone, M. Braden, M. Greven, M. Krisch, and F. Sette, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 167002 (2002). J.B. Torrance, A. Bezinge, A.I. Nazzal, T.C. Huang, S.S.P. Parkin, D.T. Keane, S.J. LaPlaca, P.M. Horn, and G.A. Held, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 8872 (1989). A. Yamamoto, K. Minami, W.-Z. Hu, A. Miyakita, M. Izumi, and S. Tajima, Phys. Rev. B [**65**]{}, 104505 (2002). M. d’Astuto, A. Mirone, P. Giura, D. Colson, A. Forget and M. Krisch, J. Phys. [**15**]{}, 8827 (2003). A.Q.R. Baron, Y. Tanaka, S. Goto, K. Takeshita, T. Matsushita, and T. Ishikawa, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**61**]{}, 461 (2000). A. Yamamoto, W.-Z. Hu, F. Izumi, and S. Tajima, Physica C [**351**]{}, 329 (2000). S.L. Chaplot, W. Reichardt, L. Pintschovius, and N. Pyka, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 7230 (1994). B. Renker, H. Schober, and F. Gompf, J. Low. Temp. Phys. [**105**]{}, 843 (1996). X. Zhou, M. Cardona, C.W. Chu, Q.M. Lin, S.M. Loureiro, M. Marezio, Physica C [**270**]{}, 193 (1996). M.C. Krantz, C. Thomsen, Hj. Mattausch, and M. Cardona, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 1165 (1994). The software by A. Mirone and M. d’Astuto is available at http://openphonon.sourceforge.net. J.M. Tranquada, K. Nakajima, M. Braden, L. Pintschovius, and R.J. McQueeney, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 075505 (2002). D.V. Fil, O.I. Tokar, A.L. Shelankov, and W. Weber, Phys. Rev. B, [**45**]{} 5633 (1992). L. Pintschovius, W. Reichardt, M. Kläser, T. Wolf, and H.v. Löhneysen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 037001 (2002). L. Pintschovius, private communication. H.J. Kang, P. Dai, D. Mandrus, R. Jin, H.A. Mook, D. T. Adroja, S.M. Bennington, S.-H. Lee, and J. W. Lynn, Phys. Rev. B, [**66**]{} 064506 (2002). L. Pintschovius, J.M. Bassat, P. Odier, F. Gervais, G. Chevrier, W. Reichardt, and F. Gompf, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 2229 (1989). W. Reichardt, and M. Braden, Physica B [**263-264**]{}, 416 (1996). J. Zhang, P. Dai, J. A. Fernandez-Baca, E.W. Plummer, Y. Tomioka, and Y. Tokura, Phy. Rev. Lett [**86**]{}, 3823 (2001). M. Braden, W. Reichardt, S. Shiryaev, and S.N. Barilo, Physica C [**378-381**]{}, 89 (2002). W. Weber, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{}, 1371 (1987). C.-Z. Wang, R. Yu, and H. Krakauer, Phys. Rev. B, [**59**]{} 9278 (1999). K.-P. Bohnen, R. Heid, and M. Krauss, Europhys. Lett. [**64**]{} 104 (2003). K. Park and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 184510 (2001). E. Kaneshita, M. Ichioka, and K. Machida, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 115501 (2002). A.R. Bishop, D. Mihailovic, and J.M. de León, J. Phys. [**15**]{} L169 (2003). D. Mihailovic, and V.V. Kabanov, Phys. Rev. B, [**63**]{} 054505 (2001). M. Tachiki, M. Machida, and T. Egami, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 174506 (2003). Z.G. Yu, J. Zang, J.T. Gammel, A.R. Bishop, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{} R3241 (1998). C. Falter and G.A. Hoffmann, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 054516 (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We simulate antiferromagnetic thin films. Dipole-dipole and antiferromagnetic exchange interactions as well as uniaxial and quadrupolar anisotropies are taken into account. Various phases unfold as the corresponding parameters, $J$, $D$ and $C$, as well as the temperature $T$ and the number $n$ of film layers vary. We find (1) how the strength $\Delta_\nu$ of the anisotropy arising from dipole-dipole interactions varies with the number of layers $\nu$ away from the film’s surface, with $J$ and with $n$; (2) a unified phase diagram for all $n$-layer films and bulk systems; (3) a layer dependent spin reorientation (SR) phase in which spins rotate continuously as $T$, $D$, $C$ and $n$ vary; (4) that the ratio of the SR to the ordering temperature depends (approximately) on $n$ only through $(D+\Delta /n)/C$, and hardly on $J$; (5) a phase transformation between two different magnetic orderings, in which spin orientations may or may not change, for some values of $J$, by varying $n$.'
author:
- 'Juan J. Alonso'
- 'Julio F. Fernández'
date:
-
-
title: Theoretical simulation of the anisotropic phases of antiferromagnetic thin films
---
Introduction
============
Magnetic thin films are attracting much interest. Some of it derives from applications (in electronics[@tappl]) of ferro/antiferromagnetic layered structures, where bias hysteresis arises from interactions at the interfaces of film[@ebh] and in nanoparticle layers.[@nano] Knowledge of the nature of the magnetically ordered states, as well as of the transitions between them, is important. The spin reorientation (SR) transition is most interesting. Continuous SR transitions, in which the direction of the magnetization changes continuously with temperature, were first observed in bulk ferrimagnets[@gill] and in canted spin antiferromagnets (AFs).[@gyor] Discontinuous SR transitions were first discovered in the bulk, in AFs[@neel] and in ferromagnets.[@morin]
Competition of various magnetic anisotropies play decisive role in SR. Simply put, minimization of the energy with respect to direction of the magnetization $m$ (or some staggered magnetization $m_s$ for AFs) gives the physical direction of $m$ at very low temperatures. By proper choice of the anisotropy, the energy minimum can be controlled, and thus the direction of $m$. Furthermore, in a Ginzburg-Landau like theory, the anisotropy constants can be made to vary with temperature, and thus the direction of $m$. This approach was first use by Horner and Varma[@var; @LL] for continuous SR. Mean field, as well as MC calculations, also give continuous SR in the bulk.[@ours] [*Discontinuous*]{} SR, on the other hand, occur when one local minimum in the free energy, for some spin direction, suddenly (as, for instance, the temperature varies) becomes the global minimum, at the expense of another local minimum, for another spin direction.
For films, thermally driven SR transitions, whose nature (continuous or discontinuous) was not clearly established, were first reported for ferromagnets by Pappas et al.[@pappas] Usually,[@allens] but not always,[@ni] SR proceeds from out of plane to in plane as the temperature increases. Variation of the number $n$ of layers can also lead to SR transitions. [@allens; @ni; @FO15] Manifestly smooth SR transitions have been recently observed in ferromagnetic thin films.[@garr; @sell] There are two main sources for the out of plane in-plane anisotropies in films: (1) missing bonds at surfaces can give rise to large local magneto-crystalline anisotropies then; (2) dipole-dipole interactions induce important anisotropies in magnetic films. In ferromagnets, dipolar fields drive spins to lie in plane, rather than out of plane, because dipolar field energies ($\sim m^2$) that obtain when $m$ is out of plane are thus avoided.[@gyorgy] Dipolar fields lead to stripe like domains in thin films when magneto crystalline anisotropies favor spins to be out of plane.[@gyorgy; @villa; @benne] Growth of such stripes of in plane spins, at the expense of out of plane domains (or the other way around), as the temperature varies, leads to continuous SR in ferromagnetic films.[@vedme] No [*continuous*]{} SR transition is obtained if a homogeneous magnetization as well as only a lowest order uniaxial anisotropy are assumed,[@pheno1; @pheno2] as has sometimes been done in mean field theory,[@usadel1; @usadelx] MC[@usadelx; @santa] and a renormalization group calculation.[@renor]
The behavior of antiferromagnetic films is qualitatively different, mainly because anisotropic effects that arise from dipolar fields in AFs are more subtle than in ferromagnets. In AFs, fields decay exponentially beyond the system’s boundaries, as expected from the following simple argument. Consider an AF filling all space where $z<0$. In the vacuum (i.e., where $z>0$), the magnetic field ${\bf h}({\bf r})$ follows from ${\bf h}({\bf r})=\nabla \phi ({\bf r})$, where $\phi ({\bf r})$ is a suitably defined field. Since $\phi ({\bf r})$ obeys Laplace’s equation for $z>0$, $\phi ({\bf r})$ can be expanded therein, in obvious notation, as $\sum_{{\bf k}}a_{{\bf k}}\cos ({\bf k\cdot r}_\parallel)\exp (-\mid k\mid z)$. This much follows as well for ferromagnets. The difference between AFs and ferromagnets arises from the fact that whereas $a_{{\bf k}}\simeq 0$ for $ \mid k \mid <\mid {\bf G}\mid$ where ${\bf G}$ gives the periodicity of $\phi (x)$ near the surface of an AF, for ferromagnets, $\mid {\bf G}\mid$ scales with the inverse ferromagnetic domain size. In addition, the previous argument suggests that anisotropic effects from dipolar fields may also decrease exponentially, away from surfaces, [*within*]{} AFs. Important qualitative differences between anisotropies in ferro- and antiferromagnets arise from this. Unfortunately, relevant experiments,[@stohr; @maat; @hellwig] and MC work for one-layer antiferromagnetic films have only recently been reported.[@macisaac1; @abu] A discontinuous SR has been simulated in one layer films with a weak antiferromagnetic exchange[@macisaac1] (in which dipolar interactions are dominant) as well as with a strong one.[@abu] Because no high order (beyond quadratic) site anisotropy was taken into account, [*continuous*]{} SRs did not obtain. Finally, there is a mean field theory calculation for one-layer Heisenberg spin systems which include dipolar interactions as well as the lowest order uniaxial anisotropy[@deng] which also yields a thermally driven discontinuous SR.
Our aim in this paper is to study (i) how the effective surface anisotropy that arises from dipolar interactions in magnetically ordered AF films varies with film thickness and with exchange strength, (ii) how the magnetic phases depend on film thickness, as well as on exchange, the uniaxial $D$ and quadrupolar $C$ anisotropy constants, (iii) how spins on surface layers behave with respect to spins on inner layers, and (iv) how the continuous and discontinuous SR temperatures depend on various parameters.
The plan of the paper is as follows. The model is specified in Sec. \[model\]. Section \[esa\] is about antiferromagnetic ordering in the ground state and the unification that can be achieved between film and bulk phase behavior. This unification comes about because the anisotropy that arises from dipole-dipole interactions is, as surmised in the Introduction, a surface effect. In Sec. \[esahom\] we define two general homogeneous spin configurations. By MC simulations, we show that all antiferromagnetically ordered phases, except for the SR phase,[@SRphase] conform to these configurations. One (the other one) general configuration holds for AF ordered states in which exchange (dipolar) interactions dominate. We derive the anisotropy energy in each of these two configurations coming from dipolar interactions. Monte Carlo results show that the resulting effective anisotropy decays exponentially fast with distance away from films surfaces. In Sec. \[89\], the ground state continuous SR transition is studied. By MC simulations, we study how surface anisotropy arising from dipole-dipole interactions drive spin directions as a function of layer position. Section \[phases\] is about thermal effects. In Sect. \[phaseshom\] we report MC results for transitions between various homogeneous magnetic phases. One of them is the [*discontinuous*]{} SR transition. In addition, a transition between two ordered states, with the same spin alignment, is found as the number of film layers changes. In Sect. \[SR\], we study, by MC simulations, the thermally driven continuous SR transition. Defining an effective uniaxial anisotropy constant $D_{eff}$ that takes into account the dipole-dipole induced anisotropy, we show that the ratio of the SR transition temperature to the ordering temperature depends on $D_{eff}/C$, but depends hardly on the exchange constant, as long as it is antiferromagnetic.
\[width=80mm\][figure1.eps]{}
The Model {#model}
=========
We next specify the model system we study. Let ${\bf S}_i$ be a classical 3-component unit spin at lattice site $i$ of a simple cubic (SC) lattice, let $${\cal H}={\cal H}_J+{\cal H}_d+{\cal H}_A,
\label{ham}$$ where ${\cal H}_J=-J\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}{\bf S}_i\cdot {\bf S}_j$, the sum $\sum_{\langle ij \rangle}$ is over all nearest neighbor bonds, $${\cal H}_d=\sum_{\langle ij\rangle}\sum_{\alpha\beta}
T_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}S_i^\alpha S_j^\beta ,
\label{H_d}$$
$$T_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}=\varepsilon_d
\left(\frac{a}{r_{ij}}\right)^3\left(\delta_{\alpha\beta}-3
\frac{r_{ij}^\alpha r_{ij}^\beta}{r_{ij}^2}\right),
\label{dipene}$$
${\bf r}_{ij}$ is the displacement from site $i$ to site $j$, $a$ is the SC lattice parameter, $${\cal H}_A=-D\sum_i (S_i^z)^2-C\sum_i [(S_i^x)^4+(S_i^y)^4],
\label{A}$$ and $D$ and $C$ are the uniaxial and quadrupolar anisotropy constants, respectively. The nearest neighbor dipolar energy $\varepsilon_d$ is defined through Eqs. (\[H\_d\]) and (\[dipene\]).
The boundary conditions we use are most easily grasped in one dimension. Consider first spin sites at $x_k=ka$, for $k=-\infty\ldots , 0,\ldots \infty$. For periodic boundary conditions (PBC), $S^{\alpha}_k=S^{\alpha}_{k+L}$ for all $k$, and we let a spin at the $k$-th site interact with all $L/2$ ($L/2-1$) spins immediately to the right (left) of the $k$-th site. For free boundary conditions (FBC), on the other hand, we would let a spin at the $k$-th site interact with all spins on sites $n=1, \ldots , k-1, k+1,\ldots L$. We now return to the system of interest here, an $n$-layer film, by which we mean $L\times L\times n$ spins on a fully occupied SC lattice within a slab which lies flat on an $xy$ plane. Let the $z$ axis be perpendicular to the film layers. We use PBC along the $x$ and $y$ directions and FBC along the $z$ direction. Thus, a spin on any given site $i$ interacts, through dipolar fields, with all other $L\times L\times n -1$ spins in the system which are in a box, whose top and bottom surfaces coincide with the two films surfaces but is otherwise (that is, sidewise) centered on the $i$-th site.
Our simulations follow the standard Metropolis Monte Carlo MC algorithm.[@metrop] In particular, after we choose an initial spin configuration, we compute the dipolar field at each site. Time evolution takes place as follows. A spin is chosen at random and temporarily pointed in a new random direction. The move is accepted if either $\Delta E\leq 0$, where $\Delta E$ is the energy change, or with probability $\exp (-\Delta E/k_BT)$, where T is the systemÕs temperature, if $\Delta E>0$. All dipolar fields are then updated throughout the system if the move is accepted, before another spin is chosen to repeat the process. By [*in-plane*]{} and [*out of plane*]{} we will mean spins lying flat on the $xy$ plane or along the $z$ axis, respectively.
Effective surface anisotropy from dipole-dipole interactions {#esa}
============================================================
The spin configurations explicitly depicted (not the SR phase) in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b) were shown in Ref. \[\] to be ground states for large $L\times L\times L$ systems with PBC. Our Monte Carlo calculations show that the same spin configurations are also ground states for films, with PBC at the film edges and FBC on the perpendicular direction to the film. In these states, spins on the two film surfaces do not deviate at all from the direction they would point to in the bulk.[@farle] We shall refer to these states as [*homogeneous*]{}. Our Monte Carlo calculations also show (see below) that, in the SR phase, spins on surface layers tilt away from these directions. We first derive the effective surface anisotropy that arises from dipole-dipole interactions in homogeneous states.
Homogeneous states {#esahom}
------------------
Consider first the phases in Fig. \[f1\](a), in which, $${\textbf S}_i=(\sin \theta \cos \phi, \sin \theta \sin\phi, \cos \theta) \eta_i,
\label{cex}$$ where $$\eta_i\equiv (-1)^{x(i)+y(i)+z(i)},
\label{1astate}$$ and $x(i),y(i),z(i)$ is the three dimensional position of the $i$-th site. By proper choice of $\theta$ and $\phi$, the above equations define the three spin configurations shown in Fig. 1(a). We shall refer to these spin configurations, which minimize $E_J$, as $AF_J$ configurations. Spins in these configurations are clearly collinear.
Note first that Eqs. (\[cex\]) and (\[1astate\]) imply $$E_J=(3-\frac{1}{n}) J,
\label{EJ0}$$ independently of $\theta$ and $\phi$, and $E_A=-D\cos^2\theta -C (\sin^4\phi + \cos^4\phi )\sin^4 \theta$. To calculate $E_d$, we substitute Eqs. (\[cex\]) and (\[1astate\]) into Eq. (\[H\_d\]) and (\[dipene\]). Note first that $\sum_{ij}T_{ij}^{\alpha\beta}\eta_i\eta_j=0$ if $\alpha\neq \beta$ (by $x$ and $y$ reflection symmetry). Similarly, $\sum_{ij}T_{ij}^{xx}\eta_i\eta_j=\sum_{ij}T_{ij}^{yy}\eta_i\eta_j$. Therefore $$E_d=(2N)^{-1}\sum_{ij}[T_{ij}^{xx}\eta_i\eta_j+(T_{ij}^{zz}-T_{ij}^{xx})\eta_i\eta_j\cos^2\theta ]
\label{Ed0}$$ follows, which, by numerical evaluation, gives $$E_d=\frac{0.67\varepsilon_d}{n}-\frac{\Delta}{n}\cos^2\theta
\label{De2}$$ where $$\Delta =1.984\varepsilon_d
\label{E_j}$$ for $AF_J$ spin configurations.
We next calculate $E_J+E_d+E_A$ for the three spin configurations shown in Fig. 1(b), given by $${\textbf S}_i=(\tau_i^{x}\sin \theta \cos \phi, \tau_i^{y}\sin \theta \sin\phi, \tau_i^{z}\cos \theta)
\label{ctx}$$ where $\bm{\tau}_i\equiv [\tau_i^x,\tau_i^y, \tau_i^z]$ is given by $$\bm{\tau}_i=[(-1)^{y(i)+z(i)},
(-1)^{x(i)+z(i)},
(-1)^{x(i)+y(i)}].
\label{taud}$$ We shall refer to the above spin configurations, depicted in Fig. 1b for some values of $\theta$ and $\phi$ and in Fig. \[canteado\] for arbitrary $\theta$ and $\phi$, as $AF_d$ configurations. Spins in these configurations are in general noncollinear. It is worth pointing out that, in $L\times L\times L$ spin systems in cubic lattices, ${\cal H}_d$ is invariant with respect to both $\theta$ and $\phi$ in these $AF_d$ configurations.[@ours; @Rinv]
![Spin configuration defined by Eqs. (\[ctx\]) and (\[taud\]). In the SR phase of Fig. 1(b), $0<\theta <\pi /2$ and $\phi =\pm \pi /4$; for other phases of Fig. 1(b), $\theta$ and $\phi$ are as depicted therein.[]{data-label="canteado"}](figure2.eps){width="80mm"}
Note first that Eqs. (\[ctx\]) and (\[taud\]) imply, $$E_J=(1-\frac{1}{n}) J+\frac{2J}{n}\cos^2\theta,
\label{EJ}$$ and $E_A=-D\cos^2\theta -C (\sin^4\phi + \cos^4\phi )\sin^4 \theta$. We now calculate $E_d$. For systems with complete cubic symmetry, that is, with a cubic lattice structure [*and*]{} a cubic shape, with the same type of boundary conditions on all surfaces, we have shown[@ours] that $E_d$ is invariant with respect to $\theta$ and $\phi$ in Eq. (\[ctx\]). By the arguments preceding Eq. (\[De2\]), we obtain $$E_d=(2N)^{-1}\sum_{ij}[T_{ij}^{xx}\tau_i^x\tau^x_j+(T_{ij}^{zz}\tau_i^z\tau_j^z-T_{ij}^{xx}\tau_i^x\tau^x_j)\cos^2\theta ]
\label{Ed1}$$ for n-layer films with PBC at the edges and FBC on the top and bottom surfaces. Straightforward numerical calculations give $$E_d=-\left( 2.68-\frac{0.13}{n}\right)\varepsilon_d+\frac{1.23\varepsilon_d}{n}\cos^2\theta
\label{Dep}$$ for $AF_d$ spin configurations.
Thus, both for $AF_J$ and $AF_d$ configurations, an effective anisotropy, $$D_{eff}=D+\Delta /n
\label{123}$$ obtains, where $\Delta$ is given by Eq. (\[E\_j\]) for $AF_J$, and by $$\Delta=-1.23\varepsilon_d-2J
\label{Delta_d}$$ for $AF_d$ states.
The anisotropy induced in AFs by dipole-dipole interactions, given by Eqs. (\[E\_j\]), (\[123\]), and (\[Delta\_d\]), differ from the one for ferromagnets in two respects: (1) it favors out of plane spins over in plane ones in $AF_J$ states, and (2) the corresponding energy for AFs varies as $1/n$ as $n$ increases. The reason for it is given in the Introduction, in plane orientation need not be favored in AFs, because no significant vacuum dipolar field energy exists for them. We next discuss the mechanism underlying the other effect, the $1/n$ behavior.
Equations (\[E\_j\]) and (\[Delta\_d\]) suggest that anisotropy effects arising from dipole-dipole interactions occur only on surface layers. We have (numerically) calculated how the dipolar field varies with the distance from a film’s surface for homogeneous spin configurations. Let $\nu=0,1,2,\cdots$ number the layers, starting with $0$ for one of the two outermost surface layers. We find that the deviation of dipolar fields from their bulk value decreases exponentially as $\nu$ increases. More specifically, $$\delta h_\nu\simeq \delta h\exp (-\kappa \nu),
\label{exp1}$$ where $\kappa \simeq 4.4$ ($\kappa \simeq 7$) for all $AF_J$s and out of plane $AF_d$s (for all in plane $AF_d$’s) ordered states we have tried. This is in agreement with the discussion in Sec. I, since the wave vector’s magnitude of the field near the surface of an $AF_J$ or an out of plane $AF_d$ (for an in plane $AF_d$) on a SC lattice is $\sqrt{2}\pi /a$ ($\sqrt{5}\pi /a$). Therefore, to the accuracy of our numerical results, all anisotropy effects arising from dipole-dipole interactions occur only on the outer surfaces. Therein, it is given by $\Delta /2$ for each of the two surfaces on $n=2$ films, and by $\Delta$ for $n=1$ layer films.
In order to characterize antiferromagnetically ordered states, we now define $$m_{J}^\alpha =N^{-1}\sum_i S_i^\alpha \eta_i,$$ and $$m_{d}^\alpha =N^{-1}\sum_i S_i^\alpha \tau^{\alpha}_i.$$ In a $AF_J$ state, ${\textbf m}_{J}=(\sin \theta \cos \phi, \sin \theta \sin\phi, \cos \theta)$ and ${\textbf m}_{d}=0$. On the other hand, in a $AF_d$ state ${\textbf m}_{J}=0$ and ${\textbf m}_{d}=(\sin \theta \cos \phi, \sin \theta \sin\phi, \cos \theta)$. We can define these order parameters for the whole system, by summing over all sites $i$, or we can define, say, order parameters for surface film layers or interior layers, by summing over surface or interior sites. We next discuss the effective anisotropy in the SR phase.
The SR phase {#89}
------------
![(Color online) $m_d^\alpha $ versus $-D_{eff}/C$, for $\alpha =x, z$ on two different layers. $m_d^\alpha (\nu)$ is for the $\nu$-th layer ($\nu=0$ for a surface layer, and so on). All data follow from MC simulations of films of $16 \times 16 \times n$ spins, for $n=4$, $C=-0.8\varepsilon_d$, and $J=0$, near $T=0$.[]{data-label="Fig3"}](figure3.eps){width="80mm"}
![(Color online) $|m_d^\alpha (in)-m_d^\alpha (s)|$ versus $\Delta D$ for slabs of $L \times L \times n$ dipoles for $J=0$, $D=-\varepsilon_d$ and $C=-2 D$. We use FBC in the $z$ direction and PBC in the $xy$ plane. The value of $D$ on the two outermost layers of the slab differs by $\Delta D$ from the value it takes on the inner layers.[]{data-label="figure4"}](figure4.eps){width="85mm"}
In Ref. \[\] the nature of the spin reorientation phase \[marked as SR in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)\] in $L\times L\times L$ systems with PBC was discussed in some detail. In the SR phase $m_J^\alpha \neq 0$ ($m_d^\alpha \neq 0$) for all three components of $\alpha$ if $J\lesssim -1.34\varepsilon_d$ ($ -1.34\varepsilon_d\lesssim J\leq 0$), that is, spins in the SR phase are tilted some angle $0<\theta <\pi /2$ away from the $z$ axis. For homogeneous states, given by either Eq. (\[cex\]) or Eq. (\[taud\]), as for $L\times L\times L$ systems in Ref. \[\], minimization of the total energy, gives $${\bf S}=(\pm u,\pm u, \pm v)
\label{Fdetb}$$ for $C <D_{eff}<0$, where $ u=\sqrt{D_{eff}/2C}$ and $v=\sqrt{1-2u^2}$. Then, varying $D_{eff}/C$ over the $0-1$ range would lead to a $\pi /2$ spin rotation. Inspection of Fig. \[Fig3\] shows that the homogeneity assumption is wrong for thin films, and, consequently, spins do [*not*]{} quite rotate by $\pi /2$ as $D_{eff}/C$ sweeps over the $0-1$ interval. The order parameter, $m^x_d$ and $m^z_d$, on the surface clearly differs from the order parameters on inner layers in Fig. \[Fig3\]. To the accuracy of our results, spins on all inner layers do follow either Eq. (\[cex\]) or Eq. (\[ctx\]). Thus, phase diagrams for n-layer films collapse into a single diagram if $D$ is replaced by $D+\Delta /n$, but only approximately so for the SR phase.
In order to look further into this effect, we have also performed MC simulations of n-layer films with anisotropy constants $D$ and $C$ on all sites, except for all surface sites, where a variable quantity $\Delta D$ is added to $D$. We calculate $\mid m_{d}^\alpha (in)\mid$ for inner layers, and $\mid m_{d}^\alpha (s)\mid$ for the two surface layers. A plot of $\mid m_{d}^\alpha (in) - m_{d}^\alpha (s)\mid$, for $\alpha =x, y,z$, vs $\Delta D/\varepsilon_d$ is shown in Fig. \[figure4\] for $T\sim 0$, $D=-\varepsilon_d$, $C=-2 D$, and $J=0$. $\mid m_{d}^\alpha (in) -m_{d}^\alpha (s)\mid$ vanishes for all $\alpha$ at $\Delta D=0.615\varepsilon_d$, as was to be expected from Eqs. (\[Delta\_d\]) and (\[exp1\]). Further MC simulations we have performed for films of various thicknesses yield analogous results.
phase transitions {#phases}
=================
Up to this point we have assumed which of the two, $AF_J$ or $AF_d$, states the system is in, but we are now able to specify which of these two obtain given the value of $J$. Much of this section, the portions having to do with phase transitions as the number of film layers change at very small temperatures, follow from the following considerations. Comparison of Eqs. (\[EJ0\]), (\[De2\]), and (\[E\_j\]) with (\[123\]) and (\[Delta\_d\]) shows that: (1) $AF_J$ ($AF_d$) order ensues in out of plane spin configurations when $J\lesssim -1.34\varepsilon_d$ ($ -1.34\varepsilon_d\lesssim J <0$); $AF_J$ \[$AF_d$\] order ensues for in plane spin configurations when $J\lesssim -(1.34+0.27/n)\varepsilon_d$ \[$ -(1.34+0.27/n)\varepsilon_d\lesssim J <0$\]. From these conditions on $\mid J\mid$ one can decide whether $\mid J\mid$ is sufficiently small for a system to qualify as a dipolar antiferromagnet.[@dejongh] As $n\rightarrow \infty$, the results obtained in Ref. \[\] for bulk systems follow. Note also that a transformation between $AF_J$ and $AF_d$ ordered states for in-plane configurations can occur as the number $n$ of layers changes if $-1.61\varepsilon_d\lesssim J\lesssim -1.34\varepsilon_d$.
![(Color online) Order parameter $m_d^\alpha$, for $\alpha =x, y$ vs $C$ for slabs of $16 \times 16\times n$ dipoles on sc lattices at $T=0.05\varepsilon_d/k_B$, where $k_B$ is Boltzmann’s constant, for $D=-\varepsilon_d$ and $J=0$. A transition between the $xy$-collinear and $xy$-canted phases is clearly exhibited at $C=0$ for different values of $n$. We use FBC in the $z$ direction and PBC in the $xy$ plane. $C$ was lowered from $C=\varepsilon_d$ in $\Delta C=-0.02\varepsilon_d/k_B$ steps. Each data point follows from averages over $10^5$ MC sweeps.[]{data-label="CantCol"}](figure5.eps){width="80mm"}
The C=0 transition {#phaseshom}
------------------
The phase transition at $C=0$ for $D_{eff}<0$ is illustrated in Fig. \[CantCol\]. We know of no previous experimental or MC work on this transition in films. It appears to be of first order, as predicted by Landau’s theory, because no symmetry group in any of these phases is a subgroup of another one. The transition moves slightly off the $C=0$ line as $T$ departs from 0, as shown for a one layer film in Fig. \[Tdep\], giving rise to a reentrant transition. The transition at $C=0$, however, remains unmoved at $T=0$ as the number of film layers varies. This is in agreement with the statement that dipolar interactions shift the value of $D$ but not of $C$.
![(Color online) Transition temperatures vs $-C/D_{eff}$ from MC simulations of $L\times L\times 1$ spin systems, for $L=16$ and $L=32$, varying $C$, with $D_{eff}=-0.5\varepsilon_d$ and $J=0$ fixed. Open and closed symbols stand for $L=16$ and $L=32$, respectively. $xy$ and $z$ stand for in plane and out of plane spin configurations. In the simulations, the temperature was lowered in steps of $0.02\varepsilon_d/k_B$ and $0.01 \varepsilon_d/k_B$ for $L=32$ and $L=16$, respectively. At each temperature, $10^6$ and $2\times 10^5$ MC sweeps were taken, for $L=16$ and $L=32$, respectively. In order to check for non-equilibrium effects, the system was [*heated*]{} for some values of $C/D_eff$. No such effects were found. []{data-label="Tdep"}](figure6.eps){width="80mm"}
Discontinuous SR transitions {#DSR}
----------------------------
Consider first the phase transition between in plane and out of plane spin configurations at low temperature for $C>0$. Assume temporarily the same $AF_J$ or $AF_d$ order in both in plane and out of plane phases, and recall that the ground state energy variation with spin tilt angle $\theta$ is given by ${\cal H}_A$ if $D$ is replaced by $D_{eff}$ in Eq. (\[A\]). Then,$${\cal H}_A=C\left[\left(\frac{D_{eff}}{C}-\sin^2\theta \right)\sin^2\theta\right] -D_{eff} ,
\label{A2}$$ follows from Eq. (\[A\]), replacing $D$ by $D_{eff}$ and assuming $S_x^2=1$ or $S_y^2=1$. Clearly, (1) $D_{eff}/C<1$ ($D_{eff}/C>1$) implies an in plane (out of plane) phase in the ground state, and (2) the transition is discontinuous since Eq. (\[A2\]) gives an energy barrier between $\theta=0$ and $\theta=\pi /2$ when $D_{eff}=C$. This is as depicted in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b). It has been observed in experimental and numerical work on films.[@allens; @FO15] The assumption we made, that the same $AF_J$ or $AF_d$ order prevails in both in plane and out of plane phases, holds for most values of $J$, as follows from Eqs. (\[A\]), (\[EJ0\]), (\[De2\]), (\[EJ\]), (\[Dep\]), and (\[Delta\_d\]). More specifically, the transition occurs between two $AF_d$ states if $-1,34\varepsilon_d\lesssim J\leq 0$. The transition is between two $AF_J$ states if $J\lesssim -(1.34+0.27/n)\varepsilon_d$. Monte Carlo results that include this transition are shown in Fig. \[X\] for films of $n=1$ and $n=2$.
The boundary line between out of plane and in plane phases tilts away from $D_{eff}=C$ as the temperature increases, as shown in Fig. \[X\]. Thus, the possibility of thermally driven SR transitions arise, as $T$ varies if $-0.5\varepsilon_d\lesssim D_{eff}-C< 0$. This is qualitatively as in the mean field prediction[@dos] for $J=-10^3\varepsilon_d$, $C=0$, and $n=1$ in Ref. \[\].
![(Color online) Transition temperatures vs $D_{eff}/C$ for $n=1$ and $n=2$ layer films in which $J=-10$, $C=0$ and $C=1$. In the graph, $z$ and $xy$ stand $z$-collinear and $xy$-collinear, respectively. All data points come from MC simulations of $L\times L\times n$ spins for the values of $L$ and $n$ shown in the graph. The phase transition boundaries at the top follow from the location of specific heat peaks obtained while lowering the temperature in $\Delta T=0.1$ steps. In order to make sure equilibrium is realized, the lower phase transition boundary, for SR, is obtained from counting, over MC runs of several times $10^8$ sweeps, the frequency of occurrences of the two phases, which must be the same for both phases at the boundary line.[]{data-label="X"}](figure7.eps){width="80mm"}
![(Color online) Everything shown is for $J=-1.38\varepsilon_d$, $C=0.5\varepsilon_d$, $k_BT=0.01\varepsilon_d$. This is the lowest temperature we obtained with MC simulations in which $T$ was lowered in $\Delta k_BT=0.1\varepsilon_d$ steps, down to $k_BT=0.01\varepsilon_d$. Some $10^5$ MC sweeps were taken at each temperature step. (a) $\theta$ vs $D$ for $n=2$ ($\bullet$) and $n=3$ ($\blacksquare$). The shaded rectangle covers values of $D/\varepsilon_d$ where the out of plane $AF_J$ state, shown in (c) transforms into the the $AF_d$ in plane phase, shown in (b) if a layer is added to the film. (b) A $\theta =\pi /2$, $AF_d$, spin configuration, on lattice sites of a vertical cut of an $n=3$ layer film, obtained at $k_BT=0.1\varepsilon_d$ for $C=0.5$ and $D=-0.2\varepsilon_d$. (c) Same as in (b) but a $\theta =0$, $AF_J$, spin configuration that obtains for an $n=2$ layer film, for the same values of $C$, $D$, and $T$, as in (b). []{data-label="ventana2"}](figure8.eps){width="80mm"}
In the small $-(1.34+0.27/n)\varepsilon_d\lesssim J\lesssim -1.34\varepsilon_d$ range the situation is a more interesting. As specified at the top of Sect. \[phases\], the phase transition is then between an out of plane $AF_J$ ordered state and an in plane $AF_d$ ordered state. Equation (\[A2\]) does not apply then, because the assumption underlying it, that the same spin ordering $AF_J$ or $AF_d$ prevails on both sides of the phase boundary, breaks down. Assuming homogeneity, and making use of Eqs. (\[A\]), (\[EJ0\]), (\[De2\]), (\[EJ\]), and (\[Dep\]), the condition for discontinuous SR transitions becomes $$D=C+2J+(2.68-1.44/n)\varepsilon_d,
\label{notrep}$$ for $C>0$. Note that quantity $D_{eff}$ is not well defined in this narrow $J$ range. We can however use the two different values $D_{eff}$ has on both sides of the phase transition for comparison of the energies of $AF_J$ and $AF_d$ ordered systems. It can be checked straightfordwardly that, again, there is an energy barrier between the $\theta =0$ and $\theta =\pi /2$ phases. This transition, which has not, as far as we know, thus far been observed, is illustrated in Fig. \[ventana2\] with MC results for $3$ and $2$ layer films. The dark rectangle shown in Fig. \[ventana2\], showing the range of values of $D/\varepsilon_d$ where $n=2$ ($n=3$) films order in out of plane $AF_J$ (in plane $AF_d$) states, follows from our MC simulations. It is slightly displaced to the left, by $D/\varepsilon_d\simeq 0.12$, from the prediction that follows from Eq. (\[notrep\]). Irreversibility, that keeps spins from reorienting, from in plane to out of plane, at low $T$, as $T$ decreases, is responsible for this effect.
Transitions between $AF_J$ and $AF_d$ ordered states {#n}
----------------------------------------------------
![Ground state energies vs $1/n$ for $AF_J$ and $AF_d$ states, for out-of and in-plane spin alignment, of $n$-layer slabs, with $J=-1.38\varepsilon_d$, $D=-0.7\varepsilon_d$, and $C=0$. $\bullet$ and full line stand for in-plane (spins either along the lattice axes or diagonally to them) $AF_d$ and $AF_J$ ordered states, respectively; dashed line, and $\blacklozenge$ stand for out of plane $AF_d$ and $AF_J$ ordered states, respectively. Dotted lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="Fig6"}](figure9.eps){width="85mm"}
Phase transformations that do not involve SR can also occur between $AF_J$ and $AF_d$ ordered states, as the number $n$ of layers changes, if $-(1.34+0.27/n)\varepsilon_d\lesssim J\lesssim -1.34\varepsilon_d$. This is illustrated in Fig. \[Fig6\] for $J=-1.38\varepsilon_d$, $D=-0.7\varepsilon_d$, and $C=0$, where a transition from an $AF_J$ to an $AF_d$ ordered state, both in plane, is shown to take place as $n$ decreases from $n=6$ to $n=5$. (This is followed by a spin rotation, from in plane to out of plane, as $n$ decreases from $n=3$ to $n=2$.) We are not aware of any experimental observation of this kind of phase transformation.
![(Color online) $m_{d}^z$ ($\circ$ and $\bullet$), $m_{d}^y$ ($\square$ and $\blacksquare$), $m_{d}^x$ ($\lozenge$ and $\blacklozenge$), and $C/k_B$ (continuous and dashed lines) vs $T$. Open (closed) symbols and continuous (dashed) lines are for MC results for systems of $32\times 32\times 1$ (of $16\times 16\times 1$) spins on sc lattices for $J=0$, $C=-\varepsilon_d$, and $D=0.7C$. At each value of $T$, $4\times 10^5$ MC sweeps were made. Lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="SRtr2"}](figure10.eps){width="80mm"}
Continuous SR transitions {#SR}
-------------------------
A thermally driven SR transition is illustrated in Fig. \[SRtr2\] for an $n=1$ layer film. It is rather similar to thermally driven transitions in $L\times L\times L$ systems with PBC.[@ours] However, as is pointed out in Sec. \[89\] (and illustrated in Fig. \[Fig3\]) for $T\sim 0$, the SR phase in films with $n>1$ is special. Spin configurations in the SR phase are not homogeneous. Whereas spins on inner layers follow Eqs. (\[cex\]) or (\[ctx\]), spins on surface layers do not, if $D$ and $C$ are homogeneous throughout the system.
![Surface and inner layer order parameters $\mid m_{d}^\alpha (s)\mid$ and $\mid m_{d}^\alpha (in)\mid$, respectively, for $\alpha =x, y$, and $z$, and specific heat, $C$, vs $T$. All data points come from MC simulations of of $8\times 8 \times 4$ spins with $J=0$. Symbols (dashed lines) are for order parameters (specific heat) of systems with spatially homogeneous anisotropy constants $D=-\varepsilon_d$ and $C=-2\varepsilon_d$ and FBC on the top and bottom surfaces; continuous lines are for films with PBC on all of its boundaries with a uniaxial anisotropy constant $D=-\varepsilon_d$ on inner surfaces, $D=-\varepsilon_d+\Delta /2$ on its top and bottom surfaces, and $C=-2\varepsilon_d$ everywhere.[]{data-label="pru"}](figure11.eps){width="85mm"}
Inhomogeneity effects that arise from the effective surface anisotropy (induced by dipole-dipole interactions) are illustrated in Fig. \[pru\] for a $4$-layer film as a function of temperature. Two kinds of data points from MC simulations are shown: (1) For films with spatially homogeneous anisotropy constants $D$ and $C$ and FBC on the top and bottom surfaces; (2) for films with PBC on all of its boundaries[@nota] with a uniaxial anisotropy constant that is $\Delta /2$ larger on its top and bottom surfaces than on the inner layers. Note how the order parameters on a surface layer differs from the order parameters on inner layers in the former case, and how direct application of an anisotropy $\Delta /2$ on surface layers of films with PBC (no anisotropy from dipolar interactions arises then) leads to the same effect. This is as expected from the discussion in Sec. \[89\], concerning Fig. \[figure4\].
The continuous SR portion of the phase diagram for films is rather like the one for bulk AFs.[@ours] We give the MC results we have obtained for $n=1$ layer dipolar films (in which $J=0$) in Fig. \[SRph\].
Finally, we compare ordering and SR temperatures. Let $T_z$ ($T_{xy}$) stand for the temperatures below which $m_J^z\neq 0$ or $m_d^z\neq 0$ ($m_J^{xy}\neq 0$ or $m_d^{xy}\neq 0$). Monte Carlo results for the $T_z/T_{xy}$ ratio for $n=1$ films and bulk systems is shown in Fig. \[Tratio\], for $J/\varepsilon_d=0$ and for $\varepsilon_d/J=0$. In the latter case, $T_z/T_{xy}$ is, of course, independent of $J$, since $J$ sets the only energy scale then. The insensitivity of $T_z/T_{xy}$ to dimensionality and to the value of $J$, even when $\varepsilon_d\neq 0$ is remarkable.
![(a) Phases of dipolar ($J=0$) antiferromagnetic films for $C=-\varepsilon_d$. All data points come from MC simulations of ($\circ$) $16\times 16\times 1$ and ($\times$) $32\times 32\times 1$ spins. $xy$-canted and $z$-collinear stand for the ordered phases that are depicted in Fig. 1(b); the SR phase is as pictured in Fig. 2.[]{data-label="SRph"}](figure12.eps){width="80mm"}
![(Color online) Temperature ratio $T_{z}/T_{xy}$ vs $-D_{eff}/C$ for the values shown of $\varepsilon_d$, $J$, and $C$ in films ($d=2$) and $L\times L\times L$ systems with PBC ($d=3$). All data points, except the ($\blacksquare$) mean field (MF) results, come from MC simualtions. Note that $\circ$ and $\triangle$ stand for pure dipolar systems ($J=0$), $\Diamond$ is for $\varepsilon_d=0$, and $\square$ is for a one layer film in which both $D$ and $C$ are constant ($D_{eff}$ varies however, following Eqs. (\[123\]) and (\[Delta\_d\]), because $J$ varies). Systems are either of $L\times L\times L$ spins (for d=3) or of $L\times L\times 1$ spins (for d=2). All symbols stand for $L=16$ except for $\circ$, which stands for $L=32$. Lines are guides to the eye.[]{data-label="Tratio"}](figure13.eps){width="80mm"}
conclusions
===========
We have studied a nearest neighbor Heisenberg spin film like systems with dipolar interactions and uniaxial plus quadrupolar anisotropies. We have found how the strength $\Delta$ of the effective uniaxial anisotropy that arises from dipolar interactions varies with the strength of the antiferromagnetic exchange interaction and with layer position. We have argued (in Sec. I), and checked with MC simulations (in Sec. \[esahom\]), that $\Delta$ decays exponentially fast with the distance from either of the two outermost film layers. We have also found (in Sec. \[esa\]) that, except for the SR phase, all antiferromagnetic phases are homogeneous, that is, there are no surface states. These results, which are peculiar to AFs, imply that all but the SR phases of $n$ layer antiferromagnetic films fit into a single phase diagram \[see Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)\] if we let $D\rightarrow D+\Delta/n$. The only exception, the SR phase, associated with [*continuous*]{} SR (see Secs. \[89\] and \[SR\]), and phase transitions that arise from variation of film thickness, in the narrow $-1.61\varepsilon_d\lesssim J\lesssim -1.34\varepsilon_d$ range, in which spin orientation may (see Sec. \[DSR\]) or may not (see Sec. \[n\]) change. Finally, by means of MC simulations, we have found that the ratio of the continuous SR transition to the Neél ordering temperature depends very little on $J$, as illustrated in Fig. \[Tratio\], and seems to depend on the number $n$ of film layers only through the effective uniaxial anisotropy constant $D+\Delta/n$.
[99]{}
G. A. Prinz, Science [**282**]{}, 1660 (1998); Z. H. Xiong, Di Wu, Z. Valy Vardeny, Jing Shi, Nature [**427**]{}, 821 (2004).
W. P. Meiklejohn and C. P. Bean, Phys. Rev. [**102**]{}, 1413 (1956); Phys. Rev. [**105**]{}, 904 (1957); N. C. Koon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 4865 (1997); J. Nogués and I. K. Schuller, J. Mag. Mag. Mater. [**192**]{}, 203 (1999); E. Berkowitz and K. Takano, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**200**]{}, 552 (1999); F. Nolting, A. Scholl, J. Stšhr, J. W. Seo, J. Fompeyrine, H. Siegwart, J.-P. Locquet, S. Anders, J. LŸning, E. E. Fullerton, M. F. Toney, M. R. Scheinfein, and H. A. Padmore, Nature [**405**]{}, 767 (2000); R. L. Stamps, J. Phys. D [**33**]{}, R247ÐR268 (2000); P. Lubitz, J. J. Krebs, M. M. Miller, and Shufan Cheng, J. of Appl. Phys. [**83**]{}, 6819 (1998); T. P. A. Hase, B. D. Fulthorpe, S. B. Wilkins, and B. K. Tanner, C. H. Marrows and B. J. Hickey, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**79**]{}, 985 (2001).
V. Skumryev, S. Stoyanov, Y. Zhang, G. Hadjipanayis, D. Givord, and J. Nogues, Nature [**423**]{}, 850 (2003); O Iglesias, X. Batlle, and A Labarta, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 212401 (2005).
G. Guillaud, thesis, Strassbourg, 1943 (unpublished); M. K. Wilkinson, N. S. Gingrich, and C. G. Shull, J. Phys. Chem. Solids [**2**]{}, 289 (1957); H. S. Jarrett, P. E. Bierstedt, F. J. Darnell, and M. Sparks, J. Appl. Phys. [**32**]{}, 578 (1961); A. Austin, E. Adelson, and W.H. Cloud, J. Appl. Phys. Suppl. [**33**]{}, 1356 (1962); F. J. Darnell, W.H. Cloud, and H. S. Jarrett, Phys. Rev. [**130**]{}, 647 (1963).
E. M. Gyorgy, J. P. Remeika and F. B. Hagedorn, J. Appl. Phys. [**39**]{}, 1369 (1968); for a nice early view of the subject, see W. P. White, J. Appl. Phys. [**40**]{}, 1061 (1969).
L. Néel, Ann. phys. [**3**]{}, 137 (1948); [*ibid*]{} [**4**]{}, 249 (1949); Rev. Mod. Phys. [**25**]{}, 58 (1953).
F. J. Morin, Phys. Rev. [**78**]{}, 819( 1950).
H. Horner and C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**20**]{}, 845 (1968).
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Electrodynamics of Continuous Media*]{}, Pergamon, Oxford, second edition, 2004) pp. 159-162. The “angular phase” is how Landau and Lifshitz refer to the SR phase.
Julio F. Fernández, and Juan J. Alonso, Phys. Rev. B [**73**]{}, 024412 (2006).
D. P. Pappas, K.P. Kämper, and H. Hopster, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 3179 (1990), D. P. Pappas, C. R. Brundle, and H. Hopster, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 8169 (1992).
R. Allenspach and A. Bischof, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 3385 (1992); A. Berger and H. Hopster, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 519 (1996).
W. L. O’Brien and B. P. Tonner, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 15370 (1994); B. Schulz and K. Baberschke, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{} 13467 (1994).
H. P. Oepen, M. Speckmann, Y. Millev and J. Kirschner, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 2752 (1997).
G. Garreau, E. Beaurepaire, K. Ounadjela, and M. Farle, Phys. Rev. B [**53**]{}, 1083 (1996).
R. Sellmann, H. Fritzsche, H. Maletta, V. Leiner, and R. Siebrecht, Phys. Rev. B [**64**]{}, 054418 (2001).
Y. Yafet, E. M. Gyorgy, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 9145 (1988).
P.J. Jensen and K. H. Bennemann, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{} 849 (1990); Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{} 16012 (1995).
R. Czech and J. Villain, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter, [**1**]{}, 619 (1989).
E. Y. Vedmedenko, H. P. Oepen, A. Ghazali, J. C. S. Levy, J. Kirschner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 5884 (2000); E. Y. Vedmedenko, and H. P. Oepen, J. Appl. Phys. [**89**]{}, 7145 (2001).
Y. Millev and M. Fähnle, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 4336 (1995).
H. Fritzsche, J. Kohlhepp, H. J. Elmers, and U. Gradmann, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 15665 (1994); H. Fritzsche, J. Kohlhepp, and U. Gradmann, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**148**]{} 154 (1995)
A. Hucht and K. D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{} 12309 (1997); L. Udvardi, L. Szunyogh, A. Vernes, and P.Weinberger, Philos. Mag. B [**81**]{}, 613 (2001).
A. Hucht and K. D. Usadel, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**156**]{}, 423 (1996).
C. Santamaria and H. T. Diep, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**212**]{}, 23 (2000).
D. Pescia and V. Pokrovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 2599 (1990); [*ibid*]{} [**70**]{}, 1185 (1993); A. P. Levanyuk and N. García, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 1184 (1993).
For a discussion of some relevant experimental issues, see, J. Stöhr, A. Scholl, T. J. Regan, S. Anders, J. Lüning, M. R. Scheinfein, H. A. Padmore, and R. L. White, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**83**]{}, 1862 (1999).
Experimentally determined antiferromagnetic structures of FePt$_3$ films are reported in, S. Maat, O. Hellwig, G. Zeltzer, E. E. Fullerton, G. J. Mankey, M. L. Crow and J. L. Robertson, Phys. Rev. B [**63**]{}, 134426 (2001); V. V. Krishnamurthy, I. Zoto, G. J. Mankey, J. L. Robertson, S. Maat, E E. Fullerton, I. Nwagwu and J. K. Akujieze, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 024424 (2004).
A phase boundary between two switching modes for oppositely magnetized layers is reported in, O. Hellwig, T. L. Kirk, J. B. Kortright, A. Berger, and E. E. Fullerton, Nature Materials [**2**]{}, 112 (2003).
A. B. MacIsaac, J. P. Whitehead, K. De’Bell, and P. H. Poole, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 739 (1996); A. M. Abu-Labdeh, J. P. Whitehead, K. De’Bell, and A. B. MacIsaac, Phys. Rev. B [**70**]{}, 144416 (2004).
A. M. Abu-Labdeh, J. P. Whitehead, K. De’Bell, and A. B. MacIsaac, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**16**]{}, 941 (2004).
D. S. Deng, X. F. Jin and R. Tao, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 172403 (2004).
A [*phase*]{} as such is associated with every continuous SR transition, as is explained in Refs. \[\] and in L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Electrodynamics of Continuous Media*]{}, 2nd ed. (Pergamon, Oxford, 2004) , pp. 159Ð162. The Òangular phaseÓ is how Landau and Lifshitz refer to the SR phase.
N. A. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. [**21**]{}, 1087 (1953).
Analogous diagrams have been obtained for homogeneous spin configurations in ferromagnetic films by M. Farle, B. Mirwald-Schulz, A. N. Anisimov, W. Platow, and K. Baberschke, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 3708 (1997).
Invariance of ${\cal H}_d$ with respect to $\phi$ rotations in in the canted state has been pointed out for the special case of $\theta =\pi /2$, by K. De’Bell, A. B. MacIsaac, I. N. Booth, and J. P. Whitehead, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 15 108 (1997).
For some experimental realizations of dipolar magnetic systems, see G. Ahlers, A. Kornblit, and H. J. Guggenheim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**34**]{}, 1227 (1975); G. Mennenga, L. J. de Jongh, and W. J. Huiskamp, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. [**44**]{}, 59 (1984); M. R. Roser and L. R. Corruccini, Phys. Rev. Lett.[**65**]{}, 1064 (1990); S. J. White, M. R. Roser, J. Xu, J.T. van der Noordaa, and L. R. Corruccini, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 3553 (1993); D. Bitko, T. F. Rosenbaum, and G. Aeppli, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 940 (1996).
Agreement is only qualitative, because whereas we see a SR transtion which near $T=0$ is at $D_{eff}\simeq C$, i.e. at $D=C-1.98\varepsilon_d$ for $J\ll \varepsilon_d$, from Eq. (\[E\_j\]), Deng et al., in Ref. \[\], find a value of $D$, for $C=0$, that is twice as large.
With our PBC, a spin at site $i$ interacts with all spins on a box [*centered*]{} on $i$, thus leading to translational invariance in all directions.
P. Lubitz, J. J. Krebs, M. M. Miller, and Shufan Cheng, J. of Appl. Phys [**83**]{}, 6819 (1998); T. P. A. Haase et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. [**79**]{}, 985 (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Causal Models are increasingly suggested as a means to reason about the behavior of cyber-physical systems in socio-technical contexts. They allow us to analyze courses of events and reason about possible alternatives. Until now, however, such reasoning is confined to the technical domain and limited to single systems or at most groups of systems. The humans that are an integral part of any such socio-technical system are usually ignored or dealt with by “expert judgment”. We show how a technical causal model can be extended with models of human behavior to cover the complexity and interplay between humans and technical systems. This integrated socio-technical causal model can then be used to reason not only about actions and decisions taken by the machine, but also about those taken by humans interacting with the system. In this paper we demonstrate the feasibility of merging causal models about machines with causal models about humans and illustrate the usefulness of this approach with a highly automated vehicle example.'
author:
- Severin KaciankaAmjad IbrahimAlexander Pretschner
- Alexander Trende Andreas Lüdtke
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Extending Causal Models from Machines into Humans
---
Introduction
============
Causality is an essential building block to answer complex questions of accountability [@kacianka2018understanding]. It allows us to reason about different courses of actions and go beyond mere correlation based reasoning. While building causal models is still a major problem and technologies to automatically build causal models are still in their infancy, recent research has shown that it is possible to derive useful starting points for models from system descriptions [@nfm]. One can, for example, use fault trees as a starting point for a causal model and then ask experts to refine it. While this still requires human intervention, it is a lot easier to improve models than to create them from scratch. However, most Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) are embedded into larger Socio-Technical Systems (STS) and interact with people. In current research, automatically generated causal models only encompass the technical aspects of these STS. Models for the interaction between humans and machines are usually created by experts in an ad-hoc fashion. The field of human factors is concerned exactly with this problem (e.g., [@weber2009modellierung]): how to model the behavior of a human that interacts with a technical system (e.g., a pilot or a driver). The result of this research are different models of human cognition and human behavior. We show how these models can be converted to causal models and linked with the technical causal models. To illustrate the general idea, we use the classic rock throwing thought experiment from the causality literature. In this scenario, two persons, Billy and Suzy, will throw rocks at a bottle. If Suzy’s rock hits the bottle slightly before Billy, who is the cause for the bottle to shatter? This example is constructed to show that simple counter factual reasoning is not enough to attribute causality: Had Suzy not thrown the rock, the bottle would still have shattered (because Billy also threw a rock), therefore Suzy cannot be the cause for the bottle to shatter. Finding definitions of causality that will not lead to such counterintuitive results culminated in the Halpern-Pearl definition of causality [@halpern2005causes1]. It resolves the issues by introducing a so called preemption relation [@nfm] that can express that Suzy’s throw preempted Billy’s throw (see Figure \[fig:rock\]).
[3cm]{} {height="4cm"}
[5cm]{} {height="4cm"}
While such a model expresses the objective facts very well, we cannot reason about why Suzy threw faster. To do so, we would need a model of Suzy’s mind. If, for example, she was a soldier and, as part of her training, was conditioned to throw rocks the moment a bottle appeared in her field of view[^1], we might not simply say that “Suzy throwing the rock caused the bottle to shatter”, but extend our causal chain to “Her military training caused Suzy to automatically throw the rock at the bottle, shattering it”. Instead of just blaming Suzy, we could also consider her military training.
Returning to CPS and their interaction with humans, we can now utilize existing models of human behavior, as in Figure \[fig:conditioning\], transform them to causal models and link them with causal models of the technical systems. Instead of just saying “The car crashed, because the driver pressed the red button”, we can say that “Drivers are conditioned to press the red button in an emergency; this lead to the driver pressing the button and the car crashing”. While it is true that we might not have enough data in many cases, in the cases where we do have enough data, like the example in Section \[sec:example\], and can actually extend the causal model into the human mind, we can gain valuable insights and avoid the unsatisfying generic answer “human error”.
In this paper we investigate the *problem* of joining causal models of technical systems with causal models of their operators and people they interact with. As a *solution* we propose to extend current methods to derive causal models from system models to also include models of the human behavior. Our *contribution* is a detailed example of such an integrated socio-technical causal model based on an automotive use case, preliminary research into a process of converting human models to causal models and showing how these integrated models can be used to reason over accidents.
Background
==========
The Preliminaries for Causal Models and Inference
-------------------------------------------------
In this present paper, as in previous work [@nfm], we build on the Halpern and Pearl (HP for short) definition of causality [@halpern2015; @halpern2005causes1; @halpern2005causes2; @pearl2018book]. This definition models the world as two distinct sets, called *endogenous* and *exogenous* variables. Their relation is described with a set of *structural equations*. Exogenous variables model factors outside of the model and endogenous variables model our understanding of the causal relations within our model. The value of endogenous variables is determined by the exogenous variables and the structural equations. [@halpern2015] defines the conditions under which an endogenous variable can be the cause of a specific state of another variable in the model. Definition \[def:cm\] provides the formal definition of binary causal models.
\[def:cm\] **Binary Causal Model** [@halpern2015]\
A binary causal model $M$ is a tuple $M = \mathcal{((U,V,R),F)}$, where
- $\mathcal{U}$ is a set of exogenous variables,
- $\mathcal{V}$ is a set of endogenous variables,
- $\mathcal{R}:$ associates with every variable the nonempty set $\{0,1\}$ of possible values,
- $\mathcal{F}$ associates with each variable $X \in
\mathcal{V}$ a function that determines the value of $X$ (from the set of possible values $\mathcal{R}(X)$) given the values of all other variables\
$F_X : (\times_{U \in \mathcal{U}}\mathcal{R}(U)) \times (\times_{Y \in
\mathcal{V}-\{X\}}\mathcal{R}(Y)) \to \mathcal{R}(X)$.
A *primitive event*, given $\mathcal{(U,V,R)}$, is a formula of the form $X = x$ for $X \in \mathcal{V}$ and $x \in \mathcal{R}(X)$. *A causal formula* is of the form $[Y_1 \leftarrow y_1, \dots, Y_k \leftarrow
y_k]\varphi$, where $\varphi$ is a Boolean combination of primitive events. $Y_1,\dots,Y_k$ (abbreviated $\overrightarrow{Y}$) are distinct variables in $\mathcal{V}$, and $y_i \in \mathcal{R}(Y_i)$. Intuitively, this notation says that $\varphi$ would hold if $Y_i$ were set to $y_i$ for each $i$. $(M,
\overrightarrow{u}) \models X = x$ if the variable $X$ has value $x$ in the unique solution to the equations in $M$ in context $\overrightarrow{u}$. An intervention on a model is expressed either by setting the values of $\overrightarrow{X}$ to $\overrightarrow{x}$, written as $[X_1 \leftarrow x_1,
.., X_k \leftarrow x_k]$, or by fixing the values of $\overrightarrow{X}$ in the model, written as $M_{\overrightarrow{X} \leftarrow \overrightarrow{x}}$. So, $(M, \overrightarrow{u}) \models [\overrightarrow{Y} \leftarrow
\overrightarrow{y}]\varphi$ is identical to $(M_{\overrightarrow{Y} \leftarrow
\overrightarrow{y}},\overrightarrow{u}) \models \varphi$.
\[def:ac\] **Actual Cause** (latest/modified version [@halpern2015])\
$\overrightarrow{X} = \overrightarrow{x}$ is an actual cause of $\varphi$ in $(M,\overrightarrow{u})$ if the following three conditions hold:\
**AC1.** $(M,\overrightarrow{u})
\models (\overrightarrow{X} = \overrightarrow{x})$ and $(M,\overrightarrow{u}) \models \varphi$.\
**AC2.** There is a set $\overrightarrow{W}$ of variables in $\mathcal{V}$ and a setting $\overrightarrow{x}'$ of the variables in $\overrightarrow{X}$ such that if $(M,\overrightarrow{u}) \models \overrightarrow{W} = \overrightarrow{w}$, then $(M,\overrightarrow{u}) \models [\overrightarrow{X} \leftarrow
\overrightarrow{x}', \overrightarrow{W} \leftarrow \overrightarrow{w}] \neg
\varphi$.\
**AC3.** $\overrightarrow{X}$ is minimal.
[2.5cm]{} ![Merging Causal Models [@nfm].[]{data-label="fig:merge_models"}](figs/refine.pdf "fig:"){height="2.5cm"} \[fig:refine\]
[2.5cm]{} ![Merging Causal Models [@nfm].[]{data-label="fig:merge_models"}](figs/extend.pdf "fig:"){height="2.5cm"} \[fig:extend\]
Joining Causal Models
---------------------
For joining causal models, we rely on previous work [@nfm]. To briefly summarize the method, it utilizes Alrajeh et al. [@alrajeh2018combining] and Friedenberg and Halpern [@friedenberg2018combining] to automatically combine models that are either *compatibility* or extended with a *focus function*. Without going into the technical details here (see [@nfm] for an in-depth discussion), if one model explains more about cause and effect relations than another model and both models talk about the same things, we can simply combine those models. In the simplest case, one model *refines* a leaf node of an existing model (see Figure \[fig:refine\]). In such a case, both models are compatible and can be automatically combined. *Extensions* (see Figure \[fig:extend\]) are unfortunately much more complex. In some scenarios they can be joined automatically, but often they will require the intervention from an expert.
Technical Source Models
-----------------------
In this paper, we focus on fault and attack trees as technical source models. Fault trees are used in the domain of safety, reliability, and risk assessment methodology [@vesely1981fault; @kordy2014dag] and are a means to analyze a system’s resilience against faults at design time [@ruijters2015fault]. They are usually presented graphically as trees that model component faults that might lead to system failure and their relationship among each other. While the exact syntax varies, fault trees definitions usually include *AND*, *OR*, *EXCLUSIVE OR*, *PRIORITY AND* and *INHIBIT* gates.
Attack Trees stem from the field of security research [@schneier1999attack; @schneier2004secrets] and are used to model potential security threats within a system and possible ways to exploit them. Similar to fault trees, they are graphically represented as trees. The ultimate goal of an attack is the root node of the tree and steps necessary to achieve that goal are notated in sub-nodes. Attack trees usually support *OR* and *AND* gates,
As in previous work [@nfm], we follow Mauw and Oostdijk’s [@mauw2005foundations] formalization of attack trees, but replace their multi-set semantics with Bruns and Anderson’s propositional semantics for fault trees [@bruns1993validating] and extend them with the semantics for fault trees. This semantic matches the semantics of binary structural equations used in causal models. Therefore, each non-leaf node in the tree is expressed with a propositional formula of its parents, e.g., $out=in_1
\land in_2$.
\[def:aft\] **Attack/Fault Tree**\
$A(F)T$ is a 3-tuple $A(F)T = \mathcal{(N,\to, }n_0)$ where $\mathcal{N}$ is a finite set of nodes, $n_0 \in \mathcal{N}$ is the root node and $\rightarrow \subseteq \mathcal{N \times N}$ is a finite set of acyclic relations.
Human Behavior Source Models
----------------------------
[r]{}[.4]{} {width="38.00000%"}
In the following, Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) [@annett2003hierarchical] will be explained and how it can be used to create models of human behavior. The HTA is used to partition tasks into sub-tasks and to demonstrate their dependencies. The partition into sub-tasks is done in a way that finishing the sub-tasks leads to completing the main task. Overall the abstract model consists of the main task, sub-tasks, plans and operations and is expressed in a tree diagram in most cases. An integral part of an HTA is the definition of the task and the data collection. Different types of data collection are possible: e.g., questionnaires, experiments, or safety records.
Models of human behavior can be constructed based on the results of an HTA. A first step could be to construct a state chart. This reflects the order and interplay of the previously defined tasks. Afterwards the HTA or state chart could be translated into a model usable in a cognitive architecture. [@kassner2011hierarchical] performed an HTA for lane merging maneuvers onto freeways to define and improve the structure of the cognitive driver model defined in [@weber2009modellierung]. Cognitive architectures like ACT-R [@anderson1997act] or CASCaS [@ludtke2010cognitive] use a rule-based format for their model descriptions. In the domain of cognitive architectures the above described tasks and sub-tasks are called goals and sub-goals. This terminology will be used in the following sections. Sub-goals defined by an HTA can be formulated as procedures in this format. Every time step of the simulation the cognitive cycle will be simulated. In this process a currently active goal is being selected and executed. This will most likely trigger the next sub-goal in the model. We will show the structure and procedure of such a simulation while using four small sub-goals of an HTA: We assume that three sub-goals were defined as part of a model describing a successful merging maneuver: *observe\_blind\_spot\_warning*, *monitor\_traffic*, *observe\_windshield* and *observe\_left\_mirror*. The corresponding dependencies between the sub-goals are shown in Figure \[fig:goal\_example\].
This means that the sub-goal *monitor\_traffic* can be separated into the sub-goals *observe\_blind\_* *spot\_warning*, *observe\_windshield* and *observe\_left\_mirror*. Translated into the rule-based format usable in CASCaS:
rule(goal=monitor_traffic){
Condition(boolean expression)
-->
Goal(observe_blind_spot_warning)
Goal(observe_windshield)
Goal(observe_left_mirror)
}
This procedure is executed, if the sub-goal *monitor\_traffic* is active. This leads to the addition of the sub-goals *observe\_blind\_spot\_warning*, *observe\_windshield* and *observe\_left\_mirror* to the active sub-goals. At this point *monitor\_traffic* is completed and the two newly added sub-goals will be processed in the next simulation step.
One major advantage of cognitive architectures is that they provide a software framework to simulate models of human behavior. The structure and function of these architectures are based on findings from cognitive science. Additionally most cognitive architectures contain several modules like the memory which contains the above described procedures and the declarative memory for facts. Additional modules could be included to simulate human perception and motor control. In the above described example the perception module could also simulate the gaze direction from the windshield to the left mirror and back and the motor module could simulate the hand movement required for steering. Since the time required for such actions is also based on results from cognitive research these simulations can be used to predict the time needed for a given task. Such cognitive driver models comprising different abstraction levels have been investigated in [@liu2006driver], [@salvucci2006modeling] and [@ludtke2009modeling]. Another important application of these cognitive models is the modelling of human error. [@ludtke2009modeling] investigated human error in lane merging tasks and aviation and [@ludtke2010cognitive] proposed a cognitive pilot model that simulates the process of Learned Carelessness. Learned Carelessness corresponds to “effort-optimizing shortcuts leading to inadequate simplifications that omit safety critical aspects of normative activities”.
Example {#sec:example}
=======
![A simple freeway lane merging example. The ego vehicle $A$ wants to merge onto the first lane of the freeway. $A$ has to keep its distance to the car in front of it and simultaneously looking for a gap to merge onto the freeway.[]{data-label="fig:freeway_merging"}](figs/freeway_merging.pdf){height="4cm"}
As an example, we will consider a freeway merging situation as depicted in Figure \[fig:freeway\_merging\]. The ego vehicle ($A$) is driving on a freeway ramp with one alter vehicle in front it ($C$). The distance between the ego vehicle and $C$ is called $d_{AC}$. $A$ wants to merge onto the first lane of the freeway. We consider two alter vehicles B and D driving on this lane, whereas $B$ is the rear and $D$ the front car. The distance between $B$ and $D$ is named $d_{gap}$ and the distance between $A$ and $B$ is called $d_{AB}$. Every car in this situation can have a variable velocity which leads to difference velocities like $v_{diff_{AB}} =
v_{B} – v_{A}$. For a successful merging maneuver the driver in the ego vehicle has to achieve several sub-goals like the selection of acceleration or check the distance to the front car. The relevant sub-goals and their interconnection will be described in Section \[sec:driver\_model\]. For this example we assume that the ego car will be equipped with a collision avoidance system (CAS).
In the first scenario, the ego car $A$ rear-ends the leading car $C$. For this scenario to happen, both the CAS needs to malfunction and the human driver needs to make a mistake. In this discussion we assume that these are the only two possible causes; so we assume that we can produce evidence that other causes, like a total brake failure, can be ruled out.
In the second scenario we assume that the ego car, $A$, collides with alter car $B$. In contrast to the scenario above, where the CAS can avoid a collision with the lead car, we have no pure technical means to avoid a collision. Since most highway laws require the merging car to yield, if car $A$ collides with car $B$, it was always the fault of the driver of $A$. However, we assume that car $A$ has a blind spot warning system, that should alert the driver to the presence of car $B$.
Technical Models
----------------
[7cm]{} {height="9cm"}
[5cm]{} {height="9cm"}
[5cm]{} {height="9cm"}
[5cm]{} {height="9cm"}
A major problem for causal reasoning is the lack of models. Creating causal models manually is a tedious process and impossible without detailed technical knowledge of the system that is being modeled. To kickstart this process, we have shown in [@nfm] that it is possible to use existing models of systems to seed a causal model. Having an automatically generated model as a base or scaffold for causal models makes it easier for domain experts to build the models. Additionally, resulting causal models can then be reused in future investigations that analyze similar accidents. In [@nfm] we have shown how attack trees, fault trees and timed failure propagation models can be converted to a causal model and be merged into a holistic causal model. To keep the paper focused, we will restrict the discussion to attack and fault trees. However, in practice many different system models could be used to seed the causal models.
Figure \[fig:fault\_tree\] shows the fault tree for our example. It is based on a fault tree provided by [@isermann2002fault] and depicts reasons why a car might not brake and collide with another car. One branch, *No Braking Although Brake Demand* covers mechanical failures of the brake system, while the other branch, *No Brake Demand*, covers cases in which the brakes are working, but no brake attempt is being made.
Figure \[fig:attack\_tree\] likewise present a simplified attack tree for our example. The left branch, *Disable Brakes*, covers cases where an attacker manages to disable the brakes. Here we do not detail possible ways to do so any further, but they can reach from software attack to the classic “cut the brake lines”. The right branch covers some ways in which an attacker could attack the CAS subsystem and cause a crash. This attack tree is modeled on the widely publicized “Jeep Hack” [@jeep].
Driver Model {#sec:driver_model}
------------
We use the structure of the driver model for freeway lane change tasks presented in [@weber2009modellierung] and [@kassner2011hierarchical] as a basis for our human driver model. A slightly modified version of the state chart from [@kassner2011hierarchical] can be found in Figure \[fig:state\_chart\]. Here the parent goal of the Lane Change Manoeuvre Task has three main sub-goals: observing the blind spot warning, observing the left mirror view and observing the front view through the windshield.
The blind spot warning sub-goal has one further sub-goal. During a lane merging maneuver the driver has to be sure that no car is driving in the blind spot. In this example we assume that the driver only uses the installed blind spot warning system for this goal. The front view sub-goal consists of two sub-goals, namely adjusting the distance to the lead car $C$ and observing the course of the road. The second sub-goal describes the observation of the alter vehicles through the left mirror. The first sub-goal of the driver model is the estimation of the distance between the car $B$ on the freeway and the ego vehicle $A$. If the distance $d_{AB}$ is big enough the driver will check the speed $v_{B}$ and estimate, based on a threshold if the relative velocity $v_{AB}$ is low enough for a merging maneuver. If the conditions for one of these two goals are not fulfilled the driver will let $B$ pass and start with the first goal again. If $v_{AB}$ is lower than the threshold, the driver’s confidence that the lane change will be successful rises and $Adjust Speed
Difference$ will be triggered. This means that the driver will accelerate or decelerate to have the optimal relative speed w.r.t. $B$ and $D$ for the lane change. The last sub-goal is the adjustment of the safety margin to all adjacent cars during the lane changing. This last sub-goal completes the lane change goal.
[12cm]{} ![Modified Driver Model based on [@kassner2011hierarchical].](figs/state_chart.pdf "fig:"){height="7cm"}
[12cm]{} ![Modified Driver Model based on [@kassner2011hierarchical].](figs/causal/hta_causal.pdf "fig:"){height="9cm"}
Setting the Context
-------------------
When converting technical models, like fault- or attack trees, or human models, like HTA models, to causal models we need to be mindful of the fact that these models describe *type causality*, while we try to reason about *actual causality*. Following Halpern [@halpern2016actual], type causality is “typically forward-looking and used for prediction”, whereas actual causality “retrospectively ask\[s\] why \[something\] occurred”. In our example, fault trees, attack trees, and HTA models are created from measurements, predictions and expert judgment. To reason about actual causality, however, we need to link those models to actual events and actors. In general, this is a lot easier for technical systems and often next to impossible for human beings. The reason is that we can instrumentalize and monitor technical systems with arbitrary resolution and precision, whereas observations of humans are incomplete and fuzzy. For example, we might have eye-tracking sensors that allows us to deduce that a driver was about to merge into the left lane; if we analyze the same scenario on a motorcycle, on the other hand, we most likely cannot see the rider’s eye under the helmet and are unable to deduce any driver intentions at all. In a technical model, in contrast, we could in both instances detect if the turn indicator light was set. Both, the technical and the human model, are similar in structure, but very different in the available level of logging granularity. Highly automated vehicles (HAVs) are uniquely suitable to investigate the integration of human and technical models, because the gap between the log granularity is comparatively small. HAVs have access to a wide array of very precise sensors, are equipped with the computing power to process the data, have the storage capacity to record them, and, most importantly, have driver monitoring systems to gather reliable “log data” about the driver. An additional advantage in the HAV example is that the social context is very well defined. All drivers go to driving school and learn similar patterns of behavior there. In common situations the drivers will react highly similarly. Defining the context for a less standardized task, e.g., writing a poem, is a hard challenge for future research.
Transforming and Joining the Models
===================================
Transforming Trees into Causal Models {#subsec:step1}
-------------------------------------
Comparing Definition \[def:aft\] and Definition \[def:cm\], the mapping is straightforward. Again following [@nfm], Definition \[def:aft\_cm\] shows that we transform each node in a tree into an *endogenous variable* that determines whether or not a specific event occurred. For now, we only consider binary causal models and express the operators of the tree in the structural equations.
To fulfill the requirement that each endogenous variable is defined by the other endogenous or exogenous variables [@halpern2005causes1], we define an exogenous variable (has the same name as the tree node with an “\_exo” suffix) that will provide the value of the node’s endogenous variable. This turns those leafs into endogenous and allows us to identify leaf nodes as causes of events.
\[def:aft\_cm\] **Attack/Fault Tree To Causal Model**\
$T = \mathcal{(N,\to, }n_0)$ is mapped to a $M = \mathcal{((U,V,R),F)}$, i.e., $T \rightarrow M$ as follows
- $\mathcal{U}= E(T,\_exo)$, where $E(T,suffix)$ returns a renamed copy of the leaf nodes of a tree $T$ with a suffix “\_exo”.
- $\mathcal{V}= N$.
- $\mathcal{R}= \{0,1\}$.
- $\mathcal{F}$ associates with each $X \in V-E(T)$ a propositional formula based on the tree gates; and with each $X \in E(T)$ a formula of the form $X=X$\_exo.
![Integrated socio-technical causal model.[]{data-label="fig:combined_causal"}](figs/causal/all.pdf){height="16cm"}
Transforming Human Models into Causal Models
--------------------------------------------
The presented model of human behavior differs from the technical models in one important way: It models positive behavior. The technical models in this paper, as well as in previous work [@nfm], describe things that can go wrong. The presented human models, in contrast, describes the typical positive behavior. So if we want to analyze a crash, or other negative events, we first need to transform the positive model into a negative model. In Figure \[fig:state\_chart\], for example, a crash can happen if the driver does not check the blind spot warning and does not check the left mirror and does not check the front view.
Due to the intricacies of inverting only some nodes, we created the causal model in Figure \[fig:hta\_causal\] manually. To convert the HTA model to a causal model, we first started by modeling that the HTA actually shows actions to prevent two different crashes. The blind spot warning and the left view mirror prevent crashes with cars in the first highway lane and checking the front view prevents against read-ending leading cars on the ramp. The right hand sub-tree, that prevents rear-ending a lead car, is fairly easy to model. If the driver does not check the front view, the car will crash into any lead vehicle. This check is done by two sub-goals: adjusting the distance to any lead car and observing the stretch of road ahead.
Avoiding a crash with a car in the first lane of the highway can be caused by omitting two actions: checking the blind spot warning and not checking the left view mirror. When checking the left view mirror, adjusting the speed will preempt (dotted lined arrow) adjusting the safety marking. Additionally, a crash with a car in the first lane of the highway can be preempted by simply letting it pass.
$Collision = NoBrakingAltoughDemand \lor NoBrakeDemand \lor NoEvasiveManeuver$\
$ NoBrakingAltoughDemand = DisableBrakes \lor FailureWheelBrakeModule
\lor FailureTransmission$\
$NoBrakeDemand = SystemFailure \lor DriverFailure$\
$NoEvasiveManeuver=DriverFailure$\
$DriverFailure = CrashLeftCar \lor CrashFrontCar$\
$SystemFailure = ObjectMissclassified \lor SoftwareError$\
$CrashLeftCar = (DoNotCheckBlindSpotWarning \land DoNotCheckLeftViewMirror)
\land $\
$LetPass = CheckSpeed$\
$CrashFrontCar = DoNotCheckFront$\
$DoNotCheckBlindSpotWarning = DoNotObserveBlindSpot$\
$DoNotCheckLeftViewMirror = DoNotAdjustSafetyMargin \land
DoNotAdjustSpeedDifference $\
$DoNotAdjustSafetyMargin = CheckSpeed \land $\
$DoNotAdjustSpeedDifference = CheckSpeed$\
$CheckSpeed = CheckDistance$\
$DoNotCheckFront = DoNotAdustLeadCarDistance \land
DoNotObserveCourseOfTheRoad$\
$SoftwareError = HackCAS$\
$HackCAS = GainSystemAccess \land ExploitCASECU$\
$GainSystemAccess = ExploitInfotainment \lor ExploitV2VInterface$
The Integrated Socio-Technical Model
------------------------------------
Figure \[fig:combined\_causal\] depicts the combined causal model and Figure \[fig:equations\] the corresponding structural equations. The source models were joined similar to the procedure described in [@nfm] and can now be used to reason about the actual causality in concrete accidents or events. In this concrete example, we started with the fault tree and then first joined it with the attack tree. In the process, we split the attack tree and connected *Disable Brakes* with the fault *No Braking Although Demand*. *Hack CAS* was then connected to the *Software Error* fault. To join the HTA model, we equated its top node, *Crash*, with the fault trees *Driver Failure*. The reason for this choice is that when viewed under the prospective of a crash, all human actions are seen as either correct, or as wrong and being a human error.
To set the context (i.e., the value of each variable), we of course need sensors and monitors to provide us with the values. The integrated model is useful in two ways: it helps us to decide what sensors and log data we need and it allows us to reason over the results. The first part is unfortunately less useful than might be at first expected. Since the causal model originates from technical models, it only considers states for which there anyway are sensors or at least expectations of problems. The same holds true for the human model: it generally only considers what can be measured in a lab. It is slightly more insightful, because it can inform developers of HAVs which driver sensors are relevant and which data is necessary.
The real benefit of the integrated socio-technical causal model is that it can be used by experts to guide their investigation. One advantage is that they can extend the model with knowledge from other sources. The model in Figure \[fig:combined\_causal\], for example, was extended with the node *No evasive maneuver* (colored in black). The core advantage, however, is that we can reason across multiple models. For example, we can evaluate scenarios in which the driver did not check the left view mirror and at the same time the CAS did not detect a car in the highway lane. We can also express that in scenarios, like the Jeep hack, where an attacker has the ability to disable the brakes, both the CAS and the human driver could not have prevented an accident. In our experience, causal model are uniquely suitable for such cross domain modeling and reasoning.
[5cm]{} {height="6.75cm"}
[5cm]{} {height="6.75cm"}
Analyzing Scenarios
-------------------
We can now use the integrated socio-technical causal model (Figure \[fig:combined\_causal\]) to reason about the two scenarios of our example (Section \[sec:example\]). If there was a rear-end collision and we can confirm that there was a demand to brake, we can, in a first step, disregard the left most sub-tree under the node *No Braking, Although Demand*. Since we crashed into the lead car, we can also ignore the sub-tree *Crash Left Car* from the HTA model. If we can now find evidence for a hacking attempt against the CAS, we know that a combination of driver error and software error, inducted by the hacking is the cause of the event. Figure \[fig:scenario1\] depicts this causal model, with showing “pruned nodes” with dashed borders. We can now also model a preemption relation between the *system failure* and the *driver failure*. By choosing the direction of this preemption, we can model our view of autonomy: if the driver preempts the system, we are talking about non autonomous cars, in which the driver needs to always pay attention and if the system preempts the driver, we model fully autonomous vehicles that do not require driver attention. There is, of course, no right or wrong model – the correctness depends on the context. The great advantage of causal model is that they can capture those assumption and explicate them for further discussion.
Figure \[fig:scenario2\] depicts the causal model for the scenario in which the car crashes into the car on the first lane of the highway. In this scenario we have no active technological measure to avoid the crash – the fault arises from a human error. From the model, we can deduce that the driver did not look (or ignored) the blind spot warning light and did not check the left mirror. Also the driver did not let the other car pass, thus not preempting the crash.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we have shown how we can use Halpern-Pearl causal models as a *lingua franca* to combine technical and social models of a single system into an integrated socio-technical causal model. The expressive power and versatility of causal models allows us to transform the source models and, in some cases even automatically, combine them into a single model. The major advantage of this approach is that we can reuse already existing models to seed the causal models and do not have to build them from scratch. The integrated model can then be revised by experts and used to reason over problems that cross multiple models.
Our work, however, is still in its infancy and poses several challenges for future work. While the joining of models can be done automatically in many cases, there are many instances where we still need expert intervention; especially joining positive and negative models automatically is a great challenge. Converting the human models into causal models is still a wide open problem. For one, developing those human models requires time consuming and expensive empirical studies. Since negative situations, such as crashes, are, even in simulations, relatively rare, building and validating negative models of human behavior is significantly harder than developing positive models. Another major issue is how to actually set the context for human models, or, in other words, how can we measure the human behavior in sufficient detail. While generalized, type causal, knowledge is useful in research, for actual causality we need to know exactly what a certain individual has done. While recording this data is a formidable technical challenge, it also raises very important issues about privacy and data ownership. One solution could be to rely on cognitive architectures, connected to detailed HAV simulators to analyze actual and possible accident scenarios.
Despite these open challenges, we are convinced that extending technical models with human models and use automatic tool to reason about these models is an essential building block for accountable CPS that integrate well into their societal context. The example given in this paper highlights the future potential and the general feasibility of our approach.\
**Acknowledgments.** This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under grant no. PR1266/3-1, Design Paradigms for Societal-Scale Cyber-Physical Systems.
[^1]: Soldiers are conditioned to shoot at human shaped targets without second thought. This increases their “efficiency” on the battlefield [@grossman2001killing].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using our recently developed relativistic three-particle quantization condition [@SpectoK; @KtoM], we study the finite-volume energy shift of a spin-zero three-particle bound state. We reproduce the result obtained using non-relativistic quantum mechanics by Mei[ß]{}ner, Ríos and Rusetsky [@MRR], and generalize the result to a moving frame.'
author:
- 'Maxwell T. Hansen'
- 'Stephen R. Sharpe'
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: |
Applying the relativistic quantization condition to a\
three-particle bound state in a periodic box
---
Introduction
============
There has been considerable recent progress using lattice QCD to study resonances (as reviewed, for example, in Refs. [@Lang:2015ljt; @Edwards:2016gku; @Dudek:2016bxq]). This is mainly based on a line of theoretical work, begun by Lüscher in Refs. [@Luscher:1986pf; @Luscher:1991cf], that relates the spectrum of multiple-particle states in a finite volume (FV) to infinite-volume scattering amplitudes. Until recently, this work has been restricted to resonances (or bound states) that couple only to two-particle channels. Since many resonances and bound states couple to channels containing more than two particles, it is necessary to extend the theoretical formalism to three or more particles.
Recently, we derived a generalization of Lüscher’s work that applies for three identical, spinless relativistic particles [@SpectoK; @KtoM]. Specifically, we obtained a quantization condition that relates three-particle energies in a cubic box of size $L$ to the two-particle scattering amplitude ${\mathcal M_2}$ and an infinite-volume three-particle scattering K-matrix, ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$, as well as a set of integral equations relating ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ and ${\mathcal M_2}$ to the physical three-particle scattering amplitude ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}$. Our result assumes that the two-particle K-matrix has no poles on the real energy axis in the kinematic region of interest, and also assumes a symmetry that decouples even- and odd-particle-number states. The first restriction must be imposed because two-particle K-matrix poles give rise to finite-volume effects that we did not include in our derivation. The second restriction reduces the classes of diagrams that contribute and thus simplifies the derivation.
Other than this, the result is completely general. Both the derivation and the final expressions are, however, rather complicated, and it is important to provide cross-checks of the formalism. We have completed one such check in Ref. [@thresh] by comparing the FV energies of the state nearest to the three-particle threshold to results obtained using non-relativistic quantum mechanics (NRQM) [@Huang:1957im; @Beane:2007qr; @Tan:2007] and relativistic perturbation theory [@HSpert].
The purpose of this paper is to provide another, completely independent check on the formalism, by using it to determine the leading volume dependence of the binding energy of a spin-zero three-particle bound state. Using NRQM, Mei[ß]{}ner, Ríos and Rusetsky (MRR) have calculated this dependence in Ref. [@MRR]. In that work, the authors restrict attention to a system with two-particle interactions near the unitary limit, so that Efimov-like three-particle bound states appear [@Efimov:1970zz]. Here we determine the leading energy dependence for the same system, using our relativistic formalism, and find complete agreement with the NRQM result.
The derivation of this result in our formalism is quite involved. In particular, as noted above, the quantization condition depends on the intermediate, regularization-dependent quantity, ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$, whereas the final result for the energy shift must depend only on physical quantities. Seeing how this happens gives us insight into the workings of the formalism.
MRR consider the case of a bound state at rest [in the finite volume]{}. It has been found for two-particle bound states that the leading volume dependence can be canceled by combining results for bound states with differing total momenta, $\vec P$ [@Davoudi:2011md]. Thus it is interesting to generalize the three-particle analysis also to moving bound states. It turns out that our derivation of the finite-volume energy shift can readily be generalized to $\vec P\ne 0$, [as we describe in Sec. \[sec:moving\]]{}.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. In the next section we describe the result of MRR. Then, in Sec. \[sec:QCexp\], we use our quantization condition to derive a general prediction for the leading-order energy shift, $\Delta E(L)$, in terms of unsymmetrized versions of the residue factors (which are the on-shell limit of unsymmetrized Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes). This section is the core of the paper. Next, in Sec. \[sec:calcGamma\], we relate the residue factors to the components of the Faddeev wavefunction in the NRQM analysis. With these results in hand, in Sec. \[sec:calcDE\] we evaluate our expression for $\Delta E(L)$, finding the MRR result. In Sec. \[sec:twopart\], we briefly compare our analysis with that for a two-particle bound state, and then, in Sec. \[sec:moving\], we discuss the generalization to nonzero total momentum for both two- and three-particle bound states. We conclude in Sec. \[sec:conc\]. Technical details are relegated to three appendices. In the first we explain why several approximations made in the main text do not impact the leading-order volume dependence. In the second we relate the on-shell Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes to the three-particle Schrödinger wavefunction. In the final appendix we derive an identity for the Schrödinger wavefunction of the Efimov state.
Preliminaries and the MRR result {#sec:setup}
================================
Following MRR we consider identical spinless scalar particles (of mass $m$) in the unitary limit in which the two-particle s-wave scattering length diverges. We adopt the convention $p \cot \delta(p) = - 1/a + \cdots$, and take the scattering length, $a$, to be negative so that there are no two-particle bound states near threshold. It is well known that such a system has a tower of three-particle bound states, known as Efimov states [@Efimov:1970zz]. Focusing attention on any one of these states, we write the associated pole in the infinite-volume three-to-three scattering amplitude as $$\label{eq:pole}
\mathcal M_3(\vec p, \hat a'^*; \vec k, \hat a^*)
\sim - \frac{\Gamma(\vec p, \hat a'^*)
\overline \Gamma( \vec k, \hat a^*)}{E^{*2} - E_B^{2} } \,.$$ Here $\mathcal M_3$ is a function of center-of-mass (CM) frame energy, $E^*$, as well as two copies of on-shell three-particle phase space (the parametrization of which will be explained below). The $\sim$ indicates that the difference of the two sides is finite at the pole. We also introduce the binding momentum $\kappa$, defined by $$\begin{aligned}
E_B
& = 3 m - \frac{\kappa^2}{m}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Following MRR, we assume a shallow bound state, so that $\kappa \ll m$.
The residue of the pole is determined by the matrix elements $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Gammadef}
(2 \pi)^4 \delta^4(P-P_B) i \Gamma(\vec p, \hat a'^*)
&\equiv \langle 3 \phi, \mathrm{out} \vert E_B \rangle \,,
\\
\label{eq:Gammabardef}
(2 \pi)^4 \delta^4(P-P_B) i \overline\Gamma(\vec k, \hat a^*)
&\equiv \langle E_B\vert 3 \phi, \mathrm{in} \rangle \,,\end{aligned}$$ between the bound state and the three-particle asymptotic states, analytically continued below threshold. Here $P$ is the four-momentum of the three-particle states and $P_B$ the four-momentum of the bound state. The states in Eqs. (\[eq:Gammadef\]) and (\[eq:Gammabardef\]) have standard, relativistic normalization, so that $\Gamma$ and $\overline \Gamma$ are dimensionless. These quantities are functions of on-shell three-particle phase space evaluated at the fixed subthreshold CM energy $E_B$.
In the above we have used the coordinate system for three on-shell particles introduced in Ref. [@SpectoK]. Specifically, we consider three particles with fixed total energy and momentum, $E$ and $\vec P$. Although our quantization condition holds for general total momentum, for most of this work we restrict attention to $\vec P = 0$, since this is the case studied by MRR. Thus there is no distinction between CM-frame and moving-frame energies, so we use $E$ rather than $E^*$ in the following sections. We relax this restriction in Section \[sec:moving\], where we consider nonzero total momentum.
To specify the coordinate system we fix the momentum of one of the three particles to be $\vec k$ (the “spectator momentum”), and, since the particle is on-shell, its energy is $$\omega_k = \sqrt{k^2 + m^2} \,,$$ where $k \equiv \vert \vec k \vert$. The total energy-momentum of the other two particles is then constrained to be $(E - \omega_k, - \vec k)$. In their CM frame, these two particles thus have total energy $$E_{2,k}^* = \sqrt{(E - \omega_k)^2 - k^2} \,,
\label{eq:E2kdef}$$ and individual momenta $$q_k^* = \sqrt{E_{2,k}^{*2}/4-m^2} \,.
\label{eq:qkdef}$$ The subscripts “$k$” here are a reminder that these two quantities are fixed once the total energy-momentum and spectator momentum are specified. The only remaining degree of freedom is the direction of the momenta of one of the non-spectator pair in the two-particle CM frame, which we denote $\hat a^*$. In summary, with $E$ and $\vec P$ fixed, the configuration of three on-shell particles is specified by $(\vec k, \hat a^*)$. It is also useful to decompose the dependence on $\hat a^*$ into spherical harmonics, e.g. $$\overline\Gamma(\vec k, \hat a^*) =
\sqrt{4 \pi} \sum_{\ell m} Y_{\ell m}(\hat a^*) \overline\Gamma_{\ell m}(\vec k) \,.$$
Up to this stage, the bound state has an unspecified total angular momentum. We now follow MRR and make two assumptions: first that s-wave two-particle channels dominate, and second that the total angular momentum of the bound state is zero. Given this, we can set $\ell=m=0$, so that only $\overline\Gamma_{00}$ contributes. In addition, we note that $\overline\Gamma_{00}(\vec k)$ and $\Gamma_{00}(\vec p)$ cannot depend on the directions of $\vec k$ and $\vec p$, since, for each function, there is no other direction defined in the CM frame. We then use the abbreviation $\overline\Gamma(k) \equiv \overline\Gamma_{00}(\vec k)$, and similarly for $\Gamma(p)$. Thus the pole form (\[eq:pole\]) becomes $$\label{eq:poleS}
\mathcal M_3(\vec p; \vec k)
\sim - \frac{\Gamma( p )
\overline \Gamma( k)}{E^{*2} - E_B^{2} } \,.$$
We now confine this system to a finite spatial cube with side-length $L$ and apply periodic boundary conditions. The infinite-volume bound-state energy is then shifted to a FV value given by $$E_B(L) = E_B + \Delta E(L) \,.$$ We are interested in the large $L$ regime, $$\frac{1}{L} \ll \kappa \ll m \,,
\label{eq:hier}$$ in which the energy shift $\Delta E(L)$ is much smaller in magnitude than the binding energy $\kappa^2/m$. Our aim is to find the leading dependence on $L$ as $L\to\infty$. We stress that this is probably not a practical limit \[since achieving the hierarchy of Eq. (\[eq:hier\]) requires very large boxes\] but since we control the $L$-dependence analytically we can consider arbitrarily large values.
MRR determine the energy shift using NRQM in the unitary limit, assuming only two-particle potentials (i.e. including no three-particle potential), and also assuming that s-wave scattering dominates. They find $$\label{eq:result}
\Delta E(L) = c \vert A \vert^2 \frac{\kappa^2}{m}
\frac{1}{(\kappa L)^{3/2}} e^{- 2 \kappa L/\sqrt{3} }+ \cdots \,,$$ where the ellipsis indicates terms suppressed by additional powers of $\kappa/m$ or $1/(\kappa L)$, as well as subleading exponentials. We will use the ellipsis in this fashion henceforth.
The numerical coefficient $c$ in Eq. (\[eq:result\]) was determined by MRR from the solution to the Faddeev equation. It is $$\begin{gathered}
c = - \frac92 \cdot 3^{3/4} \sqrt{ \pi} {\,\mathrm{sh}}(\pi s_0) {\,\mathrm{sh}}^2\!\left(\frac{\pi s_0}{2}\right)
\\
\times
\left( \frac34 {\,\mathrm{sh}}(\pi s_0) - \frac{3 \pi s_0}{4}
- \frac{4 \pi}{\sqrt{3}} {\,\mathrm{sh}}\frac{\pi s_0}{3}
+ \frac{2 \pi}{\sqrt{3}} {\,\mathrm{sh}}\frac{2 \pi s_0}{3} \right )^{-1} \,,
\label{eq:cdef}\end{gathered}$$ where “${\,\mathrm{sh}}$” is an abbreviation for “$\sinh$” and $s_0$ is the solution to $$s_0 \cosh \frac{\pi s_0}{2} = \frac{8}{\sqrt 3} \sinh \frac{\pi s_0}{6} \,.
\label{eq:s0def}$$ The numerical values are $s_0 \simeq 1.00624 $ and $c \simeq -96.351$.
The factor $\vert A \vert^2$ in Eq. (\[eq:result\]) is a normalization coefficient. It arises because the three-body wavefunction used by MRR to derive their result (and also used indirectly in the present article) is not strictly a solution to the Schrödinger equation. It has the correct asymptotic form when the three particles are well separated, but fails at short distances. Nonetheless, the approximate wavefunction gives the correct leading prediction for $\Delta E(L)$, as long as one accounts for a possible normalization discrepancy. If $\psi_{\mathrm{true}}$ is the true wavefunction and $\psi_{\mathrm{asymp}}$ is the approximation used here (both normalized), then $A$ is defined by $\psi_{\mathrm{true}}/\psi_{\mathrm{asymp}} \longrightarrow A$ where the arrow indicates the limit of all particles being well separated. In other words $A \psi_{\mathrm{asymp}}$ (and not just $\psi_{\mathrm{asymp}}$) is the wavefunction that correctly predicts the the energy shift. In the present study, the approximate wave function is needed to determine the value of the residue factors $\Gamma$ and $\overline \Gamma$ in the unitary theory. Thus the coefficient $A$ enters our prediction for the energy shift through these quantities.
It is interesting to compare Eq. (\[eq:result\]) to the corresponding result for two particles [@Beane:2003da] $$\Delta E_2(L) = - 12 \frac{\kappa_2^2}{m} \frac1{\kappa_2 L} e^{-\kappa_2 L} + \cdots
\,.
\label{eq:result2}$$ Here we have assumed that the system is near the unitary limit, with a large positive scattering length so that there is a bound state. The binding momentum $\kappa_2$ is defined so that the binding energy is $$E_{B_2}=2m-\frac{\kappa_2^2}{m} \,.
\label{eq:EB2}$$ The result (\[eq:result2\]) follows directly from Lüscher’s quantization condition [@Luscher:1991cf] (as we review in Sec. \[sec:twopart\]). We see that it differs from the three-particle result not only in the exponent and power of $L$, but also in having a much simpler overall constant. We return to the comparison between two- and three-particle results in Secs. \[sec:twopart\] and Sec. \[sec:moving\].
Determining the energy shift from the quantization condition {#sec:QCexp}
============================================================
In this section we demonstrate that our quantization condition leads to the following prediction for the energy shift in the unitary limit $$\label{eq:DE}
\Delta E(L) = - \frac{1}{2 E_B}
\bigg[ \frac1{L^3} \sum_{\vec k} - \int_{\vec k} \bigg]
\frac{\overline \Gamma^{(u)} \!(k) \, \Gamma^{(u)}(k) }{2 \omega_k \mathcal M_2^s(k)}
+\cdots \,.$$ Here $\vec k$ is the spectator momentum described in the previous section (with $k$ its magnitude). It is summed over all integer three-vectors multiplied by $2\pi/L$, whereas for the integral we use the shorthand $\int_{\vec k} \equiv \int d^3 k/(2 \pi)^3$. $\mathcal M_{2}^s(k)$ is the two-to-two s-wave scattering amplitude, evaluated at the CM energy $E_{2,k}^*$ of the nonspectator pair. Since this energy depends on $k$, we follow the notation of Ref. [@SpectoK] and denote this explicitly. $\mathcal M_{2}^s(k)$ also depends on the total energy $E$, which is here set to the bound-state energy $E_B$. The residue factors $\Gamma^{(u)}$ and $\overline\Gamma^{(u)}$ are those defined in in Eqs. (\[eq:Gammadef\]) and (\[eq:Gammabardef\]), except that they are projected to the s-wave and [*unsymmetrized*]{}. We define them precisely in Eq. (\[eq:poleuu\]) below.
To set up the derivation of Eq. (\[eq:DE\]) we need to recall some details of the three-particle quantization condition. It turns out to be convenient to reformulate the quantization condition of Ref. [@SpectoK] using the developments of Ref. [@KtoM].[^1] Thus, rather than consider a general three-particle correlator as in Ref. [@SpectoK], we focus on the quantity ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}$, which is defined in Ref. [@KtoM] and referred to there as the “finite-volume three-particle scattering amplitude”. From the point of view of the quantization condition, ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}$ is just a particular three-particle correlator in finite spatial volume,[^2] so the positions of its poles determine the FV spectrum. It indeed leads to the same quantization condition as given in Ref. [@SpectoK]. Its advantage here is that it goes over to the standard infinite-volume scattering amplitude, ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}$, when $L\to\infty$, which allows us to make contact with the known pole-form (\[eq:poleS\]) of the standard scattering amplitude.[^3] Combining Eqs. (39) and (68) of Ref. [@KtoM] we have $$\label{eq:M3L}
\mathcal M_{3,L} = \mathcal S \Big [ \mathcal M^{(u,u)}_{3,L} \Big ] \,,$$ where $\mathcal S$ is the symmetrization operator, and $$\label{eq:M3Luu}
\mathcal M^{(u,u)}_{3,L} \equiv \mathcal D^{(u,u)}_L +
\mathcal L^{(u)}_L \frac{1}{1 + {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}F_3} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\mathcal R^{(u)}_L \,,$$ is the unsymmetrized finite-volume scattering amplitude. The form of the quantization condition used here is that the FV spectrum is given by the poles in ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}$. These occur at energies such that $\det(1 + {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}F_3)=0$, which is the original form of the quantization given in Ref. [@SpectoK].
Equation (\[eq:M3Luu\]) is written in a compact notation that we now explain. First, we note that all quantities are matrices in the space of discrete spectator momenta.[^4] For example $F_3 = F_{3;k' k}$ where $k'$ and $k$ are shorthand for $\vec k', \vec k \in (2 \pi/L) \mathbb Z^3$. Generally these matrices also have two sets of angular momentum indices, but these are absent in the present case, since we only include the s-wave component of both two and three-particle scattering quantities. This approximation mirrors that made by MRR.
We next explain the unsymmetrized nature of the quantities in Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]), indicated by the superscript $(u)$. This lack of symmetrization is defined in the context of a diagrammatic description of $\mathcal M^{(u,u)}_{3,L}$. For diagrams that involve a two-to-two vertex next to the external legs of either the initial or final state, the $(u)$ indicates that this insertion always scatters the two particles with total momentum $- \vec k$ (the non-spectator pair). $\mathcal M^{(u,u)}_{3,L}$ and $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}_L$ have two superscripts because this rule applies to both initial and final momenta, while ${\cal L}_L^{(u)}$ and ${\cal R}_L^{(u)}$ have one each since they involve, respectively, only the final and initial momenta. Thus the indices $k'$ and $k$ denote the momenta of the particles that are unscattered by the outermost two-to-two vertices. The operator $\mathcal S$ symmetrizes the momenta by setting the initial state momentum index to the three possible values $ \{\vec k, \vec a, - \vec k - \vec a \}$, and the final state index to the corresponding three choices, and then summing the resulting nine terms. For further details see Refs. [@SpectoK; @KtoM].
We now turn to ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$, the divergence-free three-particle K matrix. This is the only quantity in Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]) that (for fixed external indices) has no volume dependence. We define this modified K matrix in Ref. [@SpectoK] and give its relation to the standard three-to-three scattering amplitude in Ref. [@KtoM]. Indeed, the relation between ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ and the scattering amplitude, ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}$, is derived in Ref. [@KtoM] by first proving Eq. (\[eq:M3L\]) and then taking a careful infinite-volume limit. Within our formalism, ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ plays the role of an effective, quasilocal three-particle interaction. It is, however, not a physical quantity as it depends on a cutoff function ($H$, to be described shortly).
Finally, we give the explicit forms for the various finite-volume matrices appearing in Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]). We begin with the part of ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}$ that involves only two-particle interactions: $$\label{eq:DLdef}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}_L \equiv -\frac{1}{1 + {\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}G} {\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}G [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}\,,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:omegamatdef}
\left[ {2 \omega L^3} \right]_{k' k} & \equiv
\delta_{k'k} {2 \omega_k L^3}\,.\end{aligned}$$ ${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}$ is the two-particle finite-volume scattering amplitude $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:MLdef}
{\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}& \equiv \mathcal M^s_2 \frac{1}{1 + F^{i \epsilon} \mathcal M^s_2 } \,, \end{aligned}$$ with the matrix form of the s-wave scattering amplitude being $$\mathcal M^s_{2;k'k} = \delta_{k'k} \mathcal M^s_2(k)\,,$$ while $F^{i\epsilon}$ is the moving-frame s-wave Lüscher zeta function, $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
F^{i\epsilon}_{k' k}
&=
\delta_{k'k} \frac12 \bigg[\frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\vec p} - \int_{\vec p} \bigg] \\[-3pt] & \times
\frac{ H(\vec k)
H(\vec p\,)H(\vec b_{kp})}
{2 \omega_p 2 \omega_{kp}(E - \omega_k - \omega_p - \omega_{kp} + i \epsilon)}\,,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{gathered}
\omega_{kp} = \sqrt{ b_{kp}^2 + m^2} \,, \ \ \ \ \
\vec b_{kp} = - \vec p - \vec k \,. $$ $H(\vec k)$ is a smooth cutoff function that vanishes when $k$ becomes large enough \[of ${\cal O}(m)$\] that the nonspectator pair has an energy $E_{2,k}^{*2}\le 0$. The precise form of $H$, given in Ref. [@SpectoK], will not be needed here. The propagator $G$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Gdef}
G_{p k }
& \equiv
\frac{ H(\vec p\,) H(\vec k\,)}
{2 \omega_{kp} (E - \omega_k - \omega_p - \omega_{kp})}
\frac{1}{2 \omega_k L^3} \,.\end{aligned}$$ This arises from the parts of Feynman diagrams where three particles propagate between two-to-two vertices in which the scattering pair changes.
The quantities in the second term in Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L^{(u)}_L & = \frac{1}{3} - \frac{1}{1 + {\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}G} {\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}F \,,
\label{eq:LLudef}\\
\mathcal R^{(u)}_L & = \frac{1}{3} - \frac{F}{2 \omega L^3}
\frac{1}{1 + {\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}G} [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}\label{eq:RLudef}\,, \\
F_3 & = \frac{F}{2 \omega L^3} \mathcal L_L^{(u)} \,,
\label{eq:F3def}\end{aligned}$$ where $F$ differs from $F^{i\epsilon}$ by a phase-space term: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Fdef3}
F_{k' k} & = F^{i\epsilon}_{k' k} + \rho_{k' k} \,,
\\
\rho_{k'k} & \equiv \delta_{k'k} H(\vec k) \widetilde \rho (E_{2,k}^*) \,,
\\
\begin{split}
\widetilde\rho(P_2) &\equiv \frac{1}{16 \pi \sqrt{P_2^2}} \\[-3pt] & \times
\begin{cases}
- i \sqrt{P_2^2/4-m^2} & (2m)^2< P_2^2 \,,
\\
\vert \sqrt{P_2^2/4-m^2} \vert & 0< P_2^2 \leq (2m)^2 \,.
\end{cases}
\label{eq:rhodef2}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
We stress again that all of these quantities have been projected to the s-wave component of the spectator pair angular dependence. We can now see more clearly why this is appropriate, given that we are matching to the MRR calculation in which there are only s-wave two-particle potentials. Begin by considering ${\cal D}_L^{(u,u)}$, defined in Eq. (\[eq:DLdef\]), which is the first term in ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}$, itself defined in Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]). Expanding the denominator in a geometric series, we find a sum of terms each containing alternating factors of the two-particle finite-volume scattering amplitude, $\mathcal M_{2,L}$, and the three-particle propagator $G$. If the two-particle scattering is dominated by the s-wave channel, i.e if ${\mathcal M_2}\approx {\mathcal M_2}^s$, then ${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}$ is also pure s-wave,[^5] and this projects the $G$ factors onto their s-wave components. This projection has already been included in the equations above.
Next we turn to the second term in ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}$. Here the same projection onto s-wave components works for $G$. For ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$, however, there is no such projection, due to the factors of $1/3$ in ${\cal L}_L^{(u)}$ and ${\cal R}_L^{(u)}$. Thus we must assume that ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ itself contains only s-wave nonspectator-pair components. This is reasonable as the MRR calculation has no three-body potential. Naively, one might think that this would imply that we could set ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$, in which case the second term in Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]) would simply vanish. However, since ${\cal D}_L^{(u,u)}$ depends on the cutoff $H$, it is not physical by itself. The ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ term is needed to cancel its high-momentum cutoff dependence. ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ is thus a short-distance quantity, and an s-wave approximation is reasonable.
We now return to the aim of this section: using Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]) to derive the result (\[eq:DE\]). Our approach is simply to pull out the leading $L$-dependence contained in $\mathcal D_L^{(u)}$, $\mathcal L_L^{(u)}$, $\mathcal R_L^{(u)}$ and $F_3$, and then make use of the fact that ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}$ and ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}$ have nearby poles. It is pedagogically simpler to proceed in two stages, first setting ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$ and then considering the general case.
Analysis for ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$ {#subsec:Kzero}
---------------------------------------------
As noted above, the choice ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$ can only approximately correspond to the MRR calculation. It implies that ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}={\cal D}_L^{(u,u)}$ and ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}={\cal S}\big[\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}\big]$, so that ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}$ depends on the cutoff function $H$. Nevertheless, it is instructive to first consider this case to see how Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]) arises in a simpler context.
As can be seen from Eq. (\[eq:DLdef\]), $L$-dependence enters ${\cal D}_L^{(u,u)}$ through the factors of $F^{i\epsilon}$ contained in ${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}$, and through the presence of momentum sums (rather than integrals) in the matrix products, as well as the explicit factor of $2\omega L^3$. It turns out, as we show in Appendix \[app:approx\], that the $F^{i\epsilon}$ contributions are subdominant, suppressed by a factor of $1/(\kappa L)$. Thus to obtain the leading volume dependence we can set $F^{i \epsilon}=0$, implying \[via Eq.(\[eq:MLdef\])\] that we can replace ${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}$ with ${\mathcal M_2}^s$. Dropping the superscript $s$ to reduce notational clutter, we thus have $$\label{eq:DLred1}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}_L = -\frac{1}{1 + {\mathcal M_2}G} {\mathcal M_2}G [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}+ \cdots\,.$$
To pull out the FV dependence, we must first understand the $L\to\infty$ limit of $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}_L$, which we call $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}$. In general, this limit must be taken carefully, since the summands (and, in particular, the factors of $G$) have poles that require a prescription when the sums become integrals. As explained in Ref. [@KtoM], the appropriate choice is to first shift the poles in $G$ by $i \epsilon$, then send $L \to \infty$, and finally take $\epsilon \to 0$.[^6] This is the choice of limits that sends ${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}$ to ${\mathcal M_2}$ and ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}$ to ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}$. Thus we have[^7] $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}(\vec k, \vec p) \\
\equiv - \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \lim_{L \to \infty}
\left[ \frac{1}{1 + {\mathcal M_2}G} {\mathcal M_2}G [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}\right]_{kp} \,,\end{gathered}$$ a quantity already introduced in Eq. (85) of Ref. [@KtoM]. It satisfies the integral equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:Duuint}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}(\vec k, \vec p) =
- \mathcal M(\vec k) G^\infty(\vec k, \vec p) \mathcal M(\vec p)
\\
- \int_{\vec \ell} \frac{1}{2 \omega_{\ell}} \mathcal M(\vec k)
G^\infty(\vec k, \vec \ell) \mathcal D^{(u,u)}(\vec \ell, \vec p)\,,\end{gathered}$$ where the infinite-volume propagator is $$G^\infty(\vec p, \vec k) \equiv \frac{H(\vec p) H(\vec k)}{2 \omega_{kp} (E - \omega_k - \omega_p - \omega_{kp} + i \epsilon)} \,.$$
Our aim now is to express the finite-volume matrix $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}_L$ in terms of the infinite-volume function $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}$. To do so we expand the former in powers of ${\mathcal M_2}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}_L & = \sum_{n=2}^\infty \mathcal D^{(n,u,u)}_L \,, \\
\mathcal D^{(n,u,u)}_L & \equiv - [- {\mathcal M_2}G]^{n-2} {\mathcal M_2}G [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Defining $\mathcal D^{(n,u,u)}$ to be the infinite-volume limit of $\mathcal D^{(n,u,u)}_L$, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)} & = \sum_{n=2}^\infty \mathcal D^{(n,u,u)} \,.\end{aligned}$$ We now can relate $\mathcal D_L^{(n,u,u)}$ to $\mathcal D^{(n,u,u)}$ order by order. The lowest order is simple: $$\mathcal D^{(2,u,u)}_{L,kp} = \mathcal D^{(2,u,u)}(\vec k, \vec p)
= - \mathcal M(\vec k) G^{\infty}(\vec k, \vec p) \mathcal M(\vec p) \,.$$ For $n=3$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:D3Ldecomstart}
\mathcal D^{(3,u,u)}_L & = {\mathcal M_2}G {\mathcal M_2}G [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}\,, \\
& \hspace{-20pt} = {\mathcal M_2}G [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}\frac{1}{2 \omega L^3 {\mathcal M_2}} {\mathcal M_2}G [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}\,, \\[5pt]
\begin{split}
& \hspace{-20pt} = \mathcal D^{(3,u,u)}(\vec k, \vec p) \\
& \hspace{-10pt} + \bigg [ \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\vec \ell} - \int_{\vec \ell} \bigg ] \frac{ \mathcal D^{(2,u,u)}(\vec k, \vec \ell) \mathcal D^{(2,u,u)}(\vec \ell, \vec p) }{2 \omega_{\ell} {\mathcal M_2}( \ell)} \,.
\label{eq:D3Ldecom}
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ In the second line we multiplied and divided by $[2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}$ and in the third we expressed the implicit sum as an integral plus a sum-integral difference.
To continue this pattern to higher orders it is helpful to use a compact notation in which we write Eq. (\[eq:D3Ldecom\]) as $$\label{eq:D3Ldecomshort}
\mathcal D^{(3,u,u)}_L = \mathcal D^{(3)}
+ \mathcal D^{(2 )} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal D^{(2 )} \,.$$ Here we have dropped the $u$ superscripts on the right-hand side and have introduced $\mathcal C^{(-1)}$ to represent the sum-integral difference “cut”. Its precise definition can be inferred by comparing Eqs. (\[eq:D3Ldecom\]) and (\[eq:D3Ldecomshort\]). The $(-1)$ superscript indicates that the cut has one factor of ${\mathcal M_2}$ in the denominator. Since $\mathcal D^{(n,u,u)}_L$ is defined by the number of ${\mathcal M_2}$ insertions, it is convenient to track these in the decomposition on the right-hand side. In particular, the superscripts of the second term must sum to three. This pattern persists to all orders, so that the decomposition of $\mathcal D^{(n,u,u)}_L$ may be defined as the sum of all possible terms built from alternating factors of $\mathcal D^{(m)}$ and $\mathcal C^{(-1)}$ whose superscripts sum to $n$. For example, the $n=4$ result is $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal D^{(4,u,u)}_L = \mathcal D^{(4)}
+ \mathcal D^{(3 )} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal D^{(2 )}
\\
+ \mathcal D^{(2 )} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal D^{(3 )}
+ \mathcal D^{(2)} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal D^{(2)} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal D^{(2 )}
\,.\end{gathered}$$
Continuing in this fashion to all orders and summing the result gives $$\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \mathcal D^{(u,u)} \left [ \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal D^{(u,u)} \right ]^n + \cdots \,.
\label{eq:DLseries}$$ This can be succinctly written as an integral equation $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:DLdecomposed}
\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}(\vec k, \vec p) = \mathcal D^{(u,u)}(\vec k, \vec p) \\
+ \bigg [ \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\vec \ell} - \int_{\vec \ell} \bigg ]
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}(\vec k, \vec \ell)
\frac{1}{2 \omega_{\ell} {\mathcal M_2}( \ell)} \mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}(\vec \ell, \vec p) + \cdots \,.\end{gathered}$$ Here we have extended the definition of $\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}(\vec k, \vec p)$ to continuous values of $\vec k$ and $\vec p$. This extension is straightforward given the definitions of the building blocks in Eqs. (\[eq:omegamatdef\])-(\[eq:rhodef2\]) as was already discussed in Ref. [@KtoM].
Now we observe that, since (with ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$) ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}= \mathcal S [ \mathcal D^{(u,u)}]$, and recalling that ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}$ has the pole form (\[eq:poleS\]), then $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}$ itself must have a pole associated with the bound state. Symmetrization cannot lead to the development of a pole. We parametrize the pole in $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}$ as $$\label{eq:Dpole}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}(\vec k', \vec k)\bigg|_{{\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0} \sim -
\frac{ \Gamma^{(u)}(k') \, \overline \Gamma^{(u)} \!(k) }{E^2 - E_B^2} \,,$$ where we have added an explicit reminder that we are working in the ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$ approximation. We also know that ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}=\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}$ must have a nearby pole, corresponding to the bound state with its energy slightly shifted: $$\label{eq:DLpole}
\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}(\vec k', \vec k)\bigg|_{{\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0} \sim - \frac{ \Gamma_L^{(u)}(k')
\, \overline \Gamma_L^{(u)} \!(k) }{E^2 - (E_B + \Delta E(L))^2} \,.$$ Here we have also allowed for a finite-volume dependence in the residue factors.
Substituting Eqs. (\[eq:Dpole\]) and (\[eq:DLpole\]) into Eq. (\[eq:DLdecomposed\]), multiplying by both poles and dividing by the common residue factors, we find that the residue factors are volume independent $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_L^{(u)}(k') \overline \Gamma_L^{(u)}(k) &=
\Gamma^{(u)}(k') \overline \Gamma^{(u)}(k) + \cdots \,,
\label{eq:residuesmatch}\end{aligned}$$ and that $$\begin{gathered}
- [E^2 - E_B^2] =- [E^2 - (E_B + \Delta E(L))^2]
\\
+ \bigg [ \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\vec \ell} - \int_{\vec \ell} \bigg ]
\frac{ \overline \Gamma^{(u)} \!(\ell) \ \Gamma^{(u)}(\ell) }{2 \omega_{\ell} {\mathcal M_2}( \ell)} + \cdots
\,.
\label{eq:almostDE}\end{gathered}$$ Both of these results have corrections that are of higher order in $\Delta E(L)$ if one accounts for the finite residues beneath the poles in Eqs. (\[eq:Dpole\]) and (\[eq:DLpole\]). In particular, there are $\mathcal O(\Delta E^2)$ corrections to Eq. (\[eq:almostDE\]). However, these are suppressed relative to the leading terms and thus can be dropped in our calculation. The final step is to solve Eq. (\[eq:almostDE\]) for $\Delta E(L)$, which, after and dropping terms of $\mathcal O(\Delta E^2)$, leads to the desired result, Eq. (\[eq:DE\]).
We emphasize that all of the approximations leading to Eq. (\[eq:DE\]) are justified by our aim to only determine the leading finite-volume shift of the three-particle bound state. In particular, all neglected terms lead to contributions to $\Delta E(L)$ that vanish faster than the term we are after in the large $L$ limit. This is motivated not only by the aim to approximate $\Delta E(L)$ for large volumes, but also because we are pursuing the same expansion as MRR in order to reproduce their result.
Analysis for general ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ {#subsec:Knonzero}
---------------------------------------------------
We now extend the analysis to nonzero ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$, requiring that we keep the second, ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$-dependent term in Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]). As for ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$, we argue in Appendix \[app:approx\] that finite-volume effects from factors of $F^{i\epsilon}$ are subleading compared to those we keep. This considerably simplifies the analysis.
We expand the second term in Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]) in powers of ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ and focus first on the contribution containing a single factor of ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ $${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)} \supset \mathcal L^{(u)}_L {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\mathcal R_L^{(u)} \,.$$ Setting $F^{i\epsilon}=0$ (so that $F \to \rho$) we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L^{(u)}_L & = \frac{1}{3} - \frac{1}{1 + {\mathcal M_2}G} {\mathcal M_2}\rho + \cdots \,, \\
\mathcal R^{(u)}_L & = \frac{1}{3} - \frac{\rho}{2 \omega L^3} \frac{1}{1 + {\mathcal M_2}G} [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}+ \cdots \,. \end{aligned}$$ We expand in powers of $G$ to reach $$\label{eq:sumLsumR}
\mathcal L^{(u)}_L {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\mathcal R_L^{(u)} =
\sum_{m,n=1}^\infty \mathcal L^{(m,u)}_L {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\mathcal R_L^{(n,u)} \,,$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L^{(0,u)}_L & = \tfrac{1}{3} - {\mathcal M_2}\rho \,, \\
\mathcal L^{(n,u)}_L & = - [- {\mathcal M_2}G]^{n} {\mathcal M_2}\rho \qquad (n>1)\,,\end{aligned}$$ and similarly for $\mathcal R^{(n,L)}$.
For the terms with one or more factors of $G$, the intermediate sums from contracted indices are now decomposed into integrals and sum-integral differences as in Eqs. (\[eq:D3Ldecomstart\])-(\[eq:D3Ldecom\]) above. For example $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal L^{(1,u)}_L {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}& = {\mathcal M_2}G {\mathcal M_2}\rho {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\,, \\
& \hspace{-30pt} = [- {\mathcal M_2}G [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}] \frac{1}{2 \omega L^3 {\mathcal M_2}} [- {\mathcal M_2}\rho {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}] \,, \\
\begin{split}
& \hspace{-30pt} = \mathcal L^{(1,u)} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\\
& \hspace{-50pt} + \bigg [ \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\vec \ell} - \int_{\vec \ell} \bigg ]
\frac{\mathcal D^{(2,u,u)}(\vec p, \vec \ell ) \ \mathcal L^{(0/\rho,u)} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}(\vec \ell, \vec k) }{2 \omega_\ell L^3 {\mathcal M_2}( \ell)} \,.
\end{split}
\label{eq:L1uK}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\mathcal L^{(1,u)}$ is understood as an integral operator $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal L^{(1,u)} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\equiv \\ {\mathcal M_2}(\vec p) \int_{\vec \ell} \frac{1}{2 \omega_{\ell}}
G(\vec p, \vec \ell) {\mathcal M_2}(\vec \ell) \rho(\vec \ell) {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}(\vec \ell, \vec k) \,.\end{gathered}$$ We have also introduced $$\mathcal L^{(0/\rho,u)} \equiv - {\mathcal M_2}\rho \equiv \mathcal L^{(0,u)} - \tfrac13\,.
\label{eq:L0rho}$$
Switching to the shorthand introduced in Eq. (\[eq:D3Ldecomshort\]) we rewrite Eq. (\[eq:L1uK\]) as the action of $$\mathcal L^{(1,u)}_L =
\mathcal L^{(1 )} + \mathcal D^{(2 )} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal L^{(0/\rho )}$$ on ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$. The next order is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal L^{(2,u)}_L = \mathcal L^{(2 )}
+ \mathcal D^{(3 )} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal L^{(0/\rho )}\\
+ \mathcal D^{(2 )} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal L^{(1 )}
+ \mathcal D^{(2 )} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal D^{(2 )}
\mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal L^{(0/\rho )}\,.\end{gathered}$$ The pattern generalizes as in the previous subsection: the $n$th-order result is the sum of all terms built from alternating factors of $\mathcal D$ and $\mathcal C^{(-1)}$, followed by a factor of $\mathcal L$, subject to the condition that the superscripts sum to $n$. Repeating the exercise for $\mathcal R_L^{(u)}$, substituting into Eq. (\[eq:sumLsumR\]), and summing over powers of $G$, we find $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal L^{(u)}_L {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\mathcal R_L^{(u)} =
\bigg [ \mathcal L^{(u)} + \sum_{n=1}^\infty
\left[ \mathcal D^{(u,u)} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \right ]^n
(\mathcal L^{(u)}-\tfrac13) \bigg ]
\\
\times {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\bigg [ \mathcal R^{(u)} + (\mathcal R^{(u)}-\tfrac13) \sum_{n=1}^\infty
\left[ \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal D^{(u,u)} \right ]^n \bigg ] \,.
\label{eq:LKR}\end{gathered}$$ Here ${\cal L}^{(u)} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty {\cal L}^{(n,u)}$ is the infinite-volume limit of ${\cal L}_L^{(u)}$, and similarly for ${\cal R}^{(u)}$.[^8] The factors of $(-1/3)$ in Eq. (\[eq:LKR\]) arise because of the difference between $\mathcal L_L^{(0,u)}$ and $\mathcal L^{(0/\rho,u)}$—see Eq. (\[eq:L0rho\]). It turns out, however, that these factors lead to contributions with subleading dependence on $L$, as explained in Appendix \[app:approx\]. Thus we can drop them and obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal L^{(u)}_L {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\mathcal R_L^{(u)} =
\left( \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[ \mathcal D^{(u,u)} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \right ]^n \right)
\mathcal L^{(u)}
\\ \times {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \mathcal R^{(u)} \left(
\left[ \mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal D^{(u,u)} \right ]^n \right) + \cdots \,.
\label{eq:LLKRLdecomp}\end{gathered}$$ We observe that the leading volume dependence comes from an alternating series of factors of $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}$ and $\mathcal C^{(-1)}$ that appear only on the ends of the expression. This is the same series that appears in the expression for $\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}$, Eq. (\[eq:DLseries\]).
To complete the pattern we need to study the next contribution to the second term in Eq. (\[eq:M3Luu\]), that with two factors of ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$. The factors of ${\cal L}_L^{(u)}$ and ${\cal R}_L^{(u)}$ on the ends lead to the same volume-dependent factors as in Eq. (\[eq:LLKRLdecomp\]). What is new are the finite-volume effects between the two factors of ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$. We find $$\begin{aligned}
- {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}F_3 {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}& = - {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\frac{\rho}{2 \omega L^3} \mathcal L_L^{(u)} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\\
&= - {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\rho \mathcal M_2 \frac{1}{2 \omega L^3 \mathcal M_2} \mathcal L_L^{(u)} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\\
& = {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\bigg \{\!-\! \mathcal F_3
\nonumber \\
&\hspace{-40pt}
+ \mathcal R^{(u)} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left[ \mathcal D^{(u,u)} \mathcal C^{(-1)} \right ]^n \mathcal L^{(u)} \bigg \} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\,.
\label{eq:KFKfinal}\end{aligned}$$ In the first line we have used the definition of $F_3$, Eq. (\[eq:F3def\]), and in the second we have multiplied and divided by ${\mathcal M_2}$. The expression is then ready for our standard manipulation of replacing each sum with an integral plus a sum-integral difference. After some algebra, again using the result that terms containing $\mathcal C^{(-1)} (-1/3) {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ may be dropped, we find the result (\[eq:KFKfinal\]). The new quantity $\mathcal F_3$ is the infinite-volume limit of $F_3$, i.e. $${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\mathcal F_3 {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\equiv \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \lim_{L \to \infty} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}F_3 {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\,.$$
We are now in position to complete the all orders summation. To do so we organize the terms order by order in $\mathcal C^{(-1)}$. First we note that the sum of all terms with no factors of $\mathcal C^{(-1)}$ gives $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}
+ \mathcal L^{(u)} \sum_{n=0}^\infty \left [- {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\mathcal F_3 \right ]^n {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\mathcal R^{(u)}
\equiv \mathcal M_3^{(u,u)} \,.
\label{eq:M3uudef}\end{gathered}$$ Here we have finally given the precise definition of $\mathcal M_{3}^{(u,u)}$.[^9] We then observe that $\mathcal M^{(u,u)}_3$ is also the object that emerges in terms containing factors of $\mathcal C^{(-1)}$, leading to $$\mathcal M_{3,L}^{(u,u)} = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \mathcal M_3^{(u,u)} \left[\mathcal C^{(-1)} \mathcal M_3^{(u,u)} \right ]^n + \cdots \,.$$ Summing the series we find that $\mathcal M_{3,L}^{(u,u)}$ and $\mathcal M_{3}^{(u,u)} $ satisfy the same relation as do $\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}$ and $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}$ in Eq. (\[eq:DLdecomposed\]) above, i.e. $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:MLdecomposed}
\mathcal M_{3,L}^{(u,u)}(\vec p, \vec k) = \mathcal M_3^{(u,u)}(\vec p, \vec k) \\
+ \bigg [ \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\vec \ell} - \int_{\vec \ell} \bigg ]
\mathcal M_3^{(u,u)}(\vec p, \vec \ell)
\frac{1}{2 \omega_{\ell} {\mathcal M_2}( \ell)} \mathcal M_{3,L}^{(u,u)}(\vec \ell, \vec k) + \cdots \,.\end{gathered}$$ We stress that this result will hold whenever it is legitimate to treat the $F^{i\epsilon}$ and “$-1/3$ terms" as subleading.
To use Eq. (\[eq:MLdecomposed\]) we follow the same steps as for ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$, Eqs. (\[eq:Dpole\])-(\[eq:almostDE\]), except now we are making no approximations aside from keeping only the leading volume dependence. Specifically, the pole form (\[eq:poleS\]) for ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}$ implies a similar form for $\mathcal M_3^{(u,u)}$: $$\label{eq:poleuu}
\mathcal M^{(u,u)}_3(p,k) \sim -
\frac{\Gamma^{(u)}( p) \overline \Gamma^{(u)}( k)}{E^{2} - E_B^{2} } \,.$$ The only difference from (\[eq:poleS\]) is that the residue factors are unsymmetrized. The unsymmetrized finite-volume amplitude has the corresponding pole form $$\label{eq:MLpole}
\mathcal M_L^{(u,u)}(\vec k', \vec k) \sim - \frac{ \Gamma_L^{(u)}(k')
\, \overline \Gamma_L^{(u)} \!(k) }{E^2 - (E_B + \Delta E(L))^2} \,.$$ Substituting these in Eq. (\[eq:MLdecomposed\]) we find Eqs. (\[eq:residuesmatch\]) and (\[eq:almostDE\]), except now without the need for the ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$ approximation. Expanding out (\[eq:almostDE\]) in powers of $\Delta E(L)$ leads to the desired result, Eq. (\[eq:DE\]).
Determining the bound-state residue factors {#sec:calcGamma}
===========================================
In this section we study the unsymmetrized, s-wave projected residue factors $\Gamma^{(u)}(k)$ and $\overline \Gamma^{(u)}(k)$. Expressions for these can be found by deriving a relation to the nonrelativistic Schrödinger wavefunction. The latter is known analytically (as reviewed, for example, in Ref. [@BH]) and this leads to an analytic result for the residue factors, given in Eq. (\[eq:Gammaresult\]) below.
We begin by introducing the three-particle wavefunction $\psi(\vec r_1, \vec r_2, \vec r_3)$, which satisfies $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:SE}
\bigg[ - \frac{1}{2m} \sum_{i} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \vec r_i^{\,2}} + \sum_{ij} V(\vec r_i - \vec r_j) \bigg ] \psi(\vec r_1, \vec r_2, \vec r_3) \\
= - \frac{\kappa^2}{m} \psi(\vec r_1, \vec r_2, \vec r_3) \,.\end{gathered}$$ Here $\vec r_i$ are the coordinates of the individual particles. Following MRR we suppose that the particles only interact through pairwise potentials. If we restrict attention to the center of mass frame, then one of the coordinates becomes redundant. It is convenient to express the wavefunction using Jacobi coordinates $$\label{eq:JacobiCoord}
\vec x_i = \vec r_j - \vec r_k \,, \ \
\vec y_i = \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{3}} (\vec r_j + \vec r_k - 2 \vec r_i ) \,,$$ where $ijk$ can be assigned any cyclic permutation of $123$. $\psi$ can then be expressed as a function of any $\vec x_i, \vec y_i$ pair.
As described by MRR, in the unitary limit, Eq. (\[eq:SE\]) is approximately solved by the wavefunction $$\psi(\vec x_3, \vec y_3) = \sum_{i=1}^3 \phi(R, \alpha_i) \,,
\label{eq:psitophi}$$ where $$\phi(R, \alpha) = A \kappa \sqrt{D_0} \frac{K_{i s_0}(\sqrt{2} \kappa R)}{R^2}
\frac{\sinh(s_0 (\pi/2 - \alpha))}{\sinh(\pi s_0/2) \, \sin(2 \alpha)} \,.
\label{eq:phidef}$$ Here the hyperradius $R$ and Delves hyperangles $\alpha_i$ are given by $$\begin{aligned}
R^2 &= \frac{\vec x_i^{\,2} + \vec y_i^{\,2}}{2} \qquad (i=1,\ 2,\ {\rm or}\ 3) \,,
\label{eq:Rhyper}
\\
\alpha_i &= \tan^{-1}\left(\frac{\vert \vec x_i \vert}{\vert \vec y_i \vert}\right) \,.
\label{eq:alphahyper}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the wavefunction (\[eq:psitophi\]) depends on fewer variables (four) than the full complement (six). This is because of the neglect of components with higher angular momenta than s-wave [@BH]. The coefficient $D_0$ is $$D_0 = - \frac{4}{27 \cdot 3^{1/4} \pi^{7/2}} c \,,$$ where $c$ is the constant given earlier in Eq. (\[eq:cdef\]), while $A$ is normalization coefficient discussed following Eq. (\[eq:s0def\]).
We have chosen the normalization to be $$\frac{1}{6} \int d^3 x_3 d^3 y_3 \; J \; \vert \psi(\vec x_3, \vec y_3 ) \vert^2
= \vert A \vert^2 \,,
\label{eq:psinorm}$$ where $J=3\sqrt3/8$ is the Jacobian of the transformation from normal to Jacobi coordinates, and the $1/6$ is due to our use of identical particles. This differs from the normalization convention used by MRR: the wavefunction used here is obtained by multiplying that of MRR by $\sqrt{6/J}$.
The decomposition into three terms in Eq. (\[eq:psitophi\]) comes from rewriting the Schrödinger equation in Faddeev form [@BH]. For example, the Faddeev equation satisfied by the part dependent on $\alpha_3$ is $$\begin{gathered}
\left( - \frac{\kappa^2}{m} + \frac{1}{m} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \vec x_3^{\,2}}
+ \frac{1}{m} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \vec y_3^{\,2}} \right) \phi(R, \alpha_3)
\\
= V(\vec x_3) \psi(\vec x_3, \vec y_3) \,,
\label{eq:Fadeev3}\end{gathered}$$ and explicitly involves only the potential between particles 1 and 2. This is the analog in the Schrödinger analysis of considering an unsymmetrized scattering amplitude, in which the first interaction involves only a specific particle pair (here 1 and 2). Thus for this part of the wavefunction one can think of particle 3 as the spectator, while the other two parts effect the symmetrization.
We will need the Fourier transform of the wavefunction and its components. In terms of the momenta of the individual particles, $\vec p_i$, we use the variables $$\vec k_{12} = \frac{1}{2} (\vec p_1 - \vec p_2 ) \,,
\ \ \ \vec k_{3} = \frac{1}{3} \left(\vec p_1 + \vec p_2 - 2 \vec p_3 \right ) \,.
\label{eq:Jacobimomenta}$$ Since $\vec P= \sum_i \vec p_i=0$, we can also write $\vec k_3= - \vec p_3$, etc.. The Fourier transform is then $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde \psi (\vec k_{12}, \vec k_{3} )
\equiv \int d \vec x_3 \int d \vec y_3 \, J
\\ \times \exp \bigg (\!\!-\! i \sum_i \vec r_i \cdot \vec p_i \bigg) \psi(\vec x_3, \vec y_3) \,,
\label{eq:psiFT}\end{gathered}$$ with $$\sum_i \vec r_i \cdot \vec p_i =
\vec x_3 \cdot \vec k_{12} - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} \vec y_3 \cdot \vec k_{3} \,.
\label{eq:FTphase}$$ The normalization of the momentum-space wavefunction is then $$\frac{1}{6} \int_{\vec k_{12}} \int_{\vec k_{3}} \vert \widetilde \psi(\vec k_{12}, \vec k_{3} ) \vert^2 = \vert A \vert^2 \,.$$ A similar definition is used for $\phi$, e.g. $$\begin{gathered}
\widetilde \phi_3 (\vec k_{12}, \vec k_{3} )
\equiv \int d \vec x_3 \int d \vec y_3 \, J
\\ \times \exp \bigg (\!\!-\! i \sum_i \vec r_i \cdot \vec p_i \bigg) \phi(R,\alpha_3) \,,\end{gathered}$$ for the component in which particle 3 is the spectator.
As shown in Appendix \[app:details\], the residue factor $ \Gamma^{(u)}(\vec k)$ is related to the one component of the wavefunction (with our normalization) via $$\label{eq:Gammafrompsi}
\frac{\Gamma^{(u)}( k)}{4\sqrt3 m^2}
=
\lim_{\mathrm{on\ shell}}
\left (-\frac{\kappa^2}{m}-H_0 \right ) \widetilde \phi_3(\vec k_{12}, \vec k_{3}) \,,$$ where $$H_0 = \sum_{i=1}^3 \frac{\vec p_i^2}{2 m} \,.
\label{eq:H0def}$$ The on-shell limit is effected by setting $\vec k_{3} = -\vec p_3 \to - \vec k$ (the spectator momentum) and sending $\vec k_{12}$ to a (complex) value such that $H_0=-\kappa^2/m$. As we will see by explicit calculation, the result for $\Gamma^{(u)}$ only depends on $k=|\vec k|$, and not on the direction of $\vec k$ nor on the remaining on-shell angular variable $\hat a^*$ (defined in Sec. \[sec:setup\]). This is expected since the s-wave projection removes dependence on $\hat a^*$. Dependence on $\hat k$ is also removed as this can only appear in a scalar product, and no other directions are defined for $\Gamma^{(u)}$ in the CM frame.
To evaluate the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:Gammafrompsi\]), we first return to position space. As we show in Appendix \[app:identity\], given the explicit form for $\phi$, Eq. (\[eq:phidef\]), one can derive the identity $$\begin{gathered}
\left( - \frac{\kappa^2}{m} + \frac{1}{m} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \vec x_3^{\,2}}
+ \frac{1}{m} \frac{\partial^2}{\partial \vec y_3^{\,2}} \right) \phi(R, \alpha_3)
\\
= - 4 \pi A \sqrt{D_0} \frac{\kappa}{m}
\frac{K_{i s_0}(\kappa \vert \vec y_3 \vert)}{\vert \vec y_3 \vert} \delta^3(\vec x_3) \,.
\label{eq:identity}\end{gathered}$$ Comparing to the Faddeev equation (\[eq:Fadeev3\]) we see that the approximate form of the wavefunction we are using corresponds to a potential proportional to a delta function. Fourier transforming, we use Eq. (\[eq:Gammafrompsi\]) to obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:GammauFT}
\Gamma^{(u)}( k) = -4 \sqrt{3} m^2 \int \! d^3x_3
\! \int \! d^3y_3 \,J\, \exp \bigg (\!\!-\! i \sum_i \vec r_i \cdot \vec p_i \bigg)
\\
\times 4 \pi A \sqrt{D_0} \frac{\kappa}{m} \frac{K_{i s_0}
(\kappa \vert \vec y_3 \vert)}{\vert \vec y_3 \vert} \delta^3(\vec x_3) \,.\end{gathered}$$
We have not specified the on-shell limit because it turns out to be trivial. Using the form of the Fourier transform phase given in Eq. (\[eq:FTphase\]), and setting $\vec k_3=-\vec k$, we see that the trivial $\vec x_3$ integral removes all dependence on $\vec k_{12}$: $$\begin{gathered}
\Gamma^{(u)}(k) = -4 \sqrt{3} m^2 4 \pi A \sqrt{D_0} \frac{\kappa}{m} J \\ \times
\int d^3y_3 \frac{K_{i s_0}(\kappa \vert \vec y_3 \vert)}{ \vert \vec y_3 \vert} e^{i \sqrt{3} \vec y_3 \cdot \vec k /2 } \,.\end{gathered}$$
Substituting the value of $\sqrt{D_0}$ and simplifying then gives $$\Gamma^{(u)}(k) = -\frac{4 \cdot 3^{3/8} }{\pi^{3/4}} A \sqrt{-c} \, \kappa m \, g(\sqrt{3} k/2) \,,$$ where $$g(q) \equiv \int \! 2\pi d(\cos\theta) y_3^2 d y_3 \frac{K_{i s_0}(\kappa y_3 )}
{ y_3 } e^{i y_3 q \cos \theta } \,.$$ Evaluating the angular integral then gives $$g(q) = \frac{4\pi}{\kappa q} \int_0^\infty dz \sin(z q/\kappa)\, K_{i s_0}(z) \,.$$ The remaining integral may also be evaluated analytically: $$\begin{gathered}
g(q) = \frac{2\pi^2}{\kappa^2 \sinh(s_0\pi/2)} \\ \times \frac{\sin[s_0\sinh^{-1}(q/\kappa)]}{q/\kappa}
\frac1{\sqrt{1+q^2/\kappa^2}}
\,.\end{gathered}$$ The function $g(q)$ is singular at $q^2=-\kappa^2$, due to both factors on the second line. The expansion about the singular point has the form $$\begin{gathered}
g(q) = \frac{2\pi^2}{\kappa^2} \bigg [ \frac1{\sqrt{1+q^2/\kappa^2}}
- s_0 \coth(s_0\pi/2) \\ + {\cal O}\Big(\sqrt{1+q^2/\kappa^2}\Big) \bigg ]
\,.\end{gathered}$$ The leading singularity will lead to the dominant finite-volume effects.
We conclude that the leading contribution to $\Delta E(L)$ is given by evaluating the expression derived in the previous section \[Eq. (\[eq:DE\])\] with $$\label{eq:Gammaresult}
\Gamma^{(u)}(k) = -8 \cdot 3^{3/8} \pi^{5/4} A \sqrt{-c} \frac{m}{\kappa} \left[1 + \frac{3 k^2}{4 \kappa^2} \right ]^{-1/2} \,.$$ Repeating the exercise for $\overline \Gamma^{(u)}(k)$, one finds the same form up to a complex conjugate which has no effect other than $A \to A^*$.
Determination of $\Delta E(L)$ {#sec:calcDE}
==============================
In this section we use the result for $\Gamma^{(u)}$ derived in the previous section to evaluate the energy shift $\Delta E(L)$ using Eq. (\[eq:DE\]).
To do so we need the expression for ${\mathcal M_2}^s(k)$ in the unitary limit. This requires the kinematic quantities $E_{2,k}^*$ and $q_k^*$ \[defined in Eqs. (\[eq:E2kdef\]) and (\[eq:qkdef\]), respectively\] $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
E_{2,k}^* &= \sqrt{ (3m - \kappa^2/m - \omega_k)^2 - k^2}\,, \\
&= 2m \left[1 - (\kappa^2 + 3 k^2/4)/(2m^2) + \cdots\right]\,,\\
q_k^* &= \sqrt{- \kappa^2 - 3 k^2/4 + \cdots} \,,
\end{split}
\label{eq:kinematics}\end{aligned}$$ with the ellipses indicating higher-order terms in the nonrelativistic expansion (assuming $k^2\sim \kappa^2 \ll m^2$). We see that the momentum $q_k^*$ is pure imaginary, as expected since we are studying a subthreshold energy. Below threshold the scattering amplitude takes the form $$\label{eq:M2result0}
\mathcal M_2(k) = \frac{16 \pi E_{2,k}^*}{q_k^* \cot \delta(q_k^*) + \vert q_k^* \vert} \,,$$ where we use $q_k^*\cot \delta(q_k^*) = -1/a + r (q_k^*)^2/2 + \cdots$, with $a$ the scattering length and $r$ the effective range, to perform the analytical continuation. In the unitary limit, $a\to -\infty$, we therefore have $$\label{eq:M2result1}
\mathcal M_2(k) \longrightarrow
\frac{16 \pi E_{2,k}^*}{\vert q_k^* \vert}\left[1 + {\cal O}(q_k^* r) \right]\,.$$ Inserting the results from Eq. (\[eq:kinematics\]), and dropping suppressed terms, gives the form we need for our computation: $$\label{eq:1byM2}
\frac{1}{\mathcal M_2(k)} = \frac{\kappa}{32 \pi m}
\left[1 + \frac{3 k^2}{4 \kappa^2} \right ]^{1/2} + \cdots \,.$$
The energy shift, Eq. (\[eq:DE\]), can now be written, using Eqs. (\[eq:Gammaresult\]) and (\[eq:1byM2\]), as $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta E(L) = c \vert A \vert^2 64 \cdot 3^{3/4} \pi^{5/2} \frac{m^2}{\kappa^2} \, \frac{\kappa}{32 \pi m} \, \frac{1}{2 E_B} \\ \times \bigg[ \frac1{L^3} \sum_{\vec k} - \int_{\vec k} \bigg] \frac{1}{2 \omega_k} \left[1 + \frac{3 k^2}{4 \kappa^2} \right ]^{-1/2} + \cdots \,.
\label{eq:DE1}\end{gathered}$$ Applying the Poisson summation formula we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:DEpoisson}
\Delta E(L) = c \vert A \vert^2 \frac{\pi^{3/2}}{3^{1/4}} \frac{1}{\kappa}
\sum_{\vec s\ne 0}
\\ \times
\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} e^{i L \vec s \cdot \vec k} \frac{1}{2 \omega_k}
\left[1 + \frac{3 k^2}{4 \kappa^2} \right ]^{-1/2} +\cdots \,,\end{gathered}$$ with $\vec s$ a vector of integers. We have also set $E_B = 3m$, which holds up to corrections down by $\kappa^2/m^2$ . We further simplify by evaluating the angular integral and using the symmetry of the resulting integrand to extend the $k$ integral to the entire real axis: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:beforerotation}
\Delta E(L) = c \vert A \vert^2 \frac{3^{3/4}}{24 \sqrt{\pi} i \kappa m L}
\sum_{s=1}^\infty \frac{\nu_s}s
\\ \times \int_{- \infty}^\infty \!\! dk k \, e^{i s k L}
\left [ \left (1 + \frac{k^2}{m^2} \right ) \left (1 + \frac{3 k^2}{4 \kappa^2} \right ) \right ]^{-1/2}
+\cdots\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $\nu_s$ is the number of integer vectors $\vec s$ with magnitude $s$ (e.g. $\nu_1=6,\ \nu_2=12,\ \cdots$). We next deform the contour so as to wrap around the branch cut along the positive imaginary axis, and introduce $\ell = \pm i k$ to parametrize the integral along the discontinuity, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:introtated}
\Delta E(L) = c \vert A \vert^2 \frac{3^{3/4}}{12 \sqrt{\pi} \kappa m L}\sum_{ s=1}^\infty \frac{\nu_s}s
\\
\times \int_{2 \kappa/\sqrt{3}}^\infty d\ell \ell \, e^{- s \ell L}
\left ( \frac{3 \ell^2}{4 \kappa^2} - 1 \right )^{-1/2} + \cdots\,.\end{gathered}$$ Note that at this stage we have set $(1 + k^2/m^2)^{-1/2}$ to unity. This factor is required to ensure convergence of the integral but, after the contour has been deformed, it can be expanded in powers of $k^2/m^2$. Upon integration these contribute subleading powers of $\kappa^2/m^2$ that we neglect.
It is now apparent that the integral will have an exponential fall-off proportional to $\exp(-s2\kappa L/\sqrt3)$. Thus we need only keep the sixfold degenerate $s=1$ term. Doing so, and evaluating the integral, we reach $$\Delta E(L) = c \vert A \vert^2 \frac{\kappa^2}{m} \frac{2}{3^{1/4} \sqrt{\pi} \kappa L} \, K_1 \! \left(\frac{2 \kappa L}{\sqrt{3}}\right) + \cdots \,.$$ Substituting the asymptotic form of the Bessel function we obtain the MRR result, Eq. (\[eq:result\]).
Comparison with two-particle bound-state energy shift {#sec:twopart}
=====================================================
In this section we compare the result just obtained, along with its derivation, with the corresponding result and derivation for the energy shift for a spin-zero two-particle bound state, $\Delta E_2(L)$.
The leading-order volume dependence of $\Delta E_2(L)$ has been quoted in Eq. (\[eq:result2\]). We first recall the standard derivation of this result. This uses Lüscher’s quantization condition (assuming s-wave dominance), which in our notation reads [@KSS] $$1/{\mathcal M_2}^s + F_2^{i\epsilon}(E_2,\vec 0) = 0\,.
\label{eq:KSS}$$ The two-particle zeta-function for total momentum $\vec P$ is given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:F2ieps}
F_2^{i\epsilon}(E_2,\vec P)
\equiv \frac12 \bigg[\frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\vec k} - \int_{\vec k} \bigg]
\\ \times
\frac{ H(\vec k) H(\vec P-\vec k)}
{2 \omega_k 2 \omega_{kP}(E - \omega_k - \omega_{k P} + i \epsilon)}
\,,\end{gathered}$$ where $\omega_{kP} = \sqrt{m^2 + (\vec P-\vec k)^2}$. $F_2^{i\epsilon}$ is related to the function $F^{i\epsilon}(\vec \ell)$ defined in Eq. (\[eq:Fiepsaltdef\]) by $$F_2^{i\epsilon}(E_2,\vec P) = F^{i\epsilon}(-\vec P)\bigg|_{E-\omega_P=E_2}
\,.$$ Here we consider a state at rest, and so set $\vec P=0$. We parametrize the two-particle energy as $E_2=2m -\kappa_2^2/m$, with $\kappa_2$ at this stage arbitrary except that $\kappa_2\ll m$. Then we have [@Beane:2003da][^10] $$F_2^{i \epsilon}(E_2,\vec 0) = - \frac{3}{16 \pi m L } e^{- \kappa_2 L} \,,
\label{eq:Fiepsrest}$$ up to terms suppressed by $\kappa_2^2/m^2$. The scattering amplitude is given by Eq. (\[eq:M2result0\]), where now $|q_k^*|=\kappa_2$ and $E_{2,k}^*\approx 2m$. Using the effective range expansion, and assuming that the scattering length dominates,[^11] one finds $$\frac1{{\mathcal M_2}^s} = \frac{\kappa_2 - 1/a}{32\pi m}\,.
\label{eq:1byM2s}$$ ${\mathcal M_2}^s$ thus has a pole when $\kappa_2=1/a$, corresponding to the bound-state energy in infinite volume of $E_{B_2}=2m - 1/(a^2m)$. Inserting (\[eq:1byM2s\]) into the quantization condition (\[eq:KSS\]), and using the fact that the energy shift is small, we find $$\Delta\kappa_2(L) = \frac{6}{L} e^{-L/a}
\,,$$ where $$E_{B_2}(L) = E_{B_2} + \Delta E_2(L) =
2 m - \frac{[\kappa_2 + \Delta \kappa_2(L)]^2}{m}\,.$$ This leads to the result quoted earlier, Eq. (\[eq:result2\]).
We now repackage this derivation using a method analogous to that used for three particles. We consider the two-particle finite-volume scattering amplitude, ${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}$, which satisfies $${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}= {\mathcal M_2}^s - {\mathcal M_2}^s F^{i \epsilon} (\vec 0){\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}\,,$$ as can be seen from Eq. (\[eq:MLdef\]). This is the analog of Eq. (\[eq:MLdecomposed\]), except that here there are no subleading sources of finite-volume dependence (except those proportional to $e^{-mL}$, which are dropped throughout). Substituting the pole ansätze $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:M2pole}
{\mathcal M_2}& = - \frac{ \Gamma_2 \overline \Gamma_2}{E^{2} - E_{B,2}^2} \,, \\
{\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}& = - \frac{ \Gamma_{2,L} \overline \Gamma_{2,L}}{E^{2} - [E_{B_2}+ \Delta E_2(L)]^2} \,, \end{aligned}$$ and following steps analogous to Eqs. (\[eq:Dpole\])-(\[eq:almostDE\]) above, we find $$\label{eq:twobound}
\Delta E_2(L) = \frac{1}{2 E_{B_2}}
\overline \Gamma_2 F_2^{i \epsilon}(E_{B_2},\vec 0)\Gamma_2\,.$$ This is the analog of Eq. (\[eq:DE\]), except that here the residues are numbers rather than functions and the sum-integral difference is not explicit but instead included in the definition of $F_2^{i \epsilon}$.[^12] The residues can be obtained by matching the pole ansatz for ${\mathcal M_2}$, Eq. (\[eq:M2pole\]), with the specific result (\[eq:1byM2s\]), leading to[^13] $$\overline \Gamma_2 \Gamma_2 = 256 \pi m/a \,.
\label{eq:residues2}$$ Inserting this into the new form for $\Delta E_2(L)$, Eq. (\[eq:twobound\]), along with the result (\[eq:Fiepsrest\]) for $F_2^{i\epsilon}$, we find again the energy shift quoted in Eq. (\[eq:result2\]).
We now compare the recast two-particle result (\[eq:twobound\]) with the three-particle result, Eq. (\[eq:DE\]), in more detail. Both have a form analogous to a leading-order correction in perturbation theory: a “matrix element” evaluated between unperturbed “wavefunctions”. The “operator” in both cases involves a sum-integral difference—this is explicit in Eq. (\[eq:DE\]) and contained in $F_2^{i\epsilon}$ in the two-particle case. This is expected, since it is the difference between sums and integrals that leads to finite-volume effects. The results differ in the nature of the process occurring in the sum-integral difference. For two particles, it is just a subthreshold loop of two free particles, as can be seen from the form of $F_2^{i\epsilon}$, or by returning to the original derivation, e.g. in Ref. [@KSS]. For three particles this does not simply generalize to a subthreshold three-particle loop—such loops give rise to the $F^{i\epsilon}$ terms that are shown in Appendix \[app:approx\] to be subleading by a factor of $1/L$. Instead, what appears is a process in which two of the three particles are scattering. This leads to the appearance of the explicit factor of $1/{\mathcal M_2}^s$ in Eq. (\[eq:DE\]), as well as to the singularities in the residues.
Generalization to a moving bound state {#sec:moving}
======================================
In this section we extend the result derived above to the case where the three-particle bound state has nonzero momentum, $\vec P$, in the finite-volume frame. This momentum is constrained by the boundary conditions to satisfy $\vec P=(2\pi/L)\vec n_P $, with $\vec n_P$ a vector of integers. We study the case in which $\vec n_P$ is fixed, so that $\vec P \sim 1/L \ll m$. The alternative in which one holds $\vec P \sim m$ is also interesting (since it more closely approximates moving frames used in present simulations) but this leads to more complicated expressions and goes beyond the scope of this work.
Generalizing to nonzero momentum turns out to be straightforward. We define the energy shift to be that in the CM-frame bound-state energy, so that the energy of the FV state in the moving frame is $$E_B(\vec P, L) \equiv \sqrt{[E_B + \Delta E_{\vec P}(L)]^2 + \vec P^2} \,.$$ The steps of Sec. \[sec:QCexp\] go through unchanged,[^14] and one arrives again at Eq. (\[eq:MLdecomposed\]). The only subtlety is that the energy of the nonspectator pair now depends also on $\vec P$. If the spectator momentum is $\vec k$, then the two-particle CM frame energy becomes $$E_{2,k}^*(\vec P) = \sqrt{(E - \omega_{k})^2 - (\vec P - \vec k)^2} \,,$$ and the individual CM frame momenta are $$q_k^*(\vec P) = \sqrt{ E_{2,k}^{*}(\vec P)^2/4 - m^2}\,.$$ Since the quantities that enter the finite-volume energy shift, i.e. ${\mathcal M_2}^s$, $\Gamma^{(u)}$ and $\overline\Gamma^{(u)}$, are Lorentz scalars, expressing these as functions of $q_{k}^*$, rather than of $\vec k$, results in expressions that hold in all frames.[^15] For example, the generalization of the pole form for ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}^{(u,u)}$, Eq. (\[eq:poleS\]), is $$\label{eq:poleP}
\mathcal M_3(\vec p; \vec k)
\sim - \frac{\Gamma[q_{p}^*(\vec P)]
\overline \Gamma[q_{k}^*(\vec P)]}{E^{*2} - E_B^{2}} \,,$$ where $E^{*2}=E^2 - \vec P^2$. A similar form holds for ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}$, except with $E_B$ replaced with $E_B+ \Delta E_{\vec P}(L)$.
Substituting these pole forms into Eq. (\[eq:MLdecomposed\]), and proceeding as before, we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:movingDE}
\Delta E_{\vec P}(L) = - \frac{1}{2 E_B} \bigg[ \frac1{L^3} \sum_{\vec k} - \int_{\vec k} \bigg]
\frac1{2\omega_k}
\\
\times \frac{\overline \Gamma^{(u)} \![q_{k}^*(\vec P)] \
\Gamma^{(u)}[q_{k}^*(\vec P)] }{\mathcal M_{2}[q_{k}^*(\vec P)]} + \cdots \,.\end{gathered}$$ This is to be evaluated at the infinite-volume moving-frame bound-state energy, $$E_B(\vec P)=\sqrt{E_B^2+ \vec P^2} \,.$$ We note that ${\mathcal M_2}^s$ is already expressed in terms of Lorentz scalars in Eq. (\[eq:M2result1\]), while $\Gamma^{(u)}$ in Eq. (\[eq:Gammaresult\]) can be rewritten in invariant form using Eq. (\[eq:kinematics\]): $$\label{eq:Gammaresult2}
\Gamma^{(u)}[q_k^*(\vec P)] = - 8 \cdot 3^{3/8} \pi^{5/4} A \sqrt{-c}
\frac{m}{|q_k^*(\vec P)|} \,.$$ Since $\int_{\vec k}(1/\omega_k)$ is also invariant, we see that the only noninvariant part of the expression for $\Delta E_{\vec P}(L)$ is the sum.
Applying the Poisson summation formula, and dropping terms suppressed by powers of $\kappa$, we find $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:DEpoissonmove}
\Delta E_{\vec P}(L) = c \vert A \vert^2 \frac{\pi^{3/2}}{3^{1/4}} \sum_{\vec s}
\int \frac{d^3 k}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{e^{i L \vec s \cdot \vec k}}{2 \omega_{k}}
\frac1{|q_k^*(\vec P)|} + \cdots \,.\end{gathered}$$ To further simplify we change the variable of integration to $\vec k^*$, defined by boosting the four-vector $(\omega_k, \vec k)$ to the three-particle CM frame. The only non-invariant factor is the exponent, and this can be written $$\begin{aligned}
\vec s \cdot \vec k & = \vec s \cdot \left(\vec k^* + \frac{\omega_{k^*}}{E_B}\vec P \right)
+
\left(\gamma - 1 \right ) \frac{(\vec s \cdot \vec P)( \vec k^* \cdot \vec P)}{\vec P^2} \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma=E_B(\vec P)/E_B$. Since we are scaling $\vec P$ as $1/L$, we can set $\gamma=1$ and drop the last term. Also, since the integral is dominated by nonrelativistic momenta, and given that $\kappa \ll m$, we can set $\omega_{k^*}/E_B =1/3$. Thus we arrive at $$\vec s \cdot \vec k = \vec s \cdot \left( \vec k^* + \frac{\vec P}{3}\right)
\left[1 + \mathcal O\left(\frac1{(mL)^2}, \frac{\kappa^2}{m^2}\right) \right]\,.$$ This is the result that one expects from a Galilean boost, in which each of the three particles picks up momentum $\vec P/3$. Substituting this into Eq. (\[eq:DEpoissonmove\]), we reach $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:DEchangeframe}
\Delta E_{\vec P}(L) = c \vert A \vert^2 \frac{\pi^{3/2}}{3^{1/4}} \frac1{\kappa} \sum_{\vec s}
e^{i(2\pi/3) \vec s \cdot \vec n_P}
\\ \times
\int \frac{d^3 k^*}{(2 \pi)^3} \frac{e^{i L \vec s \cdot \vec k^*}}{2 \omega_{k^*}}
\left[ 1 + \frac{3 k^{*2}}{4\kappa^2} \right ]^{-1/2} + \cdots \,.\end{gathered}$$
We now observe that the integral appearing in (\[eq:DEchangeframe\]) is [*identical*]{} to that in the rest-frame expression (\[eq:DEpoisson\]). Indeed, the only difference between the expressions is the presence of the phase factor $\exp[{i(2\pi/3) \vec s\cdot \vec n_P}]$ in (\[eq:DEchangeframe\]). Keeping only the dominant $s=1$ terms in the Poisson sum we find that the energy shifts in different frames are related by a simple prefactor $$\Delta E_{\vec P}(L) = f_3[\vec n_P]\Delta E(L) + \cdots \,,
\label{eq:DEP}$$ with $$f_3[{\vec n_P}] = \frac{1}{6} \sum_{\hat s } e^{i (2\pi/3) \hat s \cdot \vec n_P }\,.
\label{eq:prefactor3}$$ We stress that the sum here is only over the six unit vectors $\hat s$. This prefactor varies dramatically with the value of momentum. For example, the lowest momenta give $$\begin{split}
f_3[{(0,0,0)}] &= 1 \,, \ \ \ \
f_3[{(0,0,1)}] = 1/2\,,
\\
f_3[{(0,1,1)}] &= 0 \,, \ \ \ \
f_3[{(1,1,1)}] = -1/2 \,.
\end{split}
\label{eq:prefactorexs}$$
This result is very similar to that for a two-particle bound state, as described in Ref. [@Davoudi:2011md]. We can obtain the results in our approach by noting that Eq. (\[eq:twobound\]) generalizes to $$\label{eq:QCtwo}
\Delta E_{2, \vec P}(L) =
\frac{1}{2 E_{B_2}} \overline \Gamma_2 F_2^{i \epsilon}(E_{B_2}(\vec P),\vec P)
\Gamma_2 \,,$$ where $E_{B_2}(\vec P)^2=E_{B_2}^2+\vec P^2$. The residues are independent of $\vec P$ and given by Eq. (\[eq:residues2\]).
Assuming fixed $\vec n_P$ as $L\to\infty$, the leading-order form for $F_2^{i \epsilon}(\vec P)$ is [@Davoudi:2011md] $$\label{eq:Fiepsresult}
F_2^{i \epsilon}(E_{B_2}(\vec P),\vec P)
= - \frac{1}{32 \pi m L } e^{- \kappa_2 L} \sum_{\hat s } e^{i \pi \vec n_P \cdot \hat s } + \cdots \,,$$ where again the sum over $\hat s$ runs over the six unit vectors. It follows that the energy shifts for different $\vec n_P$ have a similar form to the three-particle case: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E_{2,\vec P}(L)
& = f_2[{\vec n_P}] \Delta E_2(L) + \cdots \,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
f_2[\vec n_P] &= \frac16 \sum_{\hat s} e^{i\pi \hat s \cdot \vec n_P}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The values of $f_2$ for the lowest momenta are $$\begin{split}
f_2[{(0,0,0)}] &= 1 \,, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
f_2[{(0,0,1)}] = 1/3\,,
\\
f_2[{(0,1,1)}] &= -1/3 \,, \ \ \ \
f_2[{(1,1,1)}] = -1 \,.
\end{split}$$
Conclusions {#sec:conc}
===========
The main motivation for this work was to provide a further nontrivial check of our three-particle quantization condition. While many technical steps are required to carry out this check, the key result for the energy shift, Eq. (\[eq:DE\]), is rather simple. We have derived this result for a particular type of three-particle bound state, namely a spin-zero state for which the two-particle interaction is near the unitary limit. It would be interesting to know, however, whether Eq. (\[eq:DE\]) gives the leading volume dependence in a more general context, or whether contributions that are higher order here, such as $\Delta E_F(L)$ in Eq. (\[eq:DEL\]), must be considered.
Our extension of the result for the energy shift to a moving frame shows the utility of having a formalism that holds for any momentum $\vec P$. It also opens up the possibility of generalizing the work of Ref. [@Davoudi:2011md] from two- to three-particle bound sates. The idea is to determine linear combinations of three-body bound-state energies (obtained from different frames) for which the leading finite-volume dependence cancels.
Indeed, from our results here it is already clear that such a cancellation occurs if one averages the CM-frame energies extracted from the $\vec P = (2 \pi/L)(0,0,1)$ and $\vec P = (2 \pi/L)(1,1,1)$ frames. Even more striking is the observation that the leading finite-volume effects vanish for the $\vec P = (2 \pi/L)(0,1,1)$ frame, implying that energies extracted in this frame are closer to the infinite-volume three-particle bound-state energy than those obtained in the rest frame. It is important to keep in mind, however, that here the subleading terms that are not canceled are suppressed only by a power of $1/(\kappa L)$, whereas those in the two-particle case are exponentially suppressed.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Ulf Mei[ß]{}ner and Akaki Rusetsky for discussions and correspondence. The work of SS was supported in part by the United States Department of Energy grant DE-SC0011637. SS thanks the Institut für Kernphysik and Helmholtz Institut Mainz for hospitality while some of this work was completed.
Justifying approximations {#app:approx}
=========================
In this appendix we justify various approximations used in the main text. We do so in three steps. First, we show that the FV effects in $\Delta E(L)$ arising from factors of $F^{i\epsilon}$ are subleading in the calculation for ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$. Second, we argue that the same holds for the calculation of $\Delta E(L)$ with nonzero ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$. Finally, we argue that the $-1/3$ terms contained in Eq. (\[eq:LKR\]), and implicitly in Eq. (\[eq:KFKfinal\]), also lead to subleading corrections to $\Delta E(L)$.
Dropping $F^{i\epsilon}$ terms if ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$
------------------------------------------------------------------
We start from the general form of $\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}$ \[Eq. (\[eq:DLdef\])\] and use the result (\[eq:MLdef\]) to expand ${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}$ in powers of $F^{i\epsilon}$. After some algebra we find the following matrix equation $$\begin{gathered}
\left([2\omega L^3] {\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}+ \mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}\right)
=
\left([2\omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}^s + \mathcal D_G^{(u,u)}\right)
\\
-
\left([2\omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}^s + \mathcal D_G^{(u,u)}\right) \frac{F^{i\epsilon}}{[2\omega L^3]}
\left([2\omega L^3] {\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}+ \mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}\right)
\,,
\label{eq:DLvsDG}\end{gathered}$$ where $$\label{eq:DGdef}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}_G \equiv -\frac{1}{1 + {\mathcal M_2}G} {\mathcal M_2}G [2 \omega L^3] {\mathcal M_2}\,,$$ is simply the approximation for $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}_L$ used in Sec. \[subsec:Kzero\], i.e. Eq. (\[eq:DLred1\]). It satisfies Eq. (\[eq:DLdecomposed\]) without approximation: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{eq:DGdecomposed}
\mathcal D_G^{(u,u)}(\vec k, \vec p) = \mathcal D^{(u,u)}(\vec k, \vec p) \\
+ \bigg [ \frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\vec \ell} - \int_{\vec \ell} \bigg ]
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}(\vec k, \vec \ell)
\frac{1}{2 \omega_{\ell} {\mathcal M_2}( \ell)} \mathcal D_G^{(u,u)}(\vec \ell, \vec p)\,.\end{gathered}$$
We now repeat in two stages the argumentation given at the end of Sec. \[subsec:Kzero\]. First we use the pole form for $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}$, Eq. (\[eq:Dpole\]), which, using Eq. (\[eq:DGdecomposed\]), implies that $\mathcal D_G^{(u,u)}$ has the pole form $$\label{eq:DGpole}
\mathcal D_G^{(u,u)}(\vec k', \vec k)\bigg|_{{\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0} \sim - \frac{ \Gamma^{(u)}(k')
\, \overline \Gamma^{(u)} \!(k) }{E^2 - (E_B + \Delta E_G(L))^2} \,,$$ with the energy shift $$\label{eq:DEG}
\Delta E_G(L) = - \frac{1}{2 E_B}
\bigg[ \frac1{L^3} \sum_{\vec k} - \int_{\vec k} \bigg]
\frac{\overline \Gamma^{(u)} \!(k) \, \Gamma^{(u)}(k) }{2 \omega_k \mathcal M_2^s(k)}
+ \cdots \,.$$ This is the energy shift (\[eq:DE\]) determined in Sec. \[subsec:Kzero\] in the approximation of dropping factors of $F^{i\epsilon}$.
The second stage is to substitute the pole forms for $\mathcal D_G^{(u,u)}$ and $\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}$, given respectively in Eqs. (\[eq:DGpole\]) and (\[eq:DLpole\]), into the matrix equation, Eq. (\[eq:DLvsDG\]). A key observation here is that the contributions proportional to ${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}$ and ${\mathcal M_2}^s$ do not have poles near the position of the bound state, and thus can be treated as part of the slowly varying “background” underneath the pole.[^16] As noted already in the main text, these lead only to higher-order energy shifts. Thus, when looking for the dominant energy shift we can ignore these terms. The structure of (\[eq:DLvsDG\]) then mirrors that of Eq. (\[eq:DGdecomposed\]), and by the same argument as in the first stage we find $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta E(L) &= \Delta E_G(L) + \Delta E_F(L) + \cdots \,,
\\
\Delta E_F(L) &= \frac{1}{2 E_B} \frac1{L^3} \sum_{\vec \ell}
\overline \Gamma^{(u)} \!(\ell) \, \frac{F^{i \epsilon} (\vec \ell) }{2 \omega_\ell }
\, \Gamma^{(u)}(\ell)\bigg|_{E=E_B}
\,.
\label{eq:DEL}\end{aligned}$$ Here $F^{i\epsilon}(\vec \ell)$ is obtained from the matrix version of the same quantity, Eq. (\[eq:Fdef3\]), by removing the $\delta_{k'k}$: $$\begin{split}
\label{eq:Fiepsaltdef}
F^{i\epsilon}(\vec \ell)
& \equiv \frac12 \bigg[\frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\vec k} - \int_{\vec k} \bigg] \\[-3pt] & \times
\frac{ H(\vec k)
H(\vec \ell)H(\vec b_{k\ell})}
{2 \omega_k 2 \omega_{k\ell}(E - \omega_k - \omega_\ell - \omega_{k \ell} + i \epsilon)}
\,.
\end{split}$$ We note that the sum over $\vec \ell$ in (\[eq:DEL\]) arises from the matrix product in (\[eq:DLvsDG\]). We also observe that for the subthreshold energies that we consider here we can set $\epsilon\to 0$.
Our task is thus to evaluate $\Delta E_F(L)$ and show that it is suppressed relative to $\Delta E_G(L)$. We recall from Eq. (\[eq:result\]) in the main text that $\Delta E_G(L)$ scales as $e^{-2\kappa L/\sqrt3}/(\kappa L)^{3/2}$. In the subsequent evaluation we will drop all constants and keep track only of $L$-dependence.
Substituting the residue factors from Eq. (\[eq:Gammaresult\]) we find $$\Delta E_F(L) \propto
\frac{1}{L^3} \sum_{\vec \ell} \left[1 + \frac{3 \ell^2}{4 \kappa^2} \right ]^{-1}
F^{i\epsilon}(\vec \ell)\bigg|_{E=E_B}
\,.$$ The zeta-function can be rewritten using the Poisson summation formula, following Eqs. (43) and (C4)-(C6) of Ref. [@thresh]: $$F^{i\epsilon}(\vec \ell)\bigg|_{E=E_B}
= -
\frac1{32 \pi m L} \sum_{\vec s\ne 0} e^{i\pi \vec s\cdot \vec n_\ell}
\frac{e^{- s L \sqrt{\kappa^2 + 3 \ell^2/4} } }{s} \,.
\label{eq:FiepsNR}$$ Here $\vec s$ is a vector of integers and $\vec n_\ell =L \vec \ell/(2\pi)$. To obtain this form we have also expanded in powers of $\kappa^2/m^2$ and dropped subleading contributions. The cutoff functions $H$ have also been dropped since they are made redundant by the natural cutoff in the exponential.
Combining these results, and using the Poisson summation formula on the sum over $\vec \ell$, we find $$\begin{gathered}
\Delta E_F(L) \propto \frac1L \sum_{\vec n} \int \! \frac{d^3 \ell}{(2 \pi)^3}
\sum_{\vec s\ne 0} \frac1s \\
\times \left[1 + \frac{3 \ell^2}{4 \kappa^2} \right ]^{-1}
e^{ i L ( \vec n + \vec s/2) \cdot \vec \ell - s L \sqrt{\kappa^2 + 3 \ell^2/4} } \,.\end{gathered}$$ Evaluating the angular integral leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\label{eq:InumA}
\Delta E_F(L) &\propto \frac1{L^2} \sum_{\vec n} \sum_{\vec s\ne 0} \frac1s
\mathrm{Im} \int_{- \infty}^{\infty} d\ell \ell \\[-10pt] & \hspace{90pt} \times
\frac{e^{L f(\ell)}}{1 + 3 \ell^2/(4 \kappa^2)} \,,
\end{split} \\[5pt]
f(\ell) &= i q - s\sqrt{\kappa^2+3\ell^2/4}\,,
\\
q & = |\vec n + \vec s/2|\,.\end{aligned}$$ The integral can be evaluated by deforming the contour to pass through the appropriate stationary point, $\ell_0$, and using the steepest descent approximation. The stationary point and the corresponding exponent are $$\begin{aligned}
\ell_0 &=\frac{2 iq\kappa}{\sqrt{3}} \frac{1}{ \sqrt{3 s^2/4 + q^2}}\,,
\\
f(\ell_0) &= - \frac{2 \kappa L}{\sqrt3} \sqrt{3 s^2/4 + q^2}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Since the result of the integral scales as $e^{-L f(\ell_0)}$ it is now clear that the dominant contributions arise when $s=1$ and $q=1/2$. These come from the 12 terms having $s = 1$ together with $\vec n=0$ or $\vec n=-\vec s$.[^17] Doing the Gaussian integral we then obtain $$\Delta E_F(L) \propto \frac{e^{-2\kappa L/\sqrt3}}{L^{5/2} } + \cdots
\,.
\label{eq:Ifinal}$$ As claimed above, this is suppressed by a factor of $1/L$ compared to $\Delta E_G(L)$.
Note here that we have expanded all quantities, including the poles at $\ell= \pm 2 i \kappa/\sqrt{3}$, about the saddle point. One might be concerned that this leads to the incorrect scaling since the pole at $\ell = 2 i \kappa/\sqrt{3}$ lies close to the stationary point at $\ell_0 = i \kappa/\sqrt{3}$. This is not the case, however. As one sends $ L \to \infty$ the Gaussian peak becomes arbitrarily narrow and the effect of the pole is damped away. We have checked this result numerically by calculating the ratio of the right-hand sides of Eqs. (\[eq:InumA\]) and (\[eq:Ifinal\]). We find that the quantities indeed asymptote to the same value, although the convergence is relatively slow, requiring $\kappa L \approx 125$ to reach subpercent agreement.
Dropping $F^{i\epsilon}$ terms for general ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
When ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\ne 0$, we have not been able to find a simple expression, akin to Eq. (\[eq:DLvsDG\]), showing the form of contributions proportional to $F^{i\epsilon}$. Thus we will make the argument that these terms can be dropped in a slightly different way. This approach is more general and would also work for ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=0$. The point is that, in order to obtain the leading-order energy shift from ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}$, we can simply drop all terms from this quantity that have subleading volume dependence when $E=E_B$. It is not important whether the terms we drop contribute to the energy shift or, say, to a shift in the residues of the pole. Thus all we need to do is show that terms containing factors of $F^{i\epsilon}$ are subleading, then it is legitimate to set $F^{i\epsilon}\to 0$ for the purposes of the calculation in the main text.
When we expand out ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}$, Eq. (\[eq:M3L\]), in powers of $F^{i\epsilon}$, we find that the latter appears in the forms $$\begin{gathered}
\begin{split}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)} F^{i\epsilon} \mathcal D^{(u,u)}\,,\ \
\mathcal D^{(u,u)} F^{i\epsilon} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\,, \\
{\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}F^{i\epsilon} \mathcal D^{(u,u)}
\ \ {\rm and}\ \
{\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}F^{i\epsilon} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\,.
\end{split}
\label{eq:Fterms}\end{gathered}$$ For ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\ne 0$, $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}(\vec k, \vec p)$ will not have the pole form of Eq. (\[eq:Dpole\]). Thus the dependence on its arguments will not be given by that of $\Gamma( k)\overline \Gamma( p)$. In particular, there is no reason to expect that the singularity present in $\Gamma$, Eq. (\[eq:Gammaresult\]), will still be present in the dependence of $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}$ on its arguments. Similarly, we do not expect ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ to have any singularities close to threshold, as it corresponds to a quasi-local vertex. Thus, when all other momenta are held fixed, we expect the general form of all the terms in Eq. (\[eq:Fterms\]) to be $$\frac1{L^3} \sum_{\vec \ell}g(\vec \ell) F^{i\epsilon}(\vec \ell)\bigg|_{E=E_B}
\,,$$ with $g(\vec \ell)$ a smooth function in the threshold region. Assuming this form, the calculation of the previous subsection shows that this contribution scales as $L^{-5/2} \exp(-2\kappa L/\sqrt3)$ and is thus subleading. In fact, the previous calculation shows that this result will hold even if $g(\vec \ell)$ has a singularity at the same position as that in $\Gamma(\ell)$.
Dropping the “$-1/3$ terms" for general ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The final task of this appendix is to argue that the $-1/3$ terms in Eq. (\[eq:LKR\]), and implicitly in Eq. (\[eq:KFKfinal\]), lead to subleading volume dependence. We follow the line of argument used in the previous subsection, namely we work directly with ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}$ and do not derive an expression for $\Delta E(L)$. The volume dependence from the terms of interest arises from the forms $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)} C^{(-1)} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\,,\ \
{\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}C^{(-1)} \mathcal D^{(u,u)}\,,
\\
{\rm and}\ \
{\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}C^{(-1)} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\,.
\label{eq:Cforms}\end{gathered}$$ These are shorthand for the sum-integral differences, as described in the main text. For example $$\begin{gathered}
\mathcal D^{(u,u)} C^{(-1)} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}=
\\
\bigg[\frac1{L^3} \sum_{\vec \ell} - \int_{\vec \ell}\bigg]
\mathcal D^{(u,u)}(\vec p, \vec \ell)
\frac1{2\omega_\ell {\mathcal M_2}^s(\vec \ell)} {\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}(\vec \ell, \vec k) \,,\end{gathered}$$ As noted above, we do not know the momentum dependence of $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}$ when ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}\ne 0$, and there is no reason to expect it to have a singularity near threshold. For ${\mathcal K_{\mathrm{df},3}}$ we take, as above, a smooth dependence on $\vec \ell$, with no singularities near threshold. Finally, we recall from Eq. (\[eq:1byM2\]) that $1/{\mathcal M_2}^s$ has a branch cut at $\ell^2=-4\kappa^2/3$. Putting these ingredients together we find that the summand/integrands for all of the forms in Eq. (\[eq:Cforms\]) are expected to have only the square-root branch cut arising from $1/{\mathcal M_2}^s$. This is in contrast to the expression for $\Delta E(L)$, Eq. (\[eq:DE1\]), in which the summand/integrand has an inverse square-root singularity at $\ell^2=-4\kappa^2/3$.
Thus the contributions from the forms (\[eq:Cforms\]) to ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}$ are expected to be proportional to \[cf. Eq. (\[eq:introtated\])\] $$\frac1L \int_{2\kappa/\sqrt3}^\infty d\ell \ell e^{-\ell L} \left(\frac{3\ell^2}{4\kappa^2}-1\right)^{1/2}
\propto
\frac{e^{-2\kappa L/\sqrt3}}{L^{5/2}}
\,,$$ and are thus suppressed by a power of $1/L$ compared to the leading volume dependence.
Relating residue factors to the Schrödinger wavefunction {#app:details}
========================================================
In this appendix we derive the relation (\[eq:Gammafrompsi\]) between the on-shell residue factors $\Gamma^{(u)}$ and $\overline\Gamma^{(u)}$ and the Schrödinger wavefunction $\psi$.
To do so we first relate the Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes of the bound state to the wavefunction. Denoting these amplitudes by $\chi$ and $\overline \chi$, we recall that they are defined via the coefficient of the bound-state pole in the unamputated $3\to3$ correlation function, $S_3$: $$S_3(p_1',p_2';p_1,p_2;P) \sim \chi(p_1',p_2') \frac{i}{P^2 - E_B^2} \overline \chi(p_1,p_2) \,.$$ Note that $\chi$ and $\overline\chi$ depend on the four-momenta of two of the three particles (the third determined by energy-momentum conservation).
The relation between $\chi$ and $\psi$ has been given, under certain assumptions, in Ref. [@FF]. In particular the reference assumes that there are only two-particle, instantaneous interactions and that the NR limit has been taken. Since these are also the assumptions made by MRR, the results of Ref. [@FF] are sufficient here. [ The forms of the relations most useful for our purposes are]{} $$\begin{gathered}
\chi = \beta \sqrt{\tfrac34}\tfrac1m S_1 S_2 S_3 \big[ (E_B-3m-H_0)
\\
+ \left\{ S_1^{-1} V_{23} S_{23} + S_2^{-1}V_{31} S_{31}
+S_3^{-1} V_{12} S_{12} \right\} \big] \widetilde\psi\,,
\label{eq:chifrompsi3}\end{gathered}$$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\overline \chi =
\beta \sqrt{\tfrac34}\tfrac1m \widetilde \psi^\dagger \big[ (E_B-3m-H_0)
\\
+ \left\{ S_{23} V_{23} S_1^{-1} + S_{31} V_{31} S_2^{-1}
+ S_{12} V_{12} S_3^{-1} \right\} \big] S_1 S_2 S_3 \,,
\label{eq:chibarfrompsi3}\end{gathered}$$ where we have introduced a normalization factor $\beta$. In Appendix \[app:detnorm\] we show that $\beta=1$ by matching the definitions of $\chi$ and $\psi$ for a finite-volume scattering state.
In Eqs. (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]) and (\[eq:chibarfrompsi3\]) we are using an abbreviated notation that we now explain. First we note that $\widetilde\psi$ depends on two of the three momenta, e.g. $\vec p_1$ and $\vec p_2$, with $\vec p_3= -\vec p_1-\vec p_2$. \[or alternatively on the Jacobi momenta as in Eq. (\[eq:psiFT\])\]. $\chi$ and $\overline\chi$ depend in addition on the energies $E_i$, which are constrained to satisfy $E_1+E_2+E_3=E_B$. As we show below, only the factor on the first line of Eqs. (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]) and (\[eq:chibarfrompsi3\]) enters the relation between the wavefunction and the on-shell residue factors $\Gamma$, $\overline \Gamma$. Note that this factor depends on $H_0$, defined in Eq. (\[eq:H0def\]). $S_i$ are single-particle NR propagators, $$S_i(E_i,\vec p_i) = \left(E_i-m - \frac{\vec p_i^2}{2m} + i \epsilon\right)^{-1}
\,.$$ $S_{ij}$ are two-particle NR propagators that include the potential $V_{ij}$. In particular, $S_{ij}$ solves the integral equation $$\begin{gathered}
S_{ij}(E_i\!+\!E_j; \vec p_i, \vec p_j; \vec k_i)
= S^0_{ij}(E_i\!+\!E_j; \vec p_i,\vec p_j) \\\times (2\pi)^3 \delta^3(\vec p_i\!-\!\vec k_i)
+ \int \frac{d^3 q_i}{(2\pi)^3} S^0_{ij}(E_i\!+\!E_j;\vec p_i,\vec p_j)
\\
\times V_{ij}(|\vec q_i-\vec p_i|)
S_{ij}(E_i\!+\!E_j; \vec q_i,\vec q_j; \vec k_i)\,,
\label{eq:Sijdef}\end{gathered}$$ where $S^0$ is the free two-particle propagator $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
S^0_{ij}(E_i\!+\!E_j;\vec p_i,\vec p_j)^{-1}
&\\[-5pt]
& \hspace{-50pt} = E_i+E_j - 2m - \frac{\vec p_i^2}{2m}- \frac{\vec p_j^2}{2m} + i \epsilon \,,
\end{split}\\
& \hspace{-50pt} = S_i(E_i, \vec p_i)^{-1}+ S_j(E_j, \vec p_j)^{-1}\,.\end{aligned}$$ We do not show the fourth momentum argument of $S_{ij}$ because total momentum is conserved, i.e. $\vec p_i+\vec p_j = \vec q_i+\vec q_j=\vec k_i+\vec k_j$. Note that Eqs. (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]) and (\[eq:chibarfrompsi3\]) contain implicit three-momentum integrals adjacent to the $S_{ij}$ factors. Their form can be seen by noting that the shorthand version of Eq. (\[eq:Sijdef\]) is $$S_{ij} = S_{ij}^0 + S_{ij}^0 V_{ij} S_{ij}\,.$$ It will be important that the energy dependence of $S_{ij}$ is explicit, entering only through the $E_i+E_j$ term in $S^0_{ij}$.
As discussed in Ref. [@FF], with these definitions one can show that $\psi$ satisfies the Schrödinger equation if $\chi$ satisfies the Bethe-Salpeter equation and [*vice versa*]{}. We have checked this result. This does not depend on the overall normalizations in Eqs. (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]) and (\[eq:chibarfrompsi3\]), and in fact we find that a different normalization factor from that given in Ref. [@FF] is needed in order that $\psi$ is normalized as in Eq. (\[eq:psinorm\]). We explain how we determine the normalization factor, $\beta$, in Appendix \[app:detnorm\] below. First we describe how we proceed from Eq. (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]) to the desired result (\[eq:Gammafrompsi\]).
From the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude to $\Gamma^{(u)}$
---------------------------------------------------
To obtain $\Gamma$ from $\chi$ we must amputate and then go on shell, and in addition multiply by a factor of $-i$ to account for the overall sign difference in the pole term.[^18] Amputation requires multiplying by the product of three relativistic propagators. The relation between the relativistic and the NR propagators near the pole is $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\rm rel}(p_i)^{-1} &= \frac{p_i^2-m^2+ i\epsilon}i
\\
&\approx \frac{2m}i (E_i-\omega_{p_i} + i\epsilon)
\\
&\approx \frac{2m}i S_i(E_i,\vec p_i)
\,,\end{aligned}$$ with $p_i$ a four-vector. Thus we find $$\begin{gathered}
\Gamma
= \!\! \lim_{\mathrm{on\ shell}}
(-i) \beta \sqrt{\tfrac34} (8 i m^2) \big[ (E_B- 3m-H_0)
\\
+ \left\{ S_1^{-1} V_{23} S_{23} + S_2^{-1}V_{31} S_{31}
+S_3^{-1} V_{12} S_{12} \right\} \big] \widetilde \psi\,.
\label{eq:Gammafrompsi3}\end{gathered}$$
We now argue that the terms involving $S_j^{-1}$ vanish due to the on-shell limit. We imagine taking this limit by first sending $p_1^2/(2m) \to E_1 - m$, then $p_2^2/(2m) \to E_2-m$, and finally $p_3^2/(2m) \to E_3-m$. The final result must not depend on this choice of ordering. The first step sets $S_1^{-1}\to 0$, removing the $S_1^{-1}$ term. The second step similarly removes the $S_2^{-1}$ term. At this stage we note that $E_B-3m-H_0 = S_3^{-1}$, so it appears that the two remaining terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:Gammafrompsi3\]) are on an equal footing, and that both vanish when $E_3$ goes on shell. In fact, the $E_B-3m-H_0$ term does not vanish, as we show in the main text by explicit calculation. This is due to a corresponding divergence in $\widetilde\psi$. This divergence does not save the $S_3^{-1}$ term from vanishing, however, because of the momentum integral that implicitly accompanies the factor of $S_{12}$. This integral remains even when the external momenta are set on shell, and does not diverge. Thus we find $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma
= \!\! \lim_{\mathrm{on\ shell}}
\beta 4\sqrt3 m^2 (E_B- 3 m -H_0) \widetilde\psi \,, \label{eq:Gammafinal3}\end{aligned}$$ a result that indeed is independent of the manner in which we approach the on-shell point. Similarly we find $$\begin{aligned}
\overline \Gamma
= \!\! \lim_{\mathrm{on\ shell}}
\beta 4\sqrt3 m^2 \widetilde\psi^\dagger(E_B-3m-H_0) \,. $$ We note that, up to overall normalization factors, the same expression holds for the relation of $\Gamma$ to $\psi$ in the two-particle case.
The final step is to argue that we obtain the unsymmetrized residue $\Gamma^{(u)}$ by replacing $\widetilde\psi$ with $\widetilde\phi_3$ in Eq. (\[eq:Gammafinal3\]) \[and similarly for $\overline\Gamma^{(u)}$\]. This leads to the desired result (\[eq:Gammafrompsi\]). First, we note that this claim is consistent with Eq. (\[eq:Gammafinal3\]). This is because the full wavefunction is given by summing the three components related by permutations $$\widetilde \psi =
\widetilde\phi_1(\vec k_{23}, \vec k_1) +
\widetilde\phi_2(\vec k_{31}, \vec k_2) +
\widetilde\phi_3(\vec k_{12}, \vec k_3)
\,,$$ while the full $\Gamma$ is obtained by similarly symmetrizing $\Gamma^{(u)}$. Second, we use the observation given in the main text, namely that, if we imagine iteratively solving the Faddeev equation (\[eq:Fadeev3\]) and its permutations, we obtain for $\widetilde \phi_3$ a sequence of contributions in which the first interaction is always between particles 1 and 2. This is precisely the definition of the unsymmetrized amplitude ${\mathcal M_{ 3}}^{(u,u)}$, from which $\Gamma^{(u)}$ is obtained.
Deriving the normalization factor {#app:detnorm}
---------------------------------
We have found that the simplest way to determine the overall normalization of Eqs. (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]) and (\[eq:chibarfrompsi3\]), i.e. the value of $\beta$, is to use a somewhat indirect method.[^19] We consider the poles in the finite-volume $3\to3$ correlation function, for which we can directly calculate both $\chi$ and $\psi$. The derivation of Eq. (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]) relies on $\chi$ satisfying the Bethe-Salpeter equation and $\psi$ the Schrödinger equation, both of which remain valid in finite volume. The only change is that momentum integrals become sums, but if we work in large volumes this difference is a subleading effect. The motivation of studying a finite-volume correlator is that this has an infinite tower of poles, and any one of these can be used to study the relation between $\chi$ and $\psi$. The derivation of this relation does not rely on the pole in the correlator corresponding to a bound state. It can equally well be a finite-volume scattering state, as long as it is near enough to threshold to be in the nonrelativistic regime.
Thus our idea is to use the results of Ref. [@HSpert], in which we did a perturbative calculation of the $3\to3$ correlation function in finite-volume in $\lambda\phi^4$ theory. Since the relations we are testing are essentially kinematical, we can work here at infinitesimal $\lambda$, and keep only the lowest term in the expansions of the relevant quantities. The relevant correlator is[^20] $$C_{3}(\tau) = \langle \widetilde\phi_{\vec 0}(\tau)^3 \widetilde\phi_{\vec 0}(0)^3\rangle
\,,$$ where $\widetilde\phi_{\vec 0}(\tau)$ is the zero-spatial-momentum field at Euclidean time $\tau$. We focus on the contribution of the state nearest threshold, $$C_{3}(\tau) \supset Z_{3} e^{-( 3m + \Delta E_3) |\tau|}\,.$$ What we need from Ref. [@HSpert] are the results $$Z_3 = \frac{3! L^{9}}{(2m)^3} \left[1 + {\cal O}(\lambda/L^3) \right]
\quad{\rm and}\quad
\Delta E_3 = {\cal O}(\lambda/L^3)
\,.
\label{eq:Znres}$$
We also need the form of the wavefunction for this state, or more precisely (as we will see) the momentum-space wavefunction at vanishing momenta. At leading order the state simply consists of three free particles in a cubic box of size $L^3$ each with zero momentum. It follows that the position-space wavefunction is a constant, $\psi(\vec x_3,\vec y_3) = c_3$ and this constant can be determined from the normalization condition, Eq. (\[eq:psinorm\]) (with here $A=1$). One can rearrange the fundamental domain for three particles such that the period in each component of the Jacobi coordinates $\vec x_3$ and $\vec y_3$ is $L$ and $2 L/\sqrt3$, respectively. Using this we have $$\begin{split}
\int d^3x_3 d^3y_3 J |\psi|^2 = 6 \ \ & \Longrightarrow\ \
\frac{J}{J} |c_3|^2 L^6 = 6 \,, \\
\ \ & \Longrightarrow\ \ |c_3| = \frac{\sqrt6}{L^3} \,.
\end{split}$$ Thus we find $$\widetilde\psi_3(\vec 0,\vec 0)
= \int d^3 x_3 d^3 y_3 J \psi(\vec x_3,\vec y_3)
= c_3 L^6 \,.
\label{eq:psi3zeromom}$$
Our next step is to Fourier transform $C_3(\tau)$ in time, so that it becomes the momentum-space correlator used to define $\chi$ and $\overline\chi$: $$\begin{aligned}
\int dt\; e^{i P^0 t} C_3(t)
&=
\int (-i) d\tau e^{ P^0\tau} C_3(\tau) \,,
\\
&\sim \frac{-i Z_3 2 (3m+\Delta E_3)}{(3m + \Delta E_3)^2 - (P^0)^2} \,,
\label{eq:intCA}\end{aligned}$$ where the $\sim$ indicates that the two sides differ by terms that are finite at the pole. In the first step we have analytically continued to Euclidean time; in the second, we evaluate the integral assuming $P^0 < (3m + \Delta E_3)$ and then analytically continue to general $P^0$.
Alternatively, one can evaluate the integral in terms of the off-shell momentum-space $3\to3$ correlator $S_3(k'_{12},k'_3; k_{12},k_3; P)$, where we have used the Jacobi momenta (\[eq:Jacobimomenta\]) extended to four-vectors, and $P^\mu=(P^0,\vec P)$ is the total four-momentum. Standard manipulations lead to $$\begin{gathered}
\int dt\; e^{i P^0 t} C_3(t)
=
L^3 \int \frac{dk_{12}^0}{2\pi} \int \frac{dk_{3}^0}{2\pi}
\int \frac{dk'^{0}_{12}}{2\pi} \int \frac{dk'^{0}_{3}}{2\pi}
\\
\times
S_{3}(k'_{12},k'_3;k_{12},k_3;P)
\bigg|_{\vec k_{12}=\vec k_3=\vec k'_{12}=\vec k'_3=\vec P=\vec 0} \,.\end{gathered}$$ Using the definition of the Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes at the pole $$\begin{gathered}
S_3(k'_{12},k'_3; k_{12},k_3; P) \sim \\
\chi(k'_{12},k'_3) \frac{i}{P^2 - E_{\rm pole}^2}
\overline\chi(k_{12},k_3) \,, \label{eq:BSampdef}\end{gathered}$$ we find $$\begin{aligned}
\int dt e^{i P^0 t} C_3(t)
&\sim
L^3 \frac{iX \overline X}{(P^0)^2 - E_{\rm pole}^2} \,, \label{eq:intC3B}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
X &= \int \frac{dk_{12}^0}{2\pi} \frac{dk_3^0}{2\pi} \chi([k_{12}^0,\vec 0],[k_{3}^0,\vec 0]) \,,
\label{eq:Xdef}
\\
\overline X
&= \int \frac{d{k}^0_{12}}{2\pi} \frac{d{k}^0_3}{2\pi}
\overline \chi([{k}_{12}^0,\vec 0],[{k}^0_{3},\vec 0]) \,.
\label{eq:Xbardef}\end{aligned}$$ Comparing to Eq. (\[eq:intCA\]), and keeping the leading terms in perturbation theory for $Z_3$ and $\Delta E_3$, we find $$X \overline X = \frac{6 Z_3m}{L^3} = \frac{36 L^6}{8m^2}
\,.
\label{eq:XbarXres}$$
We are finally ready to determine the normalization factor $\beta$ in Eqs. (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]) and (\[eq:chibarfrompsi3\]). Replacing $E_B\to E_{\rm pole} = 3 m + \Delta E_3$, we substitute the wavefunction (\[eq:psi3zeromom\]) to deduce the values of $\chi$ and $\overline \chi$ predicted by these relations. To simplify the result, note that we can evaluate the single-particle propagators at $E_{\rm pole}$ as well as vanishing spatial momenta $$\begin{aligned}
S_1^{-1} &= \frac{\Delta E_3}{3}+ k_{12}^0 + \frac{k_3^0}{2} + i\epsilon\,,
\\
S_2^{-1} &= \frac{\Delta E_3}{3}-k_{12}^0 + \frac{k_3^0}{2} + i\epsilon\,,
\\
S_3^{-1} &= \frac{\Delta E_3}{3} - k_3^0 + i\epsilon\,.\end{aligned}$$ We now evaluate the integrals, implicit in (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]) and (\[eq:chibarfrompsi3\]), and find that it is always possible to close the contour such that only the $E_{\mathrm{pole}}-3m-H_0$ term contributes. For example, for the $S_3^{-1}$ term one can close the $k_{12}^0$ contour below and pick up the pole in $S_1$, but the remainder can be written as a some of the terms containing powers of $S_{12}^0$ \[as can be seen by iterating Eq. (\[eq:Sijdef\])\]. All these terms have the $k_3^0$ pole below the axis, and so vanish when we close the $k_3^0$ contour above. Evaluating the integrals for the $E_{\mathrm{pole}}-3m-H_0$ term, we find $$X = (-i)^2 \beta \sqrt{\tfrac34}\tfrac1m \widetilde \psi(\vec 0, \vec 0)
\,.$$ The same expression holds for $\overline X$ in terms of $\widetilde\psi^\dagger$.
Thus we deduce that the value of $X \overline X$ [determined from]{} Eqs. (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]) and (\[eq:chibarfrompsi3\]) is $$X \overline X = \beta^2 \frac34 \frac1{m^2} |\widetilde \psi(\vec 0, \vec 0)|^2 = \beta^2
\frac{3|c_3|^2 L^{12}}{4m^2} = \beta^2 \frac{9L^6}{2m^2} \,,$$ where we have used that $\beta$ is assumed to be a positive, real number. Comparing this to the direct evaluation, Eq. (\[eq:XbarXres\]), we deduce $\beta=1$ as claimed.
An identity for the Schrödinger wavefunction {#app:identity}
============================================
In this appendix we use the explicit form of $\phi$, Eq. (\[eq:phidef\]), to derive the identity Eq. (\[eq:identity\]). We first reproduce the identity $$\begin{aligned}
\left( -{\kappa^2} + \vec \nabla_{x_3}^2 + \vec \nabla_{y_3}^2\right) \phi(R, \alpha_3)
&= m h(|\vec y_3|) \delta^3(\vec x_3) \,,
\label{eq:identity2}
\\
h(y) &= -4 \pi \frac{b}{m} \frac{K_{i s_0}(\kappa y)}{y}\,,
\label{eq:hres}
\\
b &= A \kappa \sqrt{D_0} \,,\end{aligned}$$ and the form of $\phi$ $$\begin{aligned}
\phi(R, \alpha) &= b \frac{K_{is_0}(\sqrt2 \kappa R)}{R^2}
\frac{{\,\mathrm{sh}}(s_0[\pi/2-\alpha])}{{\,\mathrm{sh}}(s_0 \pi/2)} \frac1{\sin (2\alpha)}
\,,\end{aligned}$$ where, as above, ${\,\mathrm{sh}}\, x = \sinh x$.
Writing the Laplacian in hyperspherical coordinates (as described, for example, in Ref. [@BH]) one easily verifies that the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:identity2\]) vanishes except at the end points $R=0$ and $\alpha_3=0$, where $\phi$ diverges. To study these singular points it is better to use the coordinates $\vec x_3$ and $\vec y_3$. Given the definition of $R$, Eq. (\[eq:Rhyper\]), $R$ vanishes only when both $\vec x_3$ and $\vec y_3$ vanish, i.e. when all three particles are at the same position.[^21] By contrast, $\alpha_3$, defined in Eq. (\[eq:alphahyper\]), vanishes when $\vec x_3=0$ for any finite $|\vec y_3|$, i.e when particles 1 and 2 are coincident. We conclude that the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:identity2\]) vanishes except when $\vec x_3=0$, and thus that the identity holds for $\vec x_3 \ne 0$. We also note that, since $\phi$ depends only the magnitudes of $\vec x_3$ and $\vec y_3$, and given that this property is maintained by the operator on the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:identity2\]), the function $h$ can only depend on the magnitude of $\vec y_3$, as shown.
To check the ansatz (\[eq:identity2\]) also at $\vec x_3=0$, we proceed in two stages. First, we fix $\vec y_3$ to a nonzero value, and send $r=|\vec x_3|/|\vec y_3| \to 0$. Expanding $\phi$ in this regime, and using $|\vec x_3| = \sqrt2 R \sin\alpha_3$, we find $$\phi(R,\alpha_3) = \frac{m}{4\pi} \frac1{|\vec x_3|} h(|\vec y_3|)
\left[1 + \mathcal O(r)\right]
\,.
\label{eq:phirzero}$$ The operator on the left-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:identity2\]) gives a finite result (in fact, zero) when acting on this form except for $$\vec\nabla_{x_3}^2 \frac1{|\vec x_3|} = -4\pi \delta^3(\vec x_3)
\,.$$ Thus one finds the right-hand side of the identity.[^22] The second stage is to consider the region where $\vec x_3\to 0$ with $r$ fixed, so that both $\vec x_3$ and $\vec y_3$ are vanishing. Then the approximation of Eq. (\[eq:phirzero\]) does not apply, and the issue is whether there could be an additional term on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:identity2\]) proportional to the six-dimensional delta-function $\delta^3(\vec x_3)\delta^3(\vec y_3)$. Such a term would not have contributed in the first stage of the argument. To address this possibility we integrate both sides of (\[eq:identity2\]) over a six-dimensional ball of radius $\sqrt{\vec x_3^2+\vec y_3^2}=\epsilon$, with $\epsilon \kappa \ll 1$. A $\delta^3(\vec x_3)\delta^3(\vec y_3)$ term would then lead to an additional constant, so that the results from integrating the two sides of (\[eq:identity2\]) would not agree. In fact, we find that the results do agree, as we now show.
The integral over the right-hand side gives $$I_R = -(4\pi)^2 b \int_0^{\epsilon} y K_{is_0}(\kappa y) dy\,.
\label{eq:IRHS}$$ To evaluate this we use the small argument form of the Bessel function $$K_{is_0}(z) \approx a_1 \sin(s_0 \ln z\! +\! a_2) \qquad (0 < z \ll 1)\,,
\label{eq:Kapprox}$$ where $a_1$ and $a_2$ are real constants whose values we will not need. Then one finds $$\begin{gathered}
I_R = - \epsilon^2 (4\pi)^2 b a_1 \frac1{4+s_0^2}
\bigg\{2 \sin[s_0\ln(\epsilon\kappa)\!+\!a_2]
\\
- s_0 \cos[s_0\ln(\epsilon\kappa)\!+\!a_2]\bigg\} + \cdots\,,
\label{eq:IRres}\end{gathered}$$ where the ellipsis indicates terms of higher order in $\epsilon$.
The integral over the left-hand side of (\[eq:identity2\]) breaks into two parts. The first comes from the $\kappa^2$ term and is easily found to scale as $\epsilon^4$, and thus can be dropped. The second comes from the action of the six-dimensional Laplacian, and can be rewritten using the six-dimensional divergence theorem as $$\begin{aligned}
I_L &= \oint \hat e_R \cdot \vec \nabla \phi
= \oint \frac1{\sqrt2} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial R}\Bigg|_{R=\epsilon/\sqrt2}
\,.\end{aligned}$$ Here the integral is over the surface of the ball, $\hat e_R$ is the hyperradial unit vector, and to obtain the second form we have used $\vec x_3^2+\vec y_3^2 = 2 R^2$. Using the integration measure in hyperspherical coordinates [@BH], the integral becomes $$I_L = (4\pi)^2 \sqrt2 \left(\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt2}\right)^5
\int d\alpha \sin^2(2\alpha)
\frac1{\sqrt2} \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial R}\Bigg|_{R=\epsilon/\sqrt2}
\,.$$ This evaluates to the same result (\[eq:IRres\]) as $I_R$, thus completing this check.
[ Another possibility for additional terms on the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:identity2\]) is that there could be derivatives of a six-dimensional delta-function. There is some reason to expect this for radial derivatives because $K_{is_0}(z)$ oscillates increasingly rapidly as $z\to 0$, as shown by Eq. (\[eq:Kapprox\]). The dependence on $\alpha$, however, is much smoother, so we do not expect derivatives with respect to $\alpha$ to occur. Terms with radial derivatives acting on a delta-function can be ruled out as follows: integrate the two sides of Eq. (\[eq:identity2\]) over the same ball as used above, but now using the weight functions $R^n$ (with $n>0$). If the two sides match, then such derivative terms must be absent. We have verified that indeed, for this class of weight functions, the integrals of the two sides of Eq. (\[eq:identity2\]) agree.]{}
[^1]: This is the same reformulation that simplifies the development of the threshold expansion [@thresh].
[^2]: The time direction has infinite extent.
[^3]: The $L\to\infty$ limit must be taken in a particular way with an $i\epsilon$ prescription as explained in Ref. [@KtoM].
[^4]: Strictly speaking, this holds only for the “internal” momenta that are summed over in matrix products. External momenta can take any values. This subtlety is discussed in Ref. [@KtoM].
[^5]: This follows from the general form ${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}={\mathcal M_2}- {\mathcal M_2}F^{i\epsilon} {\mathcal M_2}+ \cdots$, which holds for arbitrary angular momenta with the general form for $F^{i\epsilon}$.
[^6]: Strictly speaking, when, as here, we consider below-threshold energies, the sums and integrals never run over the poles, so no $i\epsilon$ is needed. Nevertheless, we include these factors so that the results hold also above threshold.
[^7]: This equation defines $\mathcal D^{(u,u)}$ also if all factors of ${\mathcal M_2}$ are replaced by ${\mathcal M_{ 2,L}}$, i.e. if the full $\mathcal D_L^{(u,u)}$ is used. Similarly, Eq. (\[eq:Duuint\]) remains true in the general case.
[^8]: Explicit forms for ${\cal L}^{(u)}$ and ${\cal R}^{(u)}$ are given in Eqs. (92) and (94) of Ref. [@KtoM], respectively. In that work these quantities are, however, denoted with a double superscript, e.g. ${\cal L}^{(u,u)}$.
[^9]: $\mathcal M_3^{(u,u)}$ may also be defined as the finite $i \epsilon$, $L \to \infty$ limit of ${\mathcal M_{ 3,L}}^{(u,u)}$. This infinite-volume object becomes the standard three-to-three scattering amplitude upon symmetrization, but since symmetrization is not invertible an independent definition is required.
[^10]: This result agrees with that from Eq. (\[eq:FiepsNR\]).
[^11]: Since here we are studying momenta $q_k^* \sim \kappa_2 = 1/a$, the effective range term in $q_k^*\cot\delta$ is suppressed by a relative factor of $r/a$.
[^12]: We can cast the result into a form even more similar to Eq. (\[eq:DE\]) by using the quantization condition to write $F^{i\epsilon}=-1/{\mathcal M_2}^s$. This result holds when $E_2=E_{B_2}+\Delta E_2(L)$, which is an equally valid choice for the energy at which to evaluate the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:twobound\]). However, this substitution leads only to the vacuous result $\Delta E_{2, \vec P}(L) = \Delta E_{2, \vec P}(L)$ and is thus not useful.
[^13]: It is also possible to derive this result from the Schrödinger wavefunction for a two-particle weakly bound state using an analog of the relation Eq. (\[eq:Gammafrompsi\]).
[^14]: The only caveat is that the arguments given in Appendix \[app:approx\] that certain terms are suppressed at large $L$ need to be reconsidered. They continue to hold when $\vec P \sim 1/L$, the case considered here, but it is unclear whether they hold when $\vec P\sim m$.
[^15]: The correspondence to the previous notation is, for example, $\Gamma^{(u)}[q_k^*(\vec 0)] = \Gamma^{(u)}(k)$.
[^16]: The factors of $L^3$ convert $\delta_{k' k}$ into $(2\pi)^3 \delta^3(\vec k'-\vec k)$ in the $L\to\infty$ limit, and do not lead to poles.
[^17]: The fact that $\vec n=-\vec s$ contributes equally with $\vec n=0$ implies that the sum over $\vec\ell$ in the original expression for $\Delta E_F(L)$ cannot be replaced by an integral, despite the fact that the summand has no poles in the subthreshold region. If one were to make this replacement then one would get an answer too small by a factor of two.
[^18]: This follows from the fact that amputating $G$ and going on shell gives $i \mathcal M_3$, but the relation between $\Gamma \overline \Gamma$ and $i \mathcal M_3$ differs from that between $\chi \overline \chi$ and $G$ by an overall sign. The choice of $-i$ rather than $i$ is for convenience. Note that we must use the same factor to relate $\overline\Gamma$ to $\overline\chi$, i.e. $-i$ and not $i$.
[^19]: In principle, one should be able to use the normalization equation satisfied by the Bethe-Salpeter amplitude as well as that satisfied by the Schrödinger wavefunction to deduce the desired normalization factor, but we have not been able to complete the calculation in this manner due to the complicated form of Eq. (\[eq:chifrompsi3\]).
[^20]: We have checked our method by repeating the calculation for two particles, and finding the correct relation between $\chi$ and $\psi$ in that case.
[^21]: $K_{is_0}(z)$ itself has an indeterminate limit at $z=0$ since the function remains finite but oscillates as a function of $\ln z$—see Eq. (\[eq:Kapprox\]). The divergence at $R=0$ occurs because of the $1/R^2$ factor in $\phi$.
[^22]: To check this one can integrate both sides of the equation over a three-dimensional ball in $\vec x_3$ of radius $\epsilon$ with $\epsilon\to 0^+$. The integrals of the two sides indeed agree.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Q. M. Zhang'
- 'P. F. Chen'
- 'C. Xia'
- 'R. Keppens'
date: 'Received; accepted'
title: Observation and Simulation of Longitudinal Oscillations of an Active Region Prominence
---
Introduction {#S-intro}
============
Solar prominences are cold ($\sim$10$^4$ K) and dense (10$^{10}$$-$10$^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$) plasma suspended in the hot corona. They appear to be dark filaments in the H$\alpha$ images on the solar disk (Tandberg-Hanssen [@tan95]). Prominences (or filaments) are formed above the magnetic polarity inversion lines (Zirker [@zir89]; Martin [@mar98]; Berger et al. [@ber08]; Ning et al. [@ning09]). It can be formed within several hours, experiencing from hot plasma to cold condensation (Liu, Berger & Low [@liu12]). It is generally thought that the equilibrium of prominences is maintained by the force balance between the gravity of prominence and the magnetic tension force of the dip-shaped field lines, although prominences were seldom observed to have a dipped shape. Theoretical models suggest that dips exist in two types of magnetic configurations, one is of the normal-polarity (Kippenhahn & Schl[ü]{}ter [@kip57]), and the other is of the inverse-polarity (Kuperus & Raadu [@kup74]). The first type can be formed in sheared arcades with a weak twist (Antiochos et al. [@ant94; @ant99]; DeVore & Antiochos [@dev00]; Aulanier & Schmieder [@aul02]; Karpen & Antiochos [@karp08]; Luna, Karpen & Devore [@luna12]), and the second type has a helical flux rope with a stronger twist that may either emerge from the subsurface (Lites [@lit05]) or be formed in the corona due to magnetic reconnection (van Ballegooijen & Martens [@vanb89]; Amari et al. [@ama00]).
Many prominences end up with a final eruption to become coronal mass ejections (CMEs). The eruption is generally triggered by photospheric motions, emerging magnetic flux, or internal reconnection (see Forbes et al. [@forb06] and Chen [@chen11] for reviews). Whatever mechanism is involved in triggering the eruption, the triggering process, as a kind of perturbation, would generate waves and oscillations in the prominence. Therefore, based on this line of thought and spectroscopic observations of an oscillating prominence prior to eruption, Chen, Innes & Solanki ([@chen08]) proposed that long-time prominence oscillations can be considered as one of the precursors for CME eruptions. Such a prominence oscillation prior to eruption was also observed by Bocchialini et al. ([@bocc11]), and the oscillation can even sustain until the eruption phase (Isobe & Tripathi [@iso06]; Gosain et al. [@gosa09]). The restoring force for this kind of transverse oscillations was generally thought to be the magnetic tension force.
In addition to the transverse oscillations which were widely investigated (e.g., Lin et al. [@lin07]), prominences may also have longitudinal oscillations. Jing et al. ([@jing03]) for the first time found that, initiated by a subflare, a filament started to oscillate along its axis. They mentioned several possibilities of the restoring force for the oscillations, including the gravity and a reflecting Alfvén wave package. Vr[š]{}nak et al. ([@vrn07]) studied a similar event, and they attributed the restoring force to magnetic pressure gradient along the field lines. With radiative hydrodynamic simulations, Luna & Karpen ([@lu12]) claimed that the projected gravity along the flux tube should act as the restoring force. One issue with the past observations is that the longitudinal oscillations were observed on the solar disk, where the shape of the flux tube cannot be detected, so it is not possible to check whether the field-aligned gravity component can explain the observed oscillation period. Therefore, it would be of interest to investigate the longitudinal oscillations along a prominence, where the shape of the flux tube can be inferred from the high-resolution observations. It is also interesting to check whether longitudinal oscillations may precede the eruption of the prominence.
In this paper, we report the longitudinal oscillations of an active region prominence, which was observed by Hinode (Kosugi et al. [@kos07]) satellite with a high resolution. The data processing is described in Section \[S-data\], and the analysis is presented in Section \[S-observe\]. In Section \[S-simulation\], we perform a one-dimensional (1D) hydrodynamic numerical simulation to reproduce the damped oscillations of the prominence. Discussions and a summary are presented in Sections \[S-dis\] and \[S-summary\], respectively.
Observations and Data Processing {#S-data}
================================
On 2007 February 6, there was a filament located in the NOAA Active Region 0940 (S05W71). The filament was seen to be slightly deviated from the north-south direction in the H$\alpha$ images observed by Kanzelhöhe Solar Observatory as shown in Fig. \[fig1\]a. It measured $\sim$300 in length and 15$-$20 in width. The southern part of the filament resided in the active region, while the northern part extended far to the quiescent region along the magnetic polarity inversion line. On February 8, as the Sun rotated, the filament became a prominence and was monitored by the H channel of the broadband filtergraph aboard the Hinode satellite that carries three instruments: Solar Optical Telescope (SOT; Tsuneta et al. [@tsu08]), X-Ray Telescope (XRT; Golub et al. [@gol07]), and EUV Imaging Spectrometer (EIS; Culhane et al. [@cul07]). Due to the limited field of view of SOT (1115 $\times$ 1115), only a segment of the prominence was observed, which is shown in Fig. \[fig1\]b. The pixel size and time cadence of the SOT observations are 008 and 8 s, respectively. The observations started from 15:01 UT and stopped at 21:24 UT. From $\sim$17:20 UT, a bulk of dense material was injected from the south to the SOT field of view. The dense plasma began to oscillate for 3.5 hours till the end of the observations. The raw SOT data are calibrated using the standard Solar Software program *fg\_prep.pro*. Note that a data gap exists from 18:00 UT to 18:14 UT.
The prominence was also observed by Extreme Ultraviolet Imager (EUVI; Newmark et al. [@new07]) on board the Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory (STEREO-A; Kaiser [@kai05]) spacecraft from a slightly different viewing angle. The 171 Å and 304 Å are shown in panels (c) and (d) of Fig. \[fig1\], where we can see that the prominence was straddled by much higher coronal loops that are much hotter than the prominence. The pixel size and time cadence of the EUV observations are 16 and 10 min, respectively. Its data calibration is conducted using the program *secchi\_prep.pro*. Besides, the deviation of STEREO north-south direction from the solar rotation axis is corrected.
![Panel [**a)**]{}: H$\alpha$ image at 08:11 UT on 2007 February 6 showing a filament near active region 0940; Panel [**b)**]{}: Hinode/SOT H image showing that the filament appeared above the western limb as a prominence on February 8. The rectangle indicates a wide slice used for Fig. \[fig3\]; Panel [**c)**]{}: STEREO/EUVI 171 [Å]{} image at 17:35 UT on February 8; Panel [**d)**]{}: STEREO/EUVI 304 [Å]{} image at 17:22 UT on February 8. \[fig1\]](f1.eps){width="12cm"}
It is noted that there was a faint limb CME captured by the Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO; Brueckner et al. [@bru95]) aboard SOHO as well as the COR1 coronagraph aboard STEREO-A. It was registered by the CDAW CME catalog[^1] with a propagation speed of 480 km s$^{-1}$. The flare accompanying the CME was registered as C1.2-class by the GOES satellite. The data from coronagraphs were collected to investigate possible connection of the observed prominence dynamics to the CME.
Observational Results {#S-observe}
=====================
![Hinode/SOT Ca [ii]{} H image at 18:41 UT on 2007 February 8, which is processed with the top-hat transform. Points A and B mark the shoulder and the trough of a dipped prominence thread. Note that the image is rotated counterclockwise by 90$^\circ$. North is to the left. \[fig2\]](f2.eps){width="12cm"}
As displayed in Fig. \[fig1\], the prominence looked slightly different in the chromospheric line H and in the EUVI 304 [Å]{} line. While the lower-resolution 304 [Å]{} image shows that the prominence was a concave-inward structure at $-100\arcsec <y<0\arcsec$, the higher-resolution H image indicates that the prominence consists of a bunch of concave-outward threads. In order to show the dipped structure in H more clearly, we perform the top-hat transform of the Hinode image, which can greatly enhance the detailed structures. Figure \[fig2\] displays the processed Hinode H image at 18:41 UT, where prominence threads, as well as their oscillations, are found to be aligned with the dipped trajectories. Since the H thread is from the core material of the prominence, which should trace the local magnetic field, the concave-outward structure is strongly indicative of the existence of magnetic dip along the prominence thread. The white dashed line traces one single dipped thread, with point A located at one shoulder and point B at the trough of an expected field line. The shape of this expected field line will be used for numerical simulations in Sect. \[S-simulation\].
. The intensity is averaged along the horizontal direction. The superposed dashed line is a damped sine function for fitting the mail oscillation, whereas the dotted line for the weak prominence oscillation prior to the plasma injection. A data gap exists between 18:00 UT and 18:14 UT.[]{data-label="fig3"}](f3.eps){width="12cm"}
At $\sim$17:00 UT, the prominence was activated somehow. In order to show the dynamics of the prominence activation, in Fig. \[fig3\] we plot the temporal evolution of the H intensity along a wide slice. The slice is along the prominence axis in the south-north direction, with a width of 20 as indicated in Fig. \[fig1\]b. From Fig. \[fig3\] it can be seen that at $\sim$17:00 UT a plasma clump formed near $y=-30\arcsec$, and then spread bi-directionally. During 17:10 UT–17:45 UT, a bulk of dense plasma moved from south to north with a velocity of $\sim$40 km s$^{-1}$. After a short interval, a denser plasma structure moved to north. Although there was a data gap between 18:00 UT and 18:14 UT, it is still discernible that whereas part of the dense plasmas moved outside the northern edge of the Hinode/SOT field of view, the other part of them remained in the field of view, and started to oscillate with an initial amplitude of $\sim$30. The amplitude of the oscillation decreased with time, but nearly four periods are visible in the observation slot. In order to describe the prominence oscillation quantitatively, we fit the oscillating pattern in Fig. \[fig3\] with a decayed sine function with respect to time, i.e.,
$$\label{Eq-1}
y=A \sin(\frac{2\pi}{P} t+\phi) e^{-t/\tau}+y_0$$
where $A$ is the initial amplitude, $P$ the period, $\tau$ the decay timescale, $\phi$ the phase, $t$ the time lapse since 18:00 UT, and $y_0$ the equilibrium position of the prominence. By trial and error, we found that with $A=24$ Mm, $\phi=-\pi/2$, $P=52$ min, and $\tau=133$ min, the analytical function fits the oscillating pattern very well, as overplotted in Fig. \[fig3\] with the dashed curve. The ratio of the decay timescale to the period is 2.6, which is very similar to the results in Jing et al. ([@jing03]) and Vr[š]{}nak et al. ([@vrn07]).
It is noted that even before the bulk of dense plasma was injected into the SOT field of view, as indicated by the dotted line in Fig. \[fig3\], the less dense prominence material near $y=5^{''}$ was already oscillating with almost the same period as the main oscillations described above, which implies that the oscillation period was mainly determined by the magnetic configuration, rather than the mass of the prominence, as claimed by Luna & Karpen ([@lu12]).
Numerical Simulations {#S-simulation}
=====================
Simulation setup {#S-method}
----------------
Jing et al. ([@jing03]) proposed several candidate restoring force of the oscillation, including the gravity and a reflecting Alfvén wave package, where the gravity acting as the restoring force was backed by Luna & Karpen ([@lu12]). On the other hand, Vr[š]{}nak et al. ([@vrn07]) attributed the restoring force to magnetic pressure gradient. Here, the fact that the oscillation was centered around the magnetic dip reminds us of an alternative explanation, i.e., the restoring force might be the gravity. In order to explain the dynamics of a prominence after being disturbed, we performed a 1D radiative hydrodynamics simulation in this section. The geometry of the dipped magnetic field line is taken from the observation in Fig. \[fig2\], as marked by the white dashed line. Since the prominence was inclined to the local meridian by $\theta=8^\circ$ as implied by Fig. \[fig1\]a when the prominence was observed on the solar disk as a filament, the length of the dipped field line is $1/\cos(\theta+10^{\circ})$ times the apparent value assuming that the fine threads of the H$\alpha$ filament is 10$^{\circ}$ with respect to the filament axis. The reconstructed magnetic loop is depicted in Fig. \[fig4\], where the magnetic dip is 8.1 Mm in depth and 107.3 Mm in length.
![Magnetic field configuration used for the 1D radiative hydrodynamic simulation of the prominence oscillation. Note that the horizontal and the vertical sizes are not in scale.[]{data-label="fig4"}](f4.eps){width="12cm"}
The simulation setup was described in detail in Xia et al. ([@xia11; @xia12]), and briefly explained as follows: A background heating is imposed to sustain the corona-chromosphere structure. As an extra localized heating is added at chromosphere symmetrically at two footpoints of the magnetic loop, cool plasmas are heated up and evaporated into the corona. At a critical stage, thermal instability is triggered in the corona, and the evaporated mass cools down to form a condensation (or prominence segment). As the localized heating is switched off, the condensation will relax to a quasi-static state. In order to simulate the oscillation of the condensation, an impulsive momentum is imposed on the plasma condensation, which makes the plasma to move with an initial velocity of 40 km s$^{-1}$.
The 1D radiative and conductive hydrodynamic equations, as listed in Xia et al. ([@xia11]), are numerically solved with the Message Passing Interface$-$Adaptive Mesh Refinement Versatile Advection Code (MPI-AMRVAC, Toth & Odstrcil [@toth96]; Keppens et al. [@kepp11]). The Total Variation Diminishing Lax-Friedrichs (TVDLF) scheme using linear reconstruction and a Woodward limiter are selected for the spatial differentiation, while the predictor-corrector two-step explicit scheme is utilized for the time progressing. Mesh refinement with six levels in a block-based approach is applied.
Simulation results
------------------
![Time evolutions of the density ([*top*]{}) and the temperature ([*bottom*]{}) distributions along the magnetic loop, which indicate that the prominence experiences a damped oscillation subjected to a perturbation. []{data-label="fig5"}](f5.eps){width="12cm"}
As the initial conditions for the simulation in this paper, a prominence thread formed due to thermal instability stays in a quasi-static state, with the density being $\sim$2.0$\times 10^{11}$ cm$^{-3}$, the temperature being $\sim$1.8$\times 10^{4}$ K, and the length being 27.8 Mm. A velocity perturbation with an amplitude of 40 km s$^{-1}$ is introduced on the prominence thread, which decreases to zero smoothly near the prominence-corona transition layer.
Subject to the velocity perturbation, the prominence thread begins to oscillate along the dip. The time evolutions of the density and temperature of the plasma along the magnetic loop are displayed in Fig. \[fig5\], which shows that the prominence thread oscillates with a damping amplitude. Using a formula similar to Equation (\[Eq-1\]), we fit the displacement of the prominence from the center of the dip as a function of time. It turns out that the initial amplitude is $A=18.6$ Mm, the period is $P=56$ min, and the damping timescale is $\tau=202$ min. It is noticed that the oscillation period in the 1D simulation, i.e., 56 min, is very close to the real observations. However, the decay timescale, 202 min, is $\sim$1.5 times as long as the real observations between 18:00 UT and 21:24 UT.
Since the magnetic field line is fixed here in the 1D simulation, the restoring force candidates in the simulation are the field-aligned component of the gravity and the gas pressure gradient. After comparing the two forces in the simulation results, we found that the gravity component is much larger than the gas pressure gradient. Therefore, the result that the simulated period is similar to the observed one indicates that the gravity component along the field line nicely accounts for the restoring force of the longitudinal oscillation of the prominence. Our results are consistent with the conclusion of Luna & Karpen ([@lu12]) that the main restoring force is the projected gravity in the flux tube dips where the threads oscillate. The energy losing mechanisms in our simulation include thermal radiation and heat conduction. The fact that the decay timescale of the oscillation in our simulation is 1.5 times as long as the observed one implies that some other energy loss mechanisms should be taken into account, such as the wave leakage (e.g., Stenuit et al. [@sten99]) and mass accretion (e.g., Luna & Karpen [@lu12]).
Discussions {#S-dis}
===========
Identification of the longitudinal oscillations
-----------------------------------------------
Even a quiescent prominence is full of dynamics. The typical motion inside prominences is the counter-streamings (Zirker et al. [@zir98]). Such bidirectional motions have been observed in quiescent region filaments (Lin et al. [@lin05]; Schmieder et al. [@sch10]) as well as in active region prominences (Okamoto et al. [@oka07]). The counter-streaming can be easily discerned in Fig. \[fig3\] of this paper. Especially near $t$=21:00 UT, counter-streamings are clearly seen around $y=-70^{''}$. With such a background of counter-streamings, a distinct feature in Fig. \[fig3\] is that a bulk of prominence began to oscillate with a period of 52 min. The oscillation decayed with a timescale of 133 min. It might be argued that the oscillations would be an artificial pattern due to the superposition of the on-going counter-streamings along the line of sight. We tend to discard such a possibility and favor the oscillation explanation for several reasons: (1) The counter-streamings are often random, and it is rare, if possible, for them to form a coherent periodic oscillation pattern for $>$3.5 hours; (2) The oscillation was centered around the dip of the prominence, whereas counter-streamings appear everywhere along the prominence axis; (3) The prominence oscillations in Fig. \[fig3\] decayed in a steady way. It is a little hard to understand how the superposition of counter-streamings could evolve in such a systematic way; (4) It is seen that even before the injection of the bulk of plasma, the less dense prominence material near the dip was already oscillating with an identical period to the main oscillations; (5) More importantly, with the shape of the magnetic flux tube inferred from observations, we performed radiative hydrodynamic simulations, and the simulated oscillation period is so close to the observed value, which strongly supports that the observed pattern in Fig. \[fig3\] presents the evidence of prominence longitudinal oscillations, and the gravity serves as the restoring force for the longitudinal oscillations.
It is also noted that only the portion of the prominence between $y=-40^{''}$ and $y=-20^{''}$ was oscillating, which is probably because only some threads of the prominence were involved in the oscillation, and the other threads remained unaffected by the perturbation.
Possible connection with the later CME/flare
--------------------------------------------
No Hinode/SOT observations were available after 21:24 UT, while the prominence oscillation should still be going on. Then, around 21:52 UT, a thread of the prominence erupted, as illustrated by the EUVI 171 [Å]{} and 304 [Å]{} running-difference images in Fig. \[fig6\]. In association with that, a faint CME first appeared in the field of view of the STEREO/COR1 coronagraph above the western limb at 22:53 UT, as illustrated by the top panels of Fig. \[fig7\]. The faint CME was later observed by the LASCO coronagraph, which showed that the CME was deflected toward south as seen in the bottom-left panel of Fig. \[fig7\]. In association of the CME, a C1.2-class flare appeared just below the prominence, starting around 22:55 UT, as indicated by the bottom-right panel of Fig. \[fig7\]. It is noted that despite the large-scale CME eruption, the major part of the prominence remained at the original place. Although the available observations did not cover the evolutions of the prominence eruption and the CME continuously, we speculate the possible connection among the erupting prominence thread, the flare, and the CME with the following reasons: First, none of active regions or filaments existed west to AR0940 before February 9. Hence, the CME could not originate from any filament eruption on the backside of the Sun near the western limb. There was another long filament in AR0941 east to AR0940. However, the He [I]{} 304 Å movie reveals that the filament did not erupt before the CME. Second, the central position angle of the CME is close to the latitude of the erupting thread of the prominence. Finally, as displayed below, the timing of all the components fits the standard CME/flare model so well, i.e., a prominence is somehow triggered to rise with the formation of a current sheet. The reconnection of the current sheet leads to a flare and the acceleration of the CME.
![The running-difference images of EUVI 171 [Å]{} channel at 21:45 UT ([*left*]{}) and 304 [Å]{} channel at 21:52 UT ([*right*]{}) showing that only a thread of the prominence erupted. The white cross in the left panel marks the location of a microflare which happened at 18:00 UT. \[fig6\]](f6.eps){width="12cm"}
The timeline of the whole event is illustrated in Fig. \[fig8\]. It is seen that the prominence oscillation preceded the CME and the accompanying C1.2 flare. Despite that a data gap exists after 21:24 UT, we suspect that the longitudinal prominence could still keep oscillating for a few cycles more. Since only one thread of the prominence was seen to erupt with the major part remaining in the low corona, this should be a partial prominence eruption event, which might be consistent with the rupture model (Sturrock et al. [@stur01]), where part of the flux rope struggle out of the overlying field lines, pushing some of them aside on the way, as simulated by Fan ([@fan05]).
![*Top*: STEREO/COR1 running-difference images showing the early propagation of a CME; *Bottom-left*: Running-difference image from LASCO/C2 coronagraph at 23:54 UT; *Bottom-right*: 171 [Å]{} image at 22:55 UT showing a C1.2-class flare associated with the CME. \[fig7\]](f7.eps){width="12cm"}
This paper might provide another example to illustrate that long-time prominence oscillation can be regarded as a precursor for CME eruptions, as proposed by Chen et al. ([@chen08]). However, the eruption in this paper is different from theirs in the sense that their prominence oscillation was transverse, whereas ours is along the prominence axis, i.e, it is a longitudinal oscillation, although both of the prominence oscillations were probably triggered by magnetic reconnection between emerging flux and the pre-existing field lines. Caveat should be taken that many of the CME precursors are neither sufficient nor necessary conditions for the CME eruption (Chen [@chen11]). Besides, in both Jing et al. ([@jing03]) and Vr[š]{}nak et al. ([@vrn07]), it seems that no CME followed the longitudinal oscillation of the prominence.
Interestingly, an A7.0 microflare peaked around 18:00 UT near the prominence, as seen from the GOES light curve in Fig. \[fig8\]. The location of the microflare is marked by the cross in the left panel of Fig. \[fig6\]. The microflare might be due to the reconnection between emerging flux and the prominence magnetic field, which led to the second prominence oscillation. However, caveats should be taken. First, this is a limb event, so the microflare, which seemed to be close to the prominence in the image might be far from the prominence. Second, the oscillation of the massive prominence started $\sim$30 min before the microflare. It seems unlikely for the microflare to trigger the prominence oscillation.
![Timeline of the whole event, where the flare is indicated by the GOES 1$-$8 Å SXR light curve ([*solid line*]{}), the prominence oscillation is by the insertion of the time-slice plot of Fig. \[fig3\], and the CME heights observed by different instruments, i.e., STEREO/COR1 ([*squares*]{}), LASCO/C2 ([*stars*]{}), and LASCO/C3 ([*diamonds*]{}), respectively. \[fig8\]](f8.eps){width="12cm"}
Summary {#S-summary}
=======
In summary, we carry out a multiwavelength data analysis and a radiative hydrodynamic simulation of longitudinal oscillations of an active region prominence along the axis on 2007 February 8. The main results are summarized as follows:
1\. Despite that the overall shape of the prominence is concave-inward, the high-resolution observations by Hinode/SOT indicates that the prominence consists of many threads which are actually concave-outward. The concave-outward structures are strongly indicative of the magnetic dips that support the heavy prominence materials suggested by previous theoretical models.
2\. After being injected, a bulk of dense prominence plasma was seen to oscillate along the prominence main axis, i.e., a longitudinal oscillation is discerned. The period and the damping timescale are 52 min and 133 min, respectively. The oscillations continued for more than 3.5 hours, and no further observations were taken.
3\. To testify the mechanisms of restoring force and amplitude decaying of the prominence oscillations, we performed a 1D hydrodynamic numerical simulation with the geometry of the dipped magnetic loop inferred from observations. The oscillation period derived from the simulation is nearly identical to the observed values, indicating that gravity might serve as the restoring force for the prominence longitudinal oscillations, as mentioned by Jing et al. ([@jing03]) and Luna & Karpen ([@lu12]). However, the decay timescale of the oscillation in the simulation, 202 min, is 1.5 times as long as the observed value, 133 min, suggesting that mechanisms other than thermal radiation and heat conduction, say the wave leakage and mass accretion, might be more relevant for the energy loss during the prominence longitudinal oscillations.
4\. With the main body of the prominence staying torpid, a thread from the prominence was seen to erupt, leading to a CME and a C1.2-class flare. We tentatively propose that the prominence longitudinal oscillations studied in this paper might be a precursor of the CME/flare, which is related to the triggering process of the eruption, as proposed by Chen et al. ([@chen08]).
The authors thank the anonymous referee for the valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of this paper. Q. M. Zhang appreciates Z. J. Ning, M. D. Ding, C. Fang, and B. Vr[š]{}nak for discussions and suggestions on this work. H$\alpha$ data are from the Global High Resolution H$\alpha$ Network operated by the Big Bear Solar Observatory, New Jersey Institute of Technology. Hinode is a Japanese Mission, with NASA and STFC (UK) as international partners. STEREO/SECCHI data are provided by a consortium of US, UK, Germany, Belgium, and France. The CME catalog is generated and maintained at the CDAW Data Center by NASA and The Catholic University of America in cooperation with the Naval Research Laboratory. The research is supported by the Chinese foundations NSFC (11025314, 10878002, and 10933003) and 2011CB811402. PFC thanks UCL/MSSL for the hospitality during his stay.
Amari, T., Luciani, J. F., Mikic, Z., & Linker, J. 2000, , 529, L49 Antiochos, S. K., Dahlburg, R. B., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1994, , 420, L41 Antiochos, S. K., MacNeice, P. J., Spicer, D. S., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, , 512, 985 Aulanier, G., & Schmieder, B. 2002, , 386, 1106 Berger, T. E., et al. 2008, , 676, L89 Bocchialini, K., Baudin, F., Koutchmy, S., Pouget, G., & Solomon, J. 2011, , 533, A96 Brueckner et al. 1995, , 162, 357 Chen, P. F. 2011, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 8, 1 Chen, P. F., Innes, D. E., & Solanki, S. K. 2008, , 484, 487 Culhane, J. L., et al. 2007, , 243, 19 DeVore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2000, , 539, 954 Fan, Y. 2005, , 630, 543 Forbes, T. G., Linker, J. A., Chen, J., et al. 2006, , 123, 251 Golub, L., et al. 2007, , 243, 63 Gosain, S., Schmieder, B., Venkatakrishnan, P., Chandra, R., & Artzner, G. 2009, , 259, 13 Isobe, H., & Tripathi, D. 2006, , 449, L17 Jing, J., Lee, J., Spirock, T. J., Xu, Y., Wang, H., & Choe, G. S. 2003, , 584, L103 Kaiser, M. L. 2005, Advances in Space Research, 36, 1483 Karpen, J. T., & Antiochos, S. K. 2008, , 676, 658 Keppens, R., Meliani, Z., van Marle, A.J., Delmont, P., Vlasis, A., & van der Holst, B. 2011, J. Chem. Phys., in press (doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2011.01.020) Kippenhahn, R., & Schl[ü]{}ter, A. 1957, , 43, 36 Kosugi, T., et al. 2007, , 243,3 Kuperus, M., & Raadu, M. A. 1974, , 31, 189 Lin, Y., Engvold, O., Rouppe van der Voort, L., Wiik, J. E., & Berger, T. E. 2005, , 226, 239 Lin, Y., Engvold, O., Rouppe van der Voort, L. H. M., & van Noort, M. 2007, , 246, 65 Lites, B. W. 2005, , 622, 1275 Liu, W., Berger, T. E. & Low, B. C. 2012, , 745, L21 Luna, M., & Karpen, J. 2012, arXiv:1203.5027 Luna, M., Karpen, J. T., & DeVore, C. R. 2012, , 746, 30 Martin, S. F. 1998, , 182, 107 Newmark, J. S., Cook, J. W., & Moses, J. D. 2007, , 6689 Ning, Z., Cao, W., & Goode, P. R. 2009, , 707, 1124 Okamoto, T. J., et al. 2007, Science, 318, 1577 Schmieder, B., Chandra, R., Berlicki, A., & Mein, P. 2010, , 514, A68 Stenuit, H., Tirry, W. J., Keppens, R., & Goossens, M. 1999, , 342, 863 Sturrock, P. A., Weber, M., Wheatland, M. S., & Wolfson, R. 2001, , 548, 492 Tandberg-Hanssen, E. 1995, Science, 269, 111 Toth, G. & Odstrcil, D. 1996, J. Chem. Phys., 128, 82 Tsuneta, S., et al. 2008, , 249, 167 van Ballegooijen, A. A., & Martens, P. C. H. 1989, , 343, 971 Vr[š]{}nak, B., Veronig, A. M., Thalmann, J. K., & [Ž]{}ic, T. 2007, , 471, 295 Xia, C., Chen, P. F., Keppens, R., & van Marle, A. J. 2011, , 737, 27 Xia, C., Chen, P. F., & Keppens, R. 2012, , 748, L26 Zirker, J. B. 1989, , 119, 341 Zirker, J. B., Engvold, O., & Martin, S. F. 1998, , 396, 440
[^1]: http://cdaw.gsfc.nasa.gov/CME\_list/
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'A fascinating problem on digraphs is the existence problem of the finite upper bound on $s$ for all vertex-primitive $s$-arc-transitive digraphs except directed cycles (which is known to be reduced to the almost simple groups case). In this paper, we prove that $s\le 2$ for all $G$-vertex-primitive $s$-arc-transitive digraphs with $G$ an (insoluble) alternating or symmetric group, which makes an important progress towards a solution of the problem. The proofs involves some methods that may be used to investigate other almost simple groups cases.'
address:
- |
J. M. Pan\
School of Statistics and Mathematics\
Yunnan University of Finance and Economics\
Kunming\
P. R. China
- |
C. C. Wu\
School of Statistics and Mathematics\
Yunnan University of Finance and Economics\
Kunming\
P. R. China
- |
F. G. Yin\
School of Statistics and Mathematics\
Yunnan University of Finance and Economics\
Kunming\
P. R. China
author:
- Jiangmin Pan
- Cixuan Wu
- Fugang Yin
title: 'Vertex-primitive $s$-arc-transitive digraphs of alternating and symmetric groups'
---
[^1] [^2]
Introduction
============
A [*digraph*]{} (directed graph) $\Ga$ is a pair $(V\Ga,\to)$ with vertex set $V\Ga$ and an antisymmetric irreflexive binary relation $\to$ on $V\Ga$. All digraphs considered in this paper are finite. For a positive integer $s$, an $s$-arc of $\Ga$ is a sequence $v_0,v_1,\dots,v_s$ of vertices such that $v_i\to v_{i+1}$ for each $i=0,1,\dots,s-1$. A $1$-arc is also simply called an [*arc*]{}. A transitive permutation group $G$ is [*primitive*]{} on a set $\Ome$ if $G$ preserves no nontrivial partition of $\Ome$ (or equivalently, the point stabilizer of $G$ is maximal in $G$). For an automorphism group $G$ of $\Ga$, we call that $\Ga$ is [*$(G,s)$-arc-transitive*]{} if $G$ is transitive on the set of $s$-arcs of $\Ga$, and $\Ga$ is [*$G$-vertex-primitive*]{} if $G$ is primitive on the vertex set of $\Ga$. It is easy to see that $s$-arc-transitive digraphs with $s\ge 2$ are necessarily $(s-1)$-arc-transitive.
In sharp contrast with the undirected graphs, where a well known result of Weiss [@Weiss] states that finite undirected graphs other than cycles can only be $s$-arc-transitive for $s\le 7$, Praeger [@Praeger89] proved that there are infinite many $s$-arc-transitive digraphs for unbounded $s$ other than directed cycles. This interesting gap stimulated a series of constructions [@CPW93; @CLP95; @Evans97; @MMSZ02] for such digraphs (which are called [*highly transitive digraphs*]{} in the literature). However, although various constructions for $s$-arc-transitive digraphs are known, finding vertex-primitive $s$-arc-transitive digraphs with $s\ge 2$ seems to be a very intractable problem: in a survey paper of Praeger [@Praeger90] in 1990, she said “no such examples have yet been found despite considerable effort by several people". The existence problem of vertex-primitive 2-arc-transitive digraphs besides directed cycles has just been solved until 2017 by Giudici, Li and Xia [@GLX18] by constructing an infinite family of such digraphs with valency 6, and no vertex-primitive $3$-arc-transitive digraphs have been founded yet. These naturally motivate the following interesting problem (posted by Giudici and Xia [@MX18]).
0.1in [**Question A.**]{} Is there an upper bound on $s$ for all vertex-primitive $s$-arc-transitive digraphs that are not directed cycles? 0.1in
A group $G$ is said to be [*almost simple*]{} if there is a nonabelian simple group $T$ such that $T\lhd G\le\Aut(T)$. A systematic investigation of the O’Nan-Scott types of primitive permutation groups has reduced Question A to the almost simple case by proving that an upper bound on $s$ for vertex-primitive $s$-arc-transitive digraphs $\Ga$ with $\Aut\Ga$ almost simple will be an upper bound on $s$ for all vertex-primitive $s$-arc-transitive digraphs, see [@MX18 Corollary 1.6]. Thus a reasonable strategy for Question A is to investigate the upper bound of $s$ for all simple groups (the sporadic simple groups case can generally be done especially with the help of the computer program). In this paper, we will do such for alternating and symmetric groups. Our main result is as following.
\[Thm-1\] Let $\Ga$ be a $G$-vertex-primitive $(G,s)$-arc-transitive digraph, where $G$ is an insoluble alternating or symmetric group. Then $s\le 2$.
In light of Theorem \[Thm-1\] and [@GLX17 Theorem 1.2] for linear groups, we would like to propose the following conjecture.
0.1in [**Conjecture.**]{} The upper bound on $s$ for all vertex-primitive $s$-arc-transitive digraphs except direct cycles is $2$.
0.1in The layout of this paper is as follows. We give some preliminary results in Section 2. Notice that, for the digraphs in Theorem \[Thm-1\], the vertex stabilizers of $G$ satisfy parts (a)-(f) of Theorem \[Max-SubG\] below (obtained by Liebeck, Praeger and Saxl). Parts (a) and (c) are investigated in Section 3, and part (d) is considered in Section 4. In the final Section 5, we analyse parts (b,e,f) and complete the proof of Theorem \[Thm-1\].
Preliminaries
=============
Throughout the paper, we always use the following notations, where $G$ is a group, $n$ is a positive integer and $p$ is a prime.
0.1in
$\pi(G)$: the set of prime divisors of the order of $G$. 0.05in $\pi(n)$: the set of prime divisors of $n$.
0.05in $n_p$: the maximal power of $p$ dividing $n$. 0.05in $\soc(G)$: the socle of $G$, namely the product of all minimal normal subgroups of $G$.
0.1in The following result is a consequence (also easy to prove directly) of the so-called Legendre’s formula, that will be used repeatedly in this paper.
\[p-part\] For each positive integer $n$ and prime $p$, we have $(n!)_p<p^{n\over p-1}$.
For positive integers $a\ge 2$ and $m\ge 2$, a prime $r$ is called a [*primitive prime divisor*]{} of $a^m-1$ if $r$ divides $a^m-1$ but not divides $a^i-1$ for each $i=1,2,\dots,m-1$. The next is a well-known theorem of Zsigmondy, see [@BB82 Theorem IX.8.3], where the last statement follows easily by the Fermat’s Little Theorem.
\[Zsigmondy\] For positive integers $a\ge 2$ and $m\ge 2$, $a^m-1$ has a primitive prime divisor $r$ if $(a,m)\ne (2,6)$ and $(2^e-1,2)$ with $e\ge 2$ an integer. Moreover, $r\equiv 1(\mod m)$, in particular $r>m$.
The following theorem of Liebeck, Praeger and Saxl [@LPS87] determines the maximal subgroups of alternating and symmetric groups which provides a starting point of this paper.
\[Max-SubG\] Let $G=\A_n$ or $\S_n$, and $H\ne\A_n$ a maximal subgroup of $G$. Then $H$ satisfies one of the following:
- $H=(\S_m\times \S_k)\cap G$, with $n=m+k$ and $m<k$ (intransitive case);
- $H=(\S_m\wr\S_k)\cap G$, with $n=mk$, $m>1$ and $k>1$ (imprimitive case);
- $H=\AGL(k,p)\cap G$, with $n=p^k$ and $p$ prime (affine case);
- $H=(T^k.(\Out(T)\times\S_k))\cap G$, with $T$ a nonabelian simple group, $k\ge 2$ and $n=|T|^{k-1}$ (diagonal case);
- $H=(\S_m\wr\S_k)\cap G$, with $n=m^k$, $m\ge 5$ and $k>1$ (wreath case);
- $T\lhd H\le\Aut(T)$, with $T$ a nonabelian simple group, $T\ne\A_n$ and $H$ acts primitively on $\Ome$ (almost simple case).
We remark that not all the groups $H$ satisfying one of parts (a-f) are exactly maximal subgroups of $G$, namely there have a few exceptions, see [@LPS87 T[HEOREM]{}]. The next known result presents a necessary and sufficient condition of $s$-arc-transitivity of digraphs, refer to [@MX18 Lemma 2.2].
\[iff\] Let $\Ga$ be a digraph, and $v_0\to v_1\to \cdots\to v_{s-1}\to v_s$ be an $s$-arc of $\Ga$ with $s\ge 2$. Suppose $G\le\Aut\Ga$ acts arc-transitively on $\Ga$. Then $G$ acts $s$-arc-transitively on $\Ga$ if and only if $$G_{v_1v_2\dots v_i}=G_{v_0v_1\dots v_i}G_{v_1\dots v_iv_{i+1}},~
for~ each~i\in\{1,2,\dots,s-1\}.$$
0.1in For a group $G$, an expression $G=HK$ with $H$ and $K$ being subgroups of $G$ is called a [*factorization*]{} of $G$, where $H$ and $K$ are called [*factors*]{} of $G$. In particular, $G=HK$ is called a [*homogeneous factorization*]{} if $H$ is isomorphic to $K$, and is called a [*maximal factorization*]{} if both $H$ and $K$ are maximal subgroups of $G$.
\[AS-Factori\][([@GLX17 Proposition 3.3])]{} Let $G$ be an almost simple group with socle $T$. Suppose $G=AB$ is a homogeneous factorization. Then one of the following holds.
- Both $A$ and $B$ contain $T$.
- $A$ and $B$ are almost simple groups with socles both isomorphic to $S$, where $(T,S)$ lies in the following table, where $q$ is a prime power and $f>2$.
$$\begin{array}{lllll} \hline
T & \A_6 & \M_{12} & \Sp_4(2^f) & \POmega_8^+(q) \\ \hline
S & \A_5 & \M_{11} & \Sp_2(4^f) & \Omega_7(q) \\ \hline
\end{array}$$
\[Wreath-Factor\][([@GLX17 Lemma 3.5])]{} Let $R\wr\S_k$ be a wreath product with base group $M=R^k=R_1\times\cdots\times R_k$, and $T\wr\S_k\le G\le R\wr\S_k$ with $T\le R$. Suppose $G=AB$ is a homogeneous factorization of $G$ such that $A$ is transitive on $\{R_1,\dots,R_k\}$. Denote by $\phi_i(A\cap M)$ the projection of $A\cap M$ on $R_i$ for $i=1,2,\dots,k$. Then $\phi_1(A\cap M)=\cdots=\phi_k(A\cap M)$ and $\pi(T)\subseteq\pi(\phi_1(A\cap M))$.
\[Factor-1\] Let $G$ be an almost simple group with socle $T=\PSL_k(q)$, where $k\ge 2$ and $q=p^e$ is a prime power. If $G=HK$ with $H$ and $K$ subgroups of $G$ such that $\pi(H)\cap\pi(K)\supseteq \pi(G)\setminus\pi(p(p-1))$, then either
- at least one of $H$ and $K$ contains $T$; or
- $k=2$ and $q=2^e-1\ge 7$ is a Mersenne prime.
[*Proof. *]{}
Let $H_0$ and $K_0$ be maximal subgroups of $G$ containing $H$ and $K$, respectively. Then $G=H_0K_0$ is a maximal factorization. Such factorizations for $G$ being an almost simple group with socle $\PSL(d,q)$ are classified in [@LPS90 TABLE 1]. By checking the list, the lemma follows.
We give an observation to end this section. Denote by $\val(\Ga)$ the valency of a regular digraph $\Ga$.
\[s-ArcT\] Let $\Ga$ be a $(G,s)$-arc-transitive digraph with $G\le\Aut\Ga$ and $s\ge 1$. Then $\val(\Ga)^s\mid |G_v|$ for each $v\in V\Ga$.
[*Proof. *]{}
Set $m=\val(\Ga)$, and let $v=v_0\to v_1\to\cdots\to v_s$ be an $s$-arc of $\Ga$. Since $\Ga$ is $(G,s)$-arc-transitive, $G_{v_0v_1\dots v_{i-1}}$ is transitive on the out-neighbor set $\Ga^+(v_{i-1}):=\{u\in V\Ga\mid v_{i-1}\to u\}$ for each $i=1,2,\dots,s$. Then as $|\Ga^+(v)|=m$ for each $v\in V\Ga$, we deduce $|G_{v_0v_1\dots v_{i-1}}: G_{v_0v_1\dots v_{i}}|=m$. It follows $|G_v|=|G_{v_0}|=m^s|G_{v_0v_1\dots v_{s}}|$, the lemma follows.
Subgroups $(a)$ and $(c)$
=========================
For convenience, we always suppose the following hypothesis holds in the rest of this paper.
\[Hypo\] Let $\Ga$ be a $G$-vertex-primitive $(G,s)$-arc-transitive digraph of valency at least three, where $s\ge 1$ and $G=\A_n$ or $\S_n$ with $n\ge 5$ is an automorphism group of $\Ga$. Take an arc $u\to v$ of $\Ga$, and let $g\in G$ such that $u^g=v$ and set $w=v^g$. Then $u\to v\to w$ is a $2$-arc of $\Ga$. Set $\Ome=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$. Then $G$ acts naturally on $\Ome$.
Under Hypothesis \[Hypo\], $G_{vw}=G_{uv}^g$ and $G_v$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$. Hence $G_v$ satisfies parts $(a)-(f)$ of Theorem \[Max-SubG\]. In this section, we investigate the cases where $G_v$ satisfies parts $(a)$ and $(c)$.
\[part-a\] Suppose $G_v$ satisfies part $(a)$ of Theorem $\ref{Max-SubG}$. Then $s=1$.
[*Proof. *]{}
Suppose for a contradiction that $s\ge 2$. By Theorem \[Max-SubG\], $G_v\cong(\S_m\times \S_k)\cap G$, with $n=m+k$ and $m<k$. If $m=1$, then $G$ is 2-transitive on $V\Ga$, so $\Ga$ is an undirected complete graph, a contradiction.
Thus assume $m\ge 2$ in the following. Since $s\ge 2$, $G_v=G_{uv}G_{vw}$ by Lemma \[iff\] and $G_{vw}=G_{uv}^g\cong G_{uv}$. Notice that $G$ has unique conjugate class of $(\S_m\times \S_k)\cap G$, the action of $G$ on $V\Ga$ is permutation equivalent to the natural induced action of $G$ on $\Ome^{\{m\}}$, the set of $m$-subsets of $\Ome$. We may thus identify $V\Ga$ with $\Ome^{\{m\}}$ and set $v=\Del:=\{1,2,\dots,m\}$. Then $G_{v}=(\S_{\{1,\dots,m\}}\times\S_{\{m+1,\dots,n\}})\cap G$. Clearly, $G_v=\S_{\{1,\dots,m\}}\times\S_{\{m+1,\dots,n\}}$ if $G=\S_n$, and $G_v=(\A_{\{1,\dots,m\}}\times\A_{\{m+1,\dots,n\}}):\ZZ_2$ if $G=\A_n$.
Assume first $\Del\cap \Del^g=\phi$. Without loss of generality, we may suppose $\Del^g=\{m+1,m+2,\dots,2m\}$. Then $$G_{w}=G_{v}^g=(\S_{\{m+1,\dots,2m\}}\times\S_{\{1,\dots,m,2m+1,\dots,n\}})\cap G,~and$$ $$G_{u}=G_{v}^{g^{-1}}=(\S_{\{j_1,\dots,j_m\}}\times\S_{\Ome\setminus\{j_1,\dots,j_m\}})\cap G,$$ where $\{j_1,\dots,j_m\}\subseteq\Ome\setminus\{1,\dots,m\}.$ It follows $$G_{uv}=G_{u}\cap G_{v}=(\S_{\{1,\dots,m\}}\times\S_{\{j_1,\dots,j_m\}}\times\S_{\{m+1,\dots,n\}\setminus\{j_1,\dots,j_m\}})\cap G,~and$$ $$G_{vw}=G_{v}\cap G_{w}=(\S_{\{1,\dots,m\}}\times\S_{\{m+1,\dots,2m\}}\times\S_{\{2m+1,\dots,n\}})\cap G.$$
Since $G_v=G_{uv}G_{vw}$, we conclude
0.1in $\S_{\{m+1,\dots,n\}}\cap G$
$=((\S_{\{j_1,\dots,j_m\}}\times\S_{\{m+1,\dots,n\}\setminus\{j_1,\dots,j_m\}})\cap G)
((\S_{\{m+1,\dots,2m\}}\times\S_{\{2m+1,\dots,n\}})\cap G).\hspace{30pt}(1)$
0.1in Since $n=m+k\ge 5$ and $m<k$, we have $n-m=k\ge 3$. If $n-m=3$ or $4$, one easily verifies Equation (1) is impossible, a contradiction. If $n-m\ge 5$, then $\S_{\{m+1,\dots,n\}}\cap G\cong\A_{n-m}$ or $\S_{n-m}$ is almost simple, and the two factors in the right side of Equation (1) are conjugate in $G$ and so isomorphic, by Lemma \[AS-Factori\], the only possibility is $n-m=6$ and $m=5$, and so $n=11$. Then Equation (1) leads to $$\S_{\{6,\dots,11\}}\cap G=(\S_{\{j_1,\dots,j_5\}}\cap G)(\S_{\{6,\cdots,10\}}\cap G),~with~\{j_1,\dots,j_5\}\subseteq\{6,\cdots,11\}.\hspace{15pt}(2)$$ Clearly, one of $j_1,\dots,j_5$ equals $11$. Then the intersection of the two factors in the right side of Equation (2) is isomorphic to $\A_4$ or $\S_4$, it follows that the order of the group in the right side of Equation (2) in a multiple of $25$, but the order of the group in the left side is not, also a contradiction.
Now assume $\Del\cap \Del^g\ne\phi$. We may assume $\Del\cap\Del^g=\{1,\dots,l\}$ with $l<m$. A direct computation shows $$G_{uv}=(\S_{\{h_1,\dots,h_l\}}\times\S_{\{1,\dots,m\}\setminus\{h_1,\dots,h_l\}}
\times\S_{\{k_{l+1},\dots,k_m\}}\times\S_{\{m+1,\dots,n\}\setminus \{k_{l+1},\dots,k_m\}})\cap G,$$ $$G_{vw}=(\S_{\{1,\dots,l\}}\times\S_{\{l+1,\dots,m\}}
\times\S_{\{j_{l+1},\dots,j_m\}}\times\S_{\{m+1,\dots,n\}\setminus \{j_{l+1},\dots,j_m\}})\cap G,$$ where $\{h_1,\dots,h_l\}\subseteq \{1,\dots,m\}$, $\{k_{l+1},\dots,k_m\}$ and $\{j_{l+1},\dots,j_m\}$ are both subsets of $\{m+1,\dots,n\}$. Because $G_{v}=G_{uv}G_{vw}$, we conclude $$\S_{\{1,\dots,m\}}\cap G=((\S_{\{1,\dots,l\}}\times\S_{\{l+1,\dots,m\}})\cap G)
((\S_{\{h_1,\dots,h_l\}}\times\S_{\{1,\dots,m\}\setminus\{h_1,\dots,h_l\}})\cap G).$$ If $2\le m\le 4$, a simple computation may draw a contradiction. If $m\ge 5$, by Lemma \[AS-Factori\], the only possibility is $m=6$ and $l=1$, then similar arguments as above may draw a contradiction.
\[part-c\] Suppose $G_v$ satisfies part $(c)$ of Theorem $\ref{Max-SubG}$. Then $s=1$.
[*Proof. *]{}
Suppose for a contradiction that $s\ge 2$. By assumption, $G_v\cong\AGL(k,p)\cap G$ with $n=p^k$ and $p$ a prime, and so $\soc(G_v)\cong\ZZ_p^k$. Since $n\ge 5$, $(k,p)\ne(2,2)$. If $(k,p)=(2,3)$, then $G_v\cong\ZZ_3^2:2\A_4$ or $\ZZ_3^2:2\S_4$, a direct computation by Magma [@Magma] shows that $G_v$ has no homogeneous factorization $G_v=G_{uv}G_{vw}$ with $|G_v:G_{uv}|\ge 3$, a contradiction.
Thus assume in the following $(k,p)\ne (2,2)$ and $(2,3)$. Then $G_v$ is insoluble. Let $M$ be a normal subgroup of $\AGL(k,p)$ such that $M\cong\ZZ_p^k:\ZZ_{p-1}$. Set $\ov{G_v}=G_vM/M$, $\ov{G_{uv}}=G_{uv}M/M$ and $\ov{G_{vw}}=G_{vw}M/M$. Then $\ov{G_v}$ is almost simple with $\soc(\ov{G_v})\cong\PSL_k(p)$. Since $G_v=G_{uv}G_{vw}$ and $G_{uv}\cong G_{vw}$, we have $\pi(G_{uv})=\pi(G_{vw})=\pi(G_v)$ and $\ov{G_v}=\ov{G_{uv}}\hspace{1pt}\ov{G_{vw}}$. It follows that $$\pi(\overline{G_{uv}})\cap\pi(\overline{G_{vw}})
\supseteq(\pi(G_{uv})\cap\pi(G_{vw}))\setminus\pi(M)\supseteq{\pi(\overline{G_v})\setminus\pi(p(p-1))}.$$ By Lemma \[Factor-1\], either 0.1in
- at least one of $\ov{G_{uv}}$ and $\ov{G_{vw}}$ contains $\soc(\ov{G_v})$; or
- $k=2$ and $p=2^e-1\ge 7$ is a Mersenne prime.
0.1in For case (i), without loss of generality, we may suppose $\ov{G_{uv}}\supseteq\soc({\ov{G_v}})$. Since $\ov{G_v}$ is almost simple, $\soc(\ov{G_{uv}})=\soc({\ov{G_v}})$. Then as $G_{vw}\cong G_{uv}\cong (M\cap G_{uv}).\ov{G_{uv}}$ and $M$ is soluble, both $\ov{G_{uv}}$ and $\ov{G_{vw}}$ have the same unique insoluble composition factor $\PSL_k(p)$. Since $\ov{G_{vw}}/(\ov{G_{vw}}\cap\soc({\ov{G_v}}))\cong \ov{G_{vw}}\soc({\ov{G_v}})/\soc({\ov{G_v}})\le \ov{G_v}/\soc({\ov{G_v}})$ is soluble, $\PSL_k(p)$ is a composition factor of $\ov{G_{vw}}\cap\soc({\ov{G_v}})$, so $\ov{G_{vw}}\cap\soc({\ov{G_v}})=\soc({\ov{G_v}})$, and hence $\soc(\ov{G_{vw}})=\soc({\ov{G_v}})$ as ${\ov{G_v}}$ is almost simple. As $G_v=G_{uv}G_{vw}$, at least one of $G_{uv}$ and $G_{vw}$, say $G_{uv}$, has nontrivial intersection with $\soc(G_v)$, then since $\ov{G_{uv}}\supseteq\soc(\ov{G_v})\cong\PSL_k(p)$ which acts irreducibly on $\soc(G_v)\cong\ZZ_p^k$, we further conclude $G_{uv}\supseteq \soc(G_v)$. Consequently, one easily has $\soc(G_{vw})=\soc(G_v)$ as $|G_{vw}|=|G_{uv}|$. It follows $$(\soc(G_v))^g=(\soc(G_{uv}))^g=\soc(G_{uv}^g)=\soc(G_{vw})=\soc(G_v).$$ Notice that $\l G_v,g\r=G$, we have $\soc(G_v)\lhd G$, that is, $G_v$ contains a nontrivial normal subgroup of $G$, hence $G$ acts unfaithfully on $V\Ga$, a contradiction.
For case (ii), $\ov{G_v}\cong\PSL_2(p).o$ with $o=1$ or $\ZZ_2$. If one of $\ov{G_{uv}}$ and $\ov{G_{vw}}$ contains $\soc(\ov{G_v})\cong\PSL_2(p)$, the discussions in the previous paragraph may draw a contradiction. Suppose now none of $\ov{G_{uv}}$ and $\ov{G_{vw}}$ contains $\soc(\ov{G_v})$. Since $\ov{G_v}=\ov{G_{uv}}\hspace{1pt}\ov{G_{vw}}$, we may suppose (interchange $\ov{G_{uv}}$ and $\ov{G_{vw}}$ if necessary) that $\ov{G_{uv}}\le\ZZ_p:\ZZ_{p-1\over 2}.o$, hence $|\ov{G_{uv}}|_2\le |o|$ as $p=2^e-1$. Since $\ov{G_{uv}}\cong G_{uv}/(G_{uv}\cap M)$, we conclude $|G_{uv}|_2\le |o||M|_2=2|o|$. It follows $$2^{e+1}|o|=2|\PSL_2(2^e-1).o|_2=|G_v|_2\le |G_{uv}|_2^2\le 4|o|^2\le 8|o|,$$ implying $e\le 2$ and so $p\le 3$, which is a contradiction.
Subgroups $(d)$
===============
Suppose Hypothesis \[Hypo\] holds. In this section, we consider that case where $G_v$ satisfies part (d) of Theorem \[Max-SubG\], namely $G_v\cong(T^k.(\Out(T)\times\S_k))\cap G$, with $T$ a nonabelian simple group, $k\ge 2$ and $n=|T|^{k-1}$. The main result of this section is the following assertion.
\[part(d)\] Suppose $G_v$ satisfies part $(d)$ of Theorem $\ref{Max-SubG}$. Then $s\le 2$.
Lemma \[part(d)\] will be proved by a series of lemmas in which the following proposition of Liebeck, Praeger and Saxl (see [@LPS2000 P. 296, Corollary 5]) will be used. We remark there are two minor problems in Table 10.7 there, namely ‘$p\le c$’ in Row 1 should be ‘$p<c$’ (for if $p=c$ then $L\supseteq T$), and ‘$\ZZ_p:\ZZ_{p-1\over 2}$’ in Row 7 should be ‘$\ZZ_p:\ZZ_{p-1}$’.
\[Coro5\] Let $G$ be an almost simple group with socle $T$. Suppose that $L$ is a subgroup of $G$ such that $\pi(T)\subseteq \pi(L)$. Then either
- $T\subseteq L$; or
- the possibilities for $T$ and $L$ are given in Table $1$.
$$\begin{array}{llll} \hline
Row & T & L\cap T & Remark \\ \hline
1& \A_c & \A_l\lhd L\le\S_l\times\S_{c-l} & p~ prime, p<c\Rightarrow~ p\le l \\
2& \A_6 & \PSL(2,5) & \\
3& \PSp_{2m}(q)~(m,q~even) & L\rhd \Ome_{2m}^{-}(q) & \\
4& \POmega_{2m+1}(q)~(m~even,q~odd) & L\rhd \Ome_{2m}^{-}(q) & \\
5& \POmega_{2m}^+(q)~(m~even) & L\rhd\Ome_{2m-1}(q) & \\
6& \PSp_4(q) & L\rhd\PSp_2(q^2) & \\
7& \PSL_2(p)~(p=2^m-1) & L\le\ZZ_p:\ZZ_{p-1} & G=T.2 \\
8& \PSL_2(8)& 7.2, P_1 & G=T.3 \\
9& \PSL_3(3)& 13:3 & G=T.2 \\
10& \PSL_6(2) & P_1, P_5, \PSL_5(2) & \\
11& \PSU_3(3) & \PSL_2(7) & \\
12& \PSU_3(5) & \A_7 & \\
13& \PSU_4(2) & L\le 2^4.\A_5~ or~\S_6 & \\
14& \PSU_4(3) & \PSL_3(4),\A_7 & \\
15& \PSU_5(2) & \PSL_2(11) & \\
16& \PSU_6(2) & \M_{22} & \\
17& \PSp_4(7) & \A_7 & \\
18& \Sp_4(8) & ^2B_2(8) & G=T.3 \\
19& \Sp_6(2) & \S_8,\A_8,\S_7,\A_7 & \\
20& \POmega_8^+(2) & L\le P_i~(i=1,3,4), \A_9 & \\
21& G_2(3) & \PSL_2(13) & \\
22& ^2F_4(2)' & \PSL_2(25) & \\
23& \M_{11} & \PSL_2(11) & \\
24& \M_{12} & \M_{11}, \PSL_2(11) & \\
25 & \M_{24} & \M_{23} & \\
26 & HS & \M_{22} & \\
27 & McL & \M_{22} & \\
28 & Co_2 & \M_{23} & \\
29 & Co_3 & \M_{23} & \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Let $M$ be a normal subgroup of $G_v$ isomorphic to $T^k.\Out(T)$. Set $\ov{G_v}=G_vM/M$, $\ov{G_{uv}}=G_{uv}M/M$ and $\ov{G_{vw}}=G_{vw}M/M$. Then $\A_k\le\ov {G_v}\le\S_k$.
\[part-d\] If $\Ga$ is $(G,2)$-arc-transitive, then $($interchange $\ov{G_{uv}}$ and $\ov{G_{vw}}$ if necessary$)$ $\ov{G_{uv}}\le\S_k$ is transitive and $\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)=\cdots=\phi_k(G_{uv}\cap M)$. Further, either $\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)\supseteq T$, or the couple $(T,\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M))$ $($as $(T,L)$ there$)$ satisfies Table $1$ of Proposition $\ref{Coro5}$, where $\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)$ denotes the projection of $G_{uv}\cap M$ on the $i$-component of $M$.
[*Proof. *]{}
Since $\Ga$ is $(G,2)$-arc-transitive, $G_v=G_{uv}G_{vw}$, and hence $\ov{G_v}={\ov{G_{uv}}}\hspace{1pt}{\ov{G_{vw}}}$. Noting that $\ov{G_v}\cong\A_k$ or $\S_k$, by [@GLX17 Lemma 2.3], at least one of $\ov{G_{uv}}$ or $\ov{G_{vw}}$, say $\ov{G_{uv}}$, is a transitive subgroup of $\S_k$. It then follows from Lemma \[Wreath-Factor\] that $\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)=\cdots=\phi_k(G_{uv}\cap M)$, and $\pi(T)\subseteq\pi(\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M))$. Now by Proposition \[Coro5\], the lemma follows.
The following lemma treats the case where $\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)$ contains $T$.
\[lem-1\] Assume $T\subseteq \phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)$. Then $s\le 2$.
[*Proof. *]{}
Suppose on the contrary $s\ge 3$. By Lemma \[part-d\], we may assume that $\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)=\dots=\phi_k(G_{uv}\cap M)=T.o$ with $o\le\Out(T)$, and $\ov{G_{uv}}\le\S_k$ is transitive. It follows that $G_{uv}\cap M$ has a unique insoluble composition factor $T$ with multiplicity, say $l$, dividing $k$.
We first prove $l=k$. If not, then $l\le {k\over 2}$ as $l\mid k$. It is known (or see [@LPS2000 P. 297, Corollary 6]) that there is a prime $r\ge 5$ such that $r\mid |T|$ but $r$ does not divide $|\Out(T)|$. So $|G_{uv}\cap M|_r=|T|_r^l\le |T|_r^{k/2}$, and hence $$\val(\Ga)_r={|G_v|_r\over |G_{uv}|_r}\ge{|G_v|_r\over |G_{uv}\cap M|_r|\S_k|_r}
\ge {|T|_r^k(k!)_r\over |T|_r^{k/2}(k!)_r}=|T|_r^{k/2}.$$ Since $s\ge 3$, by Lemma \[s-ArcT\], $\val(\Ga)_r^3\le |G_v|_r$, it follows $|T|_r^{3k/2}\le |T|_r^k(k!)_r$. However, as $(k!)_r<r^{k\over r-1}$ by Lemma \[p-part\], we conclude $|T|_r^{k/2}<r^{k\over r-1}$, which is a contradiction as $r\ge 5$.
Thus $l=k$. Consequently, $G_{uv}\cap M$ contains $\soc(G_v)\cong T^k$. Since $\ov{G_{uv}}$ is transitive, we further conclude $\soc(G_v)$ is the unique minimal normal subgroup of $G_{uv}$, namely $\soc(G_{uv})=\soc(G_v)$. Since $G_{uv}\cong G_{vw}$, $N:=\soc(G_{vw})\cong T^k$ is the unique minimal normal subgroup of $G_{vw}$. Clearly, $N\cap \soc(G_v)\lhd G_{vw}$, by the minimality of $N$, either $N\cap \soc(G_v)=1$ or $N=\soc(G_v)$. For the former case, we have $$N=N/(N\cap \soc(G_v))\cong \soc(G_v)N/\soc(G_v)\le G_v/\soc(G_v)\le\Out(T)\times\S_k.$$ By Lemma \[p-part\], we obtain $|T|_r^k=|N|_r<(k!)_r<r^{k\over r-1}$, a contradiction. Therefore, $\soc(G_{vw})=\soc(G_v)=\soc(G_{uv})$. It follows $$\soc(G_v)^g=\soc(G_{uv})^g=\soc(G_{uv}^g)=\soc(G_{vw})=\soc(G_v),$$ so $\soc(G_v)$ is normal in $\l G_v,g\r=G$, that is, $G_v$ contains a nontrivial normal subgroup of $G$, it is a contradiction.
To treat the candidates in Table 1, we first prove two lemmas.
\[s=2\] Suppose $\Ga$ is $(G,2)$-arc-transitive. Then for each prime $r$, we have $$|T|_r<r|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r^2.$$
[*Proof. *]{}
Suppose $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r=r^l$ and $G\cong\A_n.o$ with $o\le\ZZ_2$. Then $G_v\cong T^k.(\Out(T)\times(\A_k.o))$ and $G_{uv}/(G_{uv}\cap M)\cong\A_k.o$, so $$|G_{uv}|_r\le |G_{uv}\cap M|_r|\A_k.o|_r\le |\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r^k|\A_k.o|_r=r^{kl}({k!\over 2})_r|o|_r.$$ Since $\Ga$ is $(G,2)$-arc-transitive, $G_v=G_{uv}G_{vw}$, we obtain $$|T|_r^k|\Out(T)|_r({k!\over 2})_r|o|_r=|G_v|_r\le |G_{uv}|_r^2\le r^{2kl}({k!\over 2})_r^2|o|_r^2.$$ By Lemma \[p-part\], it follows $|T|_r^k\le r^{2kl}(k!)_r<r^{2kl+{k\over r-1}}$ , hence $|T|_r<r^{2l+{1\over r-1}}<r^{2l+1}$, the lemma follows.
\[s=3\] Suppose $\Ga$ is $(G,3)$-arc-transitive. Then for each prime $r$, we have $$|T|_r^{2k}<r^{k\over r-1}|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r^{3k}|\Out(T)|_r.$$
[*Proof. *]{}
Suppose $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r=r^l$ and $G\cong\A_n.o$ with $o\le\ZZ_2$. Then by the proof of Lemma \[s=2\], $|G_{uv}|_r\le r^{kl}({k!\over 2})_r|o|_r$, and since $\val(\Ga)=|G_v:G_{uv}|$, we obtain $$\val(\Ga)_r={|G_v|_r\over |G_{uv}|_r}
\ge {|T|_r^k|\Out(T)|_r({k!\over 2})_r|o|_r\over r^{kl}({k!\over 2})_r|o|_r}\ge{|T|_r^k\over r^{kl}}.$$ Since $\Ga$ is $(G,3)$-arc-transitive, by Lemma \[s-ArcT\], $\val(\Ga)^3\mid |G_v|$. It follows $|T|_r^{3k}$ divides $r^{3kl}|T|_r^k|\Out(T)|_r(k!)_r$, then the lemma follows by Lemma \[p-part\].
We now analyse the candidates in Table 1 by the following two lemmas. The proofs need many information of the orders and the outer automorphism groups of simple groups, for those we refer to [@LPS90 P. 18–20].
\[Cand-1\] Suppose $G_v$ satisfies Row $l$ of Table $1$, where $l\in\{7,9,11,12,14-18,21,22,$ $26-29\}$. Then $s=1$.
[*Proof. *]{}
Suppose on the contrary, $s\ge 2$. We divided the proof into two cases.
0.1in Then $T=\PSL_2(p)$ with $p=2^m-1$ a Mesenna prime, and $\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)\le\ZZ_p:\ZZ_{p-1}$. It follows $|T|_2=2^m$ and $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_2\le 2$. By Lemma \[s=2\], we obtain $2^m<2^3$, so $m\le 2$ and $T$ is soluble, a contradiction.
0.1in Then the simple groups $T$ are specific with no parameter, and either $\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)\cap T$ or $\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)$ is given in Table 1. Since $\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)/(\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)\cap T)\le \Out(T)$, we have $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r\le |\Out(T)|_r|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)\cap T|_r$. Then a direct computation shows that the triple $(|T|_r,|\Out(T)|,|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r)$ for some prime $r$ lies in Table 2 (we remark that in Row 16 of Table 1, $\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)\le \M_{22}:\ZZ_2$ by Atlas [@Atlas], so $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_3=3^2$). For each row in Table 2, we always have $|T|_r\ge r|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r^2$, by Lemma \[s=2\], it is a contradiction.
$$\begin{array}{llllll} \hline
l & T & |T|_r & |\Out(T)| & |\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r & r \\ \hline
9 & \PSL_3(3) & 3^3 & 2 & 3 & 3 \\
11 & \PSU_3(3) & 3^3 & 2 & 3 & 3 \\
12 & \PSU_3(5) & 5^3 & 6 & 5 & 5 \\
14 & \PSU_4(3) & 3^6 & 8 & 3^2 & 3 \\
15 & \PSU_5(2) & 3^5 & 2 & 3 & 3 \\
16 & \PSU_6(2) & 3^6 & 6 & 3^2 & 3 \\
17 & \PSp_4(7) & 7^4 & 2 & 7 & 7 \\
18 & \Sp_4(8) & 3^4 & 6 & 3 & 3 \\
21 & G_2(3) & 3^6 & 3 & \le 3^2 & 3 \\
22 & {^2F_4(2)'} & 3^3 & 2 & 3 & 3 \\
26 & HS & 5^3 & 2 & 5 & 5 \\
27 & McL & 3^6 & 2 & 3^2 & 3 \\
28 & Co_2 & 3^6 & 1 & 3^2 & 3 \\
29 & Co_3 & 3^7 & 1 & 3^2 & 3 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
\[Cand-2\] Suppose $G_v$ satisfies Row $l$ of Table $1$ with $l\in\{{1-6},8,10,13,19,20,23-25\}$. Then $s\le 2$.
[*Proof. *]{}
Suppose on the contrary, $s\ge 3$. We investigate each row in Lemma \[Cand-2\] in the following.
0.1in Then $T=\A_c$ and $\A_l\lhd \phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)\le \S_l\times\S_{c-l}$, where $5\le l<c$, $c$ is not a prime and $l$ is greater than or equal to the largest prime less than $c$.
If $c=6$, then $l=5$, so $|T|_3=3^2$, $|\Out(T)|_3=1$ and $|\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)|_3=3$. It follows $|T|_3^{2k}=3^{4k}>3^{k/2}|\Out(T)|_3|\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)|_3^{3k}$, contradicting Lemma \[s=3\].
Thus assume $c>6$ in the following. By Lemma \[part-d\], we may suppose ${\ov{G_{uv}}}\le\S_k$ is transitive, and hence $\phi_{i}(G_{uv}\cap M)=\phi_j(G_{uv}\cap M)$ for all $1\le i,j\le k$ by Lemma \[part-d\]. For each $(a_1,\dots,a_k)\in M$, since $G_v=G_{vw}G_{uv}$, we have $(a_1,\dots,a_k)=(b_1,\dots,b_k)\s(c_1,\dots,c_k)\t$, where $(b_1,\dots,b_k)\in G_{vw}\cap M$, $(c_1,\dots,c_k)\in G_{uv}\cap M$, and $\s,\t\in\S_k$. It follows $(a_1,\dots,a_k)=(b_1c_{1^\s},\dots,b_kc_{k^{\s}})\s\t$, and so $\s\t=1$ and $a_i=b_ic_{i^{\s}}$. Consequently, $\S_c=\Aut(\A_c)\cong\phi_i(M)=\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)$ because $c_{i^{\s}}\in \phi_{i^{\s}}(G_{uv}\cap M)=\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)$. Now by [@LPS90 P. 9, Corollary 5], one of the following holds:
- $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)\supseteq T$.
- $1\le c-l\le 5$ and $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ is $(c-l)$-homogeneous on $c$ points.
Moreover, since $\A_l\lhd \phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)\le \S_l\times\S_{c-l}$ and ${\ov{G_{uv}}}\le\S_k$ is transitive, we obtain that either the minimal normal subgroups of $G_{uv}$ (so of $G_{vw}$ as $G_{uv}\cong G_{vw}$) are isomorphic to $\A_l^h$ if $\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)\le \S_l$, or isomorphic to $\A_l^h$ and $S^h$ if $\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)$ is not contained in $\S_l$, where $h\le k$ and $S\le\S_{c-l}$.
For case (i), $G_{vw}$ has a minimal normal simple group isomorphic to $\A_c^t$ for some $t\le k$, which is a contradiction.
Consider case (ii). Assume first $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ is almost simple for some $i$, say with socle $Q$. Then $G_{vw}$ has a minimal normal subgroup isomorphic to $Q^m$ for some $m\le k$, so is $G_{uv}$. By the above assertion regarding the minimal normal subgroups of $G_{uv}$, we obtain that either $Q\cong\A_5$ and $c-l=5$ or $Q\cong\A_l$. For the former case, $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)\le\S_5$ is $5$-homogeneous on $c$ points, a contradiction. For the latter case, if $n-l=1$, then $\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)$ and $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ are almost simple with the socles both isomorphic to $\A_l$, one easily deduces from Lemma \[AS-Factori\] that $c=6$ and $l=5$, also a contradiction. If $n-l\ge 2$, as $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ is almost simple with socle $\A_l$ and is $(n-l)$-homogeneous on $c$ points with $c>l$, by the classification of 2-homogeneous permutation groups which are not 2-transitive (refer to [@Li-book Section 6.2]), we obtain that $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ is $2$-transitive. It then follows from [@Cameron Theorem 5.3(S)] that $(c,l)=(6,5)$ or $(15,7)$. The former contradicts to the assumption $c>6$, and the latter contradicts to $c-l\le 5$, yielding a contradiction.
Assume now $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ is not almost simple for each $i=1,2,\dots,k$. If $c-l=1$, then $\A_l\le\phi_i(G_{uv}\cap M)\le\S_{l}$ and the minimal normal subgroups of $G_{uv}$ and $G_{vw}$ are isomorphic to $\A_l^h$ with $h\le k$, it leads to that there is $i$ such that $\A_l\le \phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)\le \S_c=\S_{l+1}$, which is impossible as $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ is not almost simple. Suppose $c-l\ge 2$. Then $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ is $2$-homogeneous on $c$ points, since it is not almost simple, we conclude that $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ is of affine type, namely $\soc(\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M))\cong\ZZ_p^d$ with $p$ a prime and $c=p^d$. It follows that $G_{vw}$ and so $G_{uv}$ has a minimal normal subgroup isomorphic to $(\ZZ_p^{d})^m$ for some positive integer $m$. However, by the above assertion of the minimal normal subgroups of $G_{uv}$, we have $\ZZ_p^d\le\S_{c-l}$. As $c-l\le 5$, we have $c=p^d\le 5$, again a contradiction.
0.1in Since $\PSL_2(5)\cong\A_5$, the above discussion with $c=6$ draws a contradiction.
0.1in Then $|T|=|\PSp_{2m}(q)|=q^{m^2}\prod_{i=1}^m(q^{2i}-1)$ with $m,q$ even. Set $q=2^e$. Assume $em\ne 6$. By Lemma \[Zsigmondy\], $2^{em}-1=q^{m}-1$ has a primitive prime divisor, say $r$, with $r>em$. Suppose $|q^{m}-1|_r=r^l$. Notice that $r$ does not divide $q^{i}-1$ and $q^{m+i}-1$ (as $q^{m+i}-1=q^m(q^i-1)+(q^m-1)$) for each $1\le i\le m-1$. we have $|T|_r=|(q^m-1)(q^{2m}-1)|_r=r^{2l}$. Since $\Omega_{2m}^-(q)\lhd\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)$, $|\Omega_{2m}^-(q)|={1\over 2}q^{m(m-1)}(q^m+1)\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}(q^{2i}-1)$ and $r>em$, we conclude $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r=|q^m-1|_r=r^l$. As $q$ is even, $|\Out(T)|=e$ if $m\ge 3$, and $|\Out(T)|=2e$ if $m=2$ (see [@LPS90 P.18]), so $r$ does not divide $|\Out(T)|$. It then follows from Lemma \[s=3\] that $r^{4kl}<r^{3kl+{k\over r-1}}$, a contradiction.
Assume now $em=6$. Since $m$ is even, $(q,m)=(2,6)$ or $(2^3,2)$, and $T=\PSp_{12}(2)$ or $\PSp_4(8)$ respectively. For both cases, we have $|T|_7=7^2$, $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_7=7$, and $|\Out(T)|=1$ if $m=6$ and $|\Out(T)|=6$ if $m=2$. By Lemma \[s=3\], we obtain $7^{4k}<7^{3k+{k\over 6}}$, also a contradiction.
0.1in Then $|T|=|\POmega_{2m+1}(q)|={1\over 2}q^{m^2}\prod_{i=1}^m(q^{2i}-1)$, with $m$ even and $q=p^e$ an odd prime power.
If $(p,e,m)=(2^t-1,1,2)$ for some $t$, then one easily deduces that $|T|_p=p^4$, $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_p=p^2$. Since $\Out(T)=\ZZ_2$ in the case, by Lemma \[s=3\], we have $p^{8k}<p^{6k+{k\over p-1}}$, a contradiction.
Suppose $(p,e,m)\ne(2^t-1,1,2)$. By Lemma \[Zsigmondy\], $p^{em}-1=q^{m}-1$ has a primitive prime divisor $r>em$. Then with similarly discussion as in the proof of , we have $|T|_r=(q^m-1)_r^2$, $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r=(q^m-1)_r$ and $(r,|\Out(T)|)=(r,2e)=1$. It follows from Lemma \[s=3\] that $(q^m-1)_r^{2k}<(q^m-1)_r^kr^{k\over r-1}$, also a contradiction.
0.1in Then $|T|=|\POmega_{2m}^+(q)|={1\over (4,q^m-1)} q^{m(m-1)}(q^m-1)\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}(q^{2i}-1)$, with $m$ even. Suppose $q=p^e$ with $p$ a prime.
Assume first $(p,em)\ne (2,6)$. By Lemma \[Zsigmondy\], $p^{em}-1=q^{m}-1$ has a primitive prime divisor $r>em$. Set $|q^{m}-1|_r=r^l$. Since $q^{m+i}-1=q^m(q^i-1)+(q^m-1)$, we have $r$ does not divide $q^{i}-1$ and $q^{m+i}-1$ for each $1\le i\le m-1$. Then, as $m$ is even, it turns out $|T|_r=|(q^m-1)^2|_r=r^{2l}$. Since $|\Ome_{2m-1}(q)|={1\over 2}q^{(m-1)^2}\prod_{i=1}^{m-1}(q^{2i}-1)$ and $r>em$, we have $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r=(q^m-1)_r=r^l$. Notice that $|\Out(T)|$ divides $24e$, $(r,|\Out(T)|)=1$, then Lemma \[s=3\] implies $r^{4kl}<r^{3kl+{k\over r-1}}$, a contradiction.
Now consider the case $(p,em)=(2,6)$. Since $m$ is even, we have $(m,q)=(2,8)$ or $(6,2)$, and so $T=\POmega_4^+(8)$ or $\POmega_{12}^+(2)$ respectively. In particular, $|T|_7=7^2$ and $|\Out(T)|_7=1$ for both cases. Since $\Omega_{2m-1}(q)\lhd \phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)$ and $(m,q)=(2,8)$ or $(6,2)$, one easily computes out $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_7=7$. Then Lemma \[s=3\] leads to $7^{4k}<7^{3k+{k\over 6}}$, also a contradiction.
0.1in Then $|T|=|\PSp_4(q)|={1\over (2,q-1)}q^4(q^2-1)(q^4-1)$ and $|\Out(T)|=2e$, where $q=p^e$ is a prime power. Since $\PSp_2(q^2)\lhd \phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)$, we have $\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)\cap T\le \PSp_2(q^2).\ZZ_2$. It follows $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|$ divides $2|\PSp_2(q^2)||\Out(T)|$ and hence divides $4eq^2(q^4-1)$.
If $(p,e)=(2^t-1,1)$, then $|T|_p=p^4$, $\Out(T)=\ZZ_2$ and $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_p$ divides $p^2$, by Lemma \[s=3\], we have $p^{8k}<p^{6k+{k\over p-1}}$, a contradiction. Similarly, if $(p,e)=(2,3)$, then $|T|_7=7^2$, $|\Out(T)|=6$ and $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_7=7$, Lemma \[s=3\] implies $7^{4k}<7^{3k+{k\over 6}}$, also a contradiction.
Thus assume now $(p,e)\ne (2^s-1,1)$ and $(2,3)$. By Lemma \[Zsigmondy\], $p^{2e}-1$ has a primitive prime divisor $r>2e$. Set $(p^{2e}-1)_r=r^l$. Then $|T|_r=r^{2l}$, $(r,|\Out(T)|)=1$ and $|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r\le r^l$. It then follows from Lemma \[s=3\] that $r^{4kl}<r^{3kl+{k\over r-1}}$, again a contradiction.
0.1in With similar discussions as in the last paragraph of the proof of Lemma \[Cand-1\], it is routine to compute out that the triple $(|T|_r,|\Out(T)|,|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r)$ with $r$ a prime is listed in Table 3. For each row there, we always have $|T|_r^{2k}>r^{k\over r-1}|\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r^{3k}|\Out(T)|_r$, by Lemma \[s=3\], it is a contradiction.
$$\begin{array}{llllll} \hline
l & T & |T|_r & |\Out(T)| & |\phi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)|_r & r \\ \hline
8 & \PSL_2(8) & 3^2 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\
10 & \PSL_6(2) & 3^4 & 2 & 3^2 & 3 \\
13 & \PSU_4(2) & 3^4 & 2 & 3^2 & 3 \\
19 & \Sp_6(2) & 3^4 & 1 & 3^2 & 3 \\
20 & \POmega_8^+(2) & 2^{12} & 6 & \le 2^7 & 2 \\
23 & \M_{11} & 3^2 & 1 & 3 & 3 \\
24 & \M_{12} & 3^3 & 2 & \le 3^2 & 3 \\
25 & \M_{24} & 3^3 & 1 & 3^2 & 3 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Summarize Lemmas \[part-d\], \[lem-1\], \[Cand-1\] and \[Cand-2\], Lemma \[part(d)\] follows.
Subgroups $(b), (e)$ and $(f)$
==============================
Suppose Hypothesis \[Hypo\] holds. In this section, we treat the cases where $G_{v}$ satisfies parts (b), (e) and (f), and complete the proof of Theorem \[Thm-1\].
We first consider parts (b) and (e). For both cases, $G_v\cong(\S_m\wr\S_k)\cap G$, where $n=mk$, $m>1$ and $k>1$ for part (b), and $n=m^k$, $m\ge 5$ and $k>1$ for part (e). Let $M\cong\S_m^k$ be the base group of $\S_m\wr\S_k$.
\[part(b,e)\] Suppose $G_{v}$ satisfies parts $(b)$ or $(e)$ and $s\ge 2$. Then one of the following statements holds, where $\phi_i(G_{\a\b}\cap M)$ denotes the projection of $G_{\a\b}\cap M$ on the $i$-component of $M$, and $(\a,\b)=(u,v)$ or $(v,w)$.
- $\A_m\lhd \phi_i(G_{\a\b}\cap M)$ for $i=1,2,\dots,k$.
- $\A_l\le\phi_i(G_{\a\b}\cap M)\le\S_l\times\S_{m-l}$, where $m$ is not a prime, $p\le l<m$ with $p$ the maximal prime less than $m$, and $i=1,2,\dots,k$.
[*Proof. *]{}
Set $\ov{G_v}=G_vM/M$, $\ov{G_{uv}}=G_{uv}M/M$ and $\overline{G_{vw}}=G_{vw}M/M$. Since $s\ge 2$, $G_v=G_{uv}G_{vw}$, so $\overline{G_v}={\overline{G_{uv}}}\hspace{1pt}{\overline{G_{vw}}}$. By [@GLX17 Lemma 2.3], $\ov{G_{\a\b}}$ is a transitive subgroup of $\S_k$, where $(\a,\b)=(u,v)$ or $(v,w)$. Then Lemma \[Wreath-Factor\] implies $\phi_1(G_{\a\b}\cap M)=\cdots=\phi_k(G_{\a\b}\cap M)$, and $\pi(\A_m)\subseteq\pi(\phi_i(G_{\a\b}\cap M))$ for each $i=1,2,\dots,k$.
If $m\ge 5$, by [@LPS2000 Theorem 4(ii)], $\phi_i(G_{\a\b}\cap M)$ satisfies part (i) or (ii). If $2\le m\le 4$, since $\pi(\A_m)\subseteq\pi(\phi_i(G_{\a\b}\cap M))$ and $\phi_i(G_{\a\b}\cap M)\le\S_m$, it is easy to see that $\phi_i(G_{\a\b}\cap M)\rhd \A_m$ for $m=2$ and $3$, and $\phi_i(G_{\a\b}\cap M)\rhd\A_4$ or equals to $\S_3$ for $m=4$, that is, $\phi_i(G_{\a\b}\cap M)$ also satisfies part (i) or (ii).
For a set $\Ome$, if $\Del_1,\dots,\Del_k$ are its subsets with equal size $m$, such that $\Ome$ is the disjoint union of $\Del_1,\dots,\Del_k$, then we call $(\Del_1,\dots,\Del_k)$ is a $m$-[*homogeneous partition*]{} of $\Ome$.
\[part-b\] Suppose $G_v$ satisfies part $(b)$ of Theorem $\ref{Max-SubG}$. Then $s\le 2$.
[*Proof. *]{}
Then $G_v\cong(\S_m\wr\S_k)\cap G$ with $n=mk$, $m>1$ and $k>1$. Suppose for a contradiction that $s\ge 3$. By Lemma \[part(b,e)\], without loss of generality, we may assume $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ satisfies part (i) or (ii) of Lemma \[part(b,e)\].
First suppose case (i) occurs. Then $\A_m\lhd \pi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$. Notice that the action of $G$ on $V\Ga$ is permutation equivalent to the action of $G$ on the set of all $m$-homogeneous partitions of $\Ome$, we may set $v=(\Del_1,\dots,\Del_k)$, a $m$-homogeneous partition of $\Ome$. Then $u=v^{g^{-1}}=(\Del_1^{g^{-1}},\dots,\Del_k^{g^{-1}})$. Since $u\ne v$, without loss of generality, we may suppose $\Del_1\ne\Del_1^{g^{-1}}$, so $q:=|\Del_1\cap\Del_1^{g^{-1}}|<m$. Since $\pi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)\le\S_m$ fixes both $\Del_1^{g^{-1}}$ and $\Del_1$, we have $\pi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)\le\S_q\times\S_{m-q}$, which contradicts $\A_m\lhd \pi_1(G_{uv}\cap M)$.
Suppose now case (ii) occurs. In this case, with almost the same discussions as in the proof of Case of Lemma \[Cand-2\], one may have a contradiction.
\[part(e)\] Suppose $G_v$ satisfies part $(e)$ of Theorem $\ref{Max-SubG}$. Then $s\le 2$.
[*Proof. *]{}
By assumption, $G_v\cong(\S_m\wr\S_k)\cap G$, with $n=m^k$, $m\ge 5$ and $k>1$. Suppose on the contrary that $s\ge 3$. By Lemma \[part(b,e)\], we may assume $\phi_i(G_{vw}\cap M)$ satisfies part (i) or (ii) of Lemma \[part(b,e)\].
For case (i), since $m\ge 5$, $\A_m$ is nonabelian simple. Notice that in this case the arguments in the proof of Lemma \[lem-1\] are efficient, then one may have that $G_v$ has a subgroup $\soc(G_v)\cong\A_m^k$ which is normal in $G$, a contradiction. For the case (ii), with similar discussions as in the proof of case of Lemma \[Cand-2\], one may has a contradiction.
We finally consider part $(f)$.
\[part(f)\] Suppose $G_v$ satisfies part $(f)$ of Theorem $\ref{Max-SubG}$. Then $(\soc(G_v),\soc(G_{uv}))=(P\Omega_8^+(q),\Omega_7(q))$ with $q$ an odd prime power and $s\le 2$.
[*Proof. *]{}
By assumption, $G_v$ is almost simple, then by [@GLX17 Corollary 3.4], we have $s\le 2$. Set $T=\soc(G_v)$. Since $G_v=G_{uv}G_{uv}^g$, by Lemma \[AS-Factori\], $(T,\soc(G_{uv}))=(\A_6,\A_5)$, $(\M_{12},\M_{11})$, $(\Sp_4(2^f),\Sp_2(4^f))$ with $f\ge 2$, or $(P\Omega_8^+(q),\Omega_7(q))$.
Suppose $T\cong\A_6$. Since $G_v$ is maximal in $G$, we have $n=7$ or $8$. If $n=7$, then $(G,G_v)=(\A_7,\A_6)$ or $(\S_7,\S_6)$, so $G$ is 2-transitive on $V\Ga$, and hence $\Ga\cong\K_7$ is an undirected complete graph, a contradiction. If $n=8$, then $(G,G_v)=(\A_8,\S_6)$, and the action of $G$ on $V\Ga$ is permutation equivalent to the action of $G$ on $\Omega^{\{2\}}$, the set of $2$-subsets of $\Ome$. It easily follows (or see [@DM TABLE B.2]) that $G$ is of rank 3 and the two nontrivial orbits are with length $12$ and $15$, so $\Ga$ is undirected, a contradiction.
Suppose $G_v\cong\M_{12}$. Since $G_v$ is maximal in $G$, we have $n=12$, and $G\cong\A_{12}$ is 2-transitive on $V\Ga$, hence $\Ga=\K_{12}$ is an undirected complete graph, a contradiction.
If $T\cong\Sp_4(2^f)$, by part (II)(B) of [@LPS87 T[HEOREM]{}], there is a subgroup $H\cong\S_m\wr\S_2$ with $m={1\over 2}q^2(q^2-1)$ such that $G_v<H<G$, so $G$ is not primitive on $V\Ga$, a contradiction. Similarly, if $T\cong P\Omega_8^+(q)$ with $q$ even, there is a subgroup $H$ with $\soc(H)\cong\Sp_8(q)$ such that $G_v<H<G$ by part (II)(B) of [@LPS87 T[HEOREM]{}], hence $G$ is not primitive on $V\Ga$, again a contradiction.
Now, we may complete the proof of Theorem \[Thm-1\].
0.1in [**Proof of Theorem \[Thm-1\].**]{} Since the full automorphism groups of the directed cycles are soluble, $\val(\Ga)\ne 1$. If $\val(\Ga)=2$, by [@Neumann Theorem 5], $\Aut\Ga$ is a dihedral group, a contradiction. Thus $\Ga$ is of valency at least three. Since $G_v$ with $v\in V\Ga$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$, $G_v$ satisfies one of parts (a)-(f) of Theorem \[Max-SubG\]. If $G_v$ satisfies parts (a) and (c), by Lemmas \[part-a\] and \[part-c\], we have $s=1$. If $G_v$ satisfies parts (b), (d), (e) and (f), by Lemmas \[part-b\], \[part(d)\], \[part(e)\] and \[part(f)\], we have $s\le 2$. This completes the proof of Theorem \[Thm-1\].
[99]{}
W. Bosma, J. Cannon, C. Playoust, The MAGMA algebra system I: The user language, [*J. Symbolic Comput.*]{} **24** (1997), 235–265.
N. Blackburn, B. Huppert, Finite Groups $II$, Springer-verlag, New York, 1982.
P. J. Cameron, Finite permutation groups and finite simple groups, [*Bull. London Math. Soc.*]{} [**13**]{} (1981), 1-22.
P. J. Cameron, C. E. Praefer, N. C. Wormald, Infinite highly arc-transitive digraphs and universal covering digraphs, [*Combinarorica*]{} [**13**]{} (1993), no. 4, 377–396.
M. Conder, P. Lorimer, C. E. Praeger, Constructions for arc-transitive digraphs, [*J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A*]{} [**59**]{} (1995), no. 1, 61–80.
J. H. Conway, R. T. Curtis, S. P. Noton, R. A. Parker and R. A. Wilson, [*Atlas of Finite Groups*]{}, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1985.
. D. Dixon, B. Mortimer, Permutation groups, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1997.
D. M. Evans, An infinite highly arc-transitive digraphs, [*Europ. J. Combin.*]{} [**18**]{} (1997), no. 3, 281–286.
M. Giudici, C. H. Li, B. Z. Xia, An infinite family of vertex-primitive $2$-arc-transitive digraphs, [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. B*]{} [**17**]{} (2017), 1–13.
M. Giudici, C. H. Li, B. Z. Xia, Vertex-primitive $s$-arc-transitive digraphs of linear groups, arXiv:1710.09518v1.
M. Giudici, B. Xia, Vertex-quasiprimitive 2-arc-transitive digraphs, [*Ars Math. Contemp.*]{} [**14**]{} (2018), no. 1, 67–82.
C. H. Li, Permutation groups and symmetrical graphs, The University of Western Australia, 2014.
M. W. Liebeck, C. E. Praeger, J. Saxl, A Classification of the Maximal Subgroups of the Finite Alternating and Symmetric Groups, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**111**]{} (1987), 365–383.
M. W. Liebeck, C. E. Praeger, J. Saxl, The maximal facorizations of the finite simple groups and their automorphism groups, [*Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**86**]{} (1990), Volume 86, Number 432.
M. W. Liebeck, C. E. Praeger, J. Saxl, Transitive subgroups of primitive permutation groups, [*J. Algebra*]{} [**234**]{} (2000), 291–361.
A. Malnič, D. Marušič, N. Seifter, B. Zgrabli' c, Highly arc-transitive digraphs with no homomorphism onto $Z$, [*Combinatorica*]{} [**22**]{} (2002), 435–443.
P. M. Neumann, Finite permutation groups, edge-coloured graphs and matrices, [*Topics in group theroy and computation*]{} (Proc. Summer School, University College, Galway, 1973), pp. 82–118, Academic Press, London, 1977.
C. E. Praeger, Highly arc-transitive digraphs, [*Europ. J. Combin.*]{} [**10**]{} (1989), no. 3, 281–292.
C. E. Praeger, Finite primitive permutation groups: a survey, [*Groups-Canberra 1989*]{}, 63–84, Lecture Notes in Math. 1456, Springer, Berlin, 1990.
R. Weiss, The nonexistence of $8$-transitive graphs, [*Combinatorica*]{} [**1**]{} (1981), no. 3, 309–311.
[^1]: 1991 MR Subject Classification 20B15, 20B30, 05C25.
[^2]: This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (11461007, 11231008).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'V.C. Geers'
- 'K.M. Pontoppidan'
- 'E.F. van Dishoeck'
- 'C.P. Dullemond'
- 'J.-C. Augereau'
- 'B. Merín'
- 'I. Oliveira'
- 'J. W. Pel'
date: 'Received 22 March 2007; Accepted 28 April 2007'
title: 'Spatial separation of small and large grains in the transitional disk around the young star IRS 48[^1]'
---
Introduction
============
The number of circumstellar dust disks detected around young stars has increased dramatically over the last decades thanks to a variety of ground- and space-based observations. Studies of the Spectral Energy Distributions (SEDs) of young stellar objects at various ages indicate how these disks evolve from optically thick, massive gas-rich disks to the more optically thin, tenuous gas-poor disks by a combination of gas accretion, grain growth, planet formation and photo-evaporation of the gas.
Only very few spatially resolved mid-infrared images have been presented. Some tenuous disks around 5-15 Myr stars show evidence for gap formation and spiral arm structures [e.g. @jay98; @aug99; @liu04], and this has been interpreted as evidence for the presence of forming planets clearing out a ring of dust and gas. For younger disks around $\sim 1$Myr old stars, there is still very little direct evidence for the formation of gaps [@fuj06].
An obvious step toward the formation of planetesimals in disks is the coagulation and growth of the sub-micron sized grains accreted from the proto-stellar envelope [@dom07]. Although the end results are plainly visible in our own planetary system, as well as in the emerging wealth of exo-solar planets, the details and mechanisms of dust evolution in proto-planetary disks are not well understood. Very strong grain growth may lower the dust opacity enough to form an apparent gap in the disk at mid-infrared wavelengths, similar to those attributed to dust clearing by planets [@dal05; @tan05]. A wide range of recent observational results indeed suggest that significant grain growth is a common occurence in disks [e.g. @boe05; @kes06; @nat07].
However, some observations complicate this picture. A subset of protoplanetary disks shows strong emission features from extremely small grains – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) [@ack04; @gee06], even in disks with apparent gaps. How do these disks fit into the general picture of grain evolution? Are they evidence of grain size segregation, leaving only the small grains in the upper layers of the disk? Is gas still present in these regions?
In this letter, we present one of the first spatially resolved mid-infrared images and spectroscopy of a disk around a young (few Myr) star with a rising mid-IR SED, IRS 48 in Ophiuchus [@wil89] (catalogued as WLY 2-48, 16 27 37.19, -24 30 35.0 J2000), which is no longer surrounded by an envelope. This source shows exceptionally strong PAH emission at 3.3 and 7.7–12.3[$\mu$m]{} in the inner part of the disk [*as well as an apparent inner gap seen at 18.7$\mu$m*]{}. We will discuss the origin of the 18.7$\mu$m gap in the context of the PAH images which show that the gap is not [*cleared*]{} of material.
Observations of and data reduction {#sec:obs}
==================================
![VISIR images of IRS 48, with PSF standard shown in inserts; the crosshair indicates the center of the emission at 8.6 $\mu$m. All images up to 12[$\mu$m]{} are dominated by PAH emission. The 11.9[$\mu$m]{} image (not shown) is similar to that at 11.3[$\mu$m]{}. The contours are indicated for 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 (8.6[$\mu$m]{}), 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 (9.0[$\mu$m]{}), 3, 6, 9, 12 (11.3[$\mu$m]{}) and 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 (18.7[$\mu$m]{}) Jy arcsec$^{-2}$. []{data-label="fig:visirimages"}](7524fg1.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Images were obtained with VISIR on the Very Large Telescope in 5 mid-infrared bands at 8.6, 9.0, 11.3, 11.9 and 18.7[$\mu$m]{} on June 9, 2005 (Fig. \[fig:visirimages\]).
![VLT-VISIR N-band spectrum of . Spectral width of transmission curves of VISIR image filters are indicated.[]{data-label="fig:visirspec"}](7524fg2.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
VISIR N-band spectroscopy was taken on June 12, 2005, in the low resolution settings at 8.8, 9.8, 11.4 and 12.2[$\mu$m]{}, with a typical resolving power of $\lambda/\Delta\lambda \sim 300$ (Fig. \[fig:visirspec\]). The telescope was operated using a standard chop-nod scheme with chop-throws of 10$''$. The data were reduced using a combination of the ESO pipeline (v.1.3.7) and our own IDL routines.
A WYFFOS optical spectrum was obtained at the William Herschel Telescope (WHT) on La Palma on May 4, 2006, with a resolving power of $R \sim 1600$ (Fig. \[fig:opt\]). It indicates a M0 spectral type ($T_{\rm eff}$ = 3800 K) with an error of less than 2 spectral subtypes. $A_v$ = 7 $\pm$ 1 mag is derived from the optical spectrum as in Oliveira et al. (in prep.). H$\alpha$ is detected with an Equivalent Width (EW) of 5.9 Å, which classifies as a weak-line T Tauri star. Our derived spectral type is much later than that of @luh99, who found it to be earlier than F3 based on a K-band spectrum (taken sometime between July 1994 and June 1996). This discrepancy remains to be understood and will be discussed in §\[ssec:fuori\].
![WHT-WYFFOS optical spectrum of IRS 48. The inset shows a blow-up of the H$\alpha$ line.[]{data-label="fig:opt"}](7524fg3.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Photometry used to construct the SED (Fig. \[fig:sed\]) includes NOMAD [@zac04], USNO-B [@mon03], 2MASS [@skr06], ISOCAM [@bon01], Spitzer Space Telescope IRAC and MIPS (3.6, 4.5, 5.8, 8.0, 24, 70[$\mu$m]{}) from the c2d legacy program database [@eva03] and IRAM 1.3 mm [@and94].
Results
=======
The circumstellar disk is spatially resolved in all 5 VISIR images, shown in Fig. \[fig:visirimages\]. An extent of 1.2–1.9$''$ is derived along the semi-major axis, corresponding to 150–230 AU diameter; the actual extent increases with wavelength. @duc05 measured a proper motion consistent with the surrounding Oph sources placing firmly at a distance of 125 pc [@geu89]. All 5 bands are resolved with respect to the standard star PSF along the east-west direction, showing elongated surface brightness profiles consistent with a circumstellar disk. We derive an inclination of $i=48\degr\pm8$ from the semi-major and minor axes of ellipsoidal contours fitted to the 18.7[$\mu$m]{} image, and a position angle of 98 $\pm$ 3 East of North.
The most striking result is that the 18.7[$\mu$m]{} Q-band image shows an asymmetry in the surface brightness and a gap in the center. We interpret the apparent shape as being due to an inclined ring-shaped disk. No point source is seen within this gap. Its diameter as measured from the inner edges of the ring along the semi-major axis equals 0.5$''$ or $\sim 60$ AU, corresponding to a gap with a radius of $\sim 30$ AU. In contrast, the PAH emission at 8.6 and 11.3[$\mu$m]{} is centrally peaked with resolved wings beyond a point-source, and it appears to originate from the apparent gap in the Q2 image. The center of the images shifts by $\sim 0.2''$, likely due to pointing error, as indicated by similar shifts in the standard star positions. The PAH off-band filters at 9.0 and 11.9[$\mu$m]{} both resemble the 8.6 and 11.3[$\mu$m]{} images respectively. Given the strength of the PAHs (see Fig. \[fig:visirspec\]), it is assumed that both off-band filters also probe PAH emission or very small grains.
The VISIR N-band spectrum (Fig. \[fig:visirspec\]) shows clear PAH features at 8.6, 10.8, 11.3, 11.9 and 12.5 $\mu$m. Our 11.3 $\mu$m line flux is $2.5\times 10^{-14}$ W m$^{-2}$. The PAH features around this M0 star are as strong as the strongest features observed around Herbig Ae/Be stars (Acke et al. 2004), and make it the latest type young star with detected PAHs. No silicate emission feature at 9.7[$\mu$m]{} is detected. A VLT-ISAAC L-band (2.8–4.2[$\mu$m]{}) spectrum, obtained as part of the ice survey by @dis03, taken on 2002, May 5 (sample and reduction described in @pon03), shows the presence of a strong 3.3[$\mu$m]{} PAH feature and the 4.05[$\mu$m]{} Br$\alpha$ line (included in Fig. \[fig:sed\]).
Discussion
==========
Gap in the disk
---------------
![The SED of based on the photometry listed in §\[sec:obs\]. Grey triangles are literature photometry, blue triangles are dereddened, with $A_{\mathrm{v}} = 7$; black solid lines are ISAAC L-band and VISIR N-band spectra; orange dotted lines show 3 blackbodies, at $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ = 4000 K (0.63 L$_{\odot}$) and 140 K, the latter scaled to 1.9 and 3.8 L$_{\odot}$. []{data-label="fig:sed"}](7524fg4.pdf){width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Gaps in disks around T Tauri stars have been inferred for a few sources (@cal05 [@aur06]; Brown et al. submitted) but entirely on the basis of the SED, not spatially resolved images such as presented here. The 18.7[$\mu$m]{} image suggests a gap with a radius of 30 AU in the dust disk. However, the PAH-band images show that this gap cannot be entirely devoid of small particles. The near-infrared excess at 1–3[$\mu$m]{} also suggests that some hot dust still exists in a small ring of material or a puffed-up inner rim in the inner few AU, i.e., the disk shows a gap and not a hole. Interestingly, the SED of (Fig. \[fig:sed\]) does not reveal the presence of a gap, possibly due to masking of the dip at $\sim 5$–15[$\mu$m]{} by the strong PAH features and other types of very small grains (VSGs) present in the gap. Quantum-heated PAHs and very small grains reach a much higher average temperature than thermal grains, radiating strongly in distinct PAH features and continuum at 5–15[$\mu$m]{}, while being weaker at 20[$\mu$m]{}.
Gaps in disks have been interpreted in the context of photo-evaporation of gas and small dust grains by the central star. This mechanism is excluded here since it should create a similar gap in the PAH filter images. Another way to make an apparent gap is to lower the dust opacity by grain growth, effectively removing the silicate dust particles responsible for the continuum emission between a few and $\sim 15$[$\mu$m]{}. Theoretical models show that grain growth occurs on short time scales, with the shortest growth times in the inner parts of the disk [@wei97; @dul05]. Furthermore, larger grains settle to the mid-plane faster than smaller grains, creating a strong size segregation in the vertical direction, which would explain the strong feature/continuum ratio of the PAH features (Dullemond et al. subm.). The lack of a significant silicate feature at 9.7[$\mu$m]{} supports the idea that in the inner disk most of the dust is in larger micron-sized grains. However, this scenario has difficulties explaining the presence of a sharply defined ring structure.
A third way of gap formation is by the clearing out of gas and dust by a planet forming inside the disk [e.g. @kla01] or a low-mass companion. Planets are expected to clear out larger ($>$100[$\mu$m]{}) grains much more rapidly than gas and small particles by tidal interaction and can cause sharp edges in images [@paa04; @qui04]. Particularly, @ric06 predict that larger dust grains are filtered out at the outer edge, presumably leading to a build-up of large dust grains and a clearly defined ring of material at the outer edge, while smaller grains (e.g. PAHs) continue to accrete inwards along with the gas, which would explain the continued presence of PAH emission in the gap. Interferometric observations at millimeter wavelengths to constrain the distribution of even larger (mm-sized) particles can further test these scenarios.
Source of central luminosity {#ssec:fuori}
----------------------------
The SED of is peculiar for several reasons. It shows a very strong bump at 25[$\mu$m]{} which appears to be consistent with a single temperature blackbody of $\sim 140$ K. This emission bump includes 18[$\mu$m]{} and should be associated with the “ring” seen in the Q2-band image. The apparent luminosity from the 25[$\mu$m]{} bump is $\sim 1.9$–3.8 L$_{\odot}$. If this ring is assumed to be the sole source of the bump and if we assume the ring to be an optically thick annulus with a covering fraction of at most 0.2 with respect to the star, it follows that the central source should have a luminosity of at least 10–20 L$_{\odot}$, which is more than 20 times stronger than expected for a 1 Myr M0 star.
External heating by nearby bright sources can be excluded from our own VISIR, Spitzer IRAC and ESO archive NACO images, as well as recent multiplicity surveys [@hai04]. The possibility of a close ($<$ 175 AU) binary with a higher mass early type star can be excluded for lack of spectral features associated with early type stars in our optical spectrum.
The most likely scenario is the presence of excess UV emission, which is absorbed by a local foreground layer of material, such as a strongly inclined disk with an inner rim that is puffed up due to temporary accretion events, or absorption by the flared outer disk. A fully edge-on disk is considered unlikely; it could produce the observed SED, but it would be inconsistent with the Q2-band image.
One example of excess luminosity is through accretion. This would require an accretion luminosity much larger than the star itself. No X-ray emission has been detected toward this object by Chandra nor XMM-Newton (Grosso, priv. comm.) and both H$\alpha$ and Pf$\beta$ are relatively weak, which argues against strong accretion.
An alternative explanation might be that this disk has recently undergone a FU Orionis outburst. During a major FU Ori-type accretion event, the temperature of the disk increases over a span of 1–10 years from a few hundred to a few thousand K, and will dominate the spectrum even for optical wavelengths [@har01]. The apparent spectral type can change by several types, from late K-M to F-G type. This may explain the discrepancy between the $<$F3 spectral type determination observed between 1994 and 1996 and the M0 type determination in 2006. Heating of the disk would help the PAHs in two ways: any PAHs trapped in ices would be evaporated boosting the PAH abundance and the PAHs could be thermally excited.
PAH feature strength
--------------------
is exceptional in its very prominent PAH features, both in strength and feature-over-continuum ratios, 100–1000 times stronger than recent model predictions for M0 stars [@gee06]. Comparing our measured 11.3[$\mu$m]{} line strength with their Fig. 9, we find that it would be consistent with the radiation field of a $\sim 6000$ K central star, in a disk model with a PAH abundance of 5$\times$10$^{-5}$ with respect to hydrogen, typical of the general interstellar medium but higher than inferred for disks. Assuming this abundance, the strong PAH features would be consistent with excess optical/UV luminosity at a level corresponding to several hundred times the average interstellar radiation field at a radius of 100 AU, which is consistent with recent optical/UV strengths of T Tauri stars inferred by @ber03.
The case of suggests that the combination of high feature-over-continuum PAH bands and the absence of silicate features together with a rising SED at $\lambda > 12$[$\mu$m]{} is also an indicator for the presence of gap formation through grain growth, which is not revealed in broadband SEDs. Mid-infrared spectroscopy and high-spatial resolution narrow-band imaging with 8-m class telescopes, combined with millimeter interferometric imaging, of a much larger sample of objects is crucial to determine whether is just a peculiar object or whether it forms part of a new class of transitional disks.
We thank A. Smette for crucial help in obtaining the VISIR data and N. Grosso for providing X-ray information. KMP is supported by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant 01201.01 awarded by the STScI, which is operated by the AURA, for NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555. Astrochemistry in Leiden is supported by a Spinoza grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
[35]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, B. & [van den Ancker]{}, M. E. 2004, , 426, 151
, P. & [Montmerle]{}, T. 1994, , 420, 837
, J. C., [Lagrange]{}, A. M., [Mouillet]{}, D., & [M[é]{}nard]{}, F. 1999, , 350, L51
, E., [Calvet]{}, N., [D’Alessio]{}, P., & [Herczeg]{}, G. J. 2003, , 591, L159
, S., [Andr[é]{}]{}, P., [Kaas]{}, A. A., [et al.]{} 2001, , 372, 173
, N., [D’Alessio]{}, P., [Watson]{}, D. M., [et al.]{} 2005, , 630, L185
, P., [Hartmann]{}, L., [Calvet]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2005, , 621, 461
, E. J., [de Zeeuw]{}, P. T., & [Lub]{}, J. 1989, , 216, 44
, C., [Blum]{}, J., [Cuzzi]{}, J. N., & [Wurm]{}, G. 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, University of Arizona Press, ed. B. [Reipurth]{}, D. [Jewitt]{}, & K. [Keil]{}, 783–800
, C., [Teixeira]{}, R., [P[é]{}ri[é]{}]{}, J. P., [et al.]{} 2005, , 438, 769
, C. P. & [Dominik]{}, C. 2005, , 434, 971
, N. J., [Allen]{}, L. E., [Blake]{}, G. A., [et al.]{} 2003, , 115, 965
, H., [Honda]{}, M., [Kataza]{}, H., [et al.]{} 2006, , 644, L133
, V. C., [Augereau]{}, J.-C., [Pontoppidan]{}, K. M., [et al.]{} 2006, , 459, 545
, Jr., K. E., [Greene]{}, T. P., [Barsony]{}, M., & [Stahler]{}, S. W. 2004, , 127, 1747
, L. 2001, [Accretion Processes in Star Formation]{} (Cambridge University Press)
, R., [Fisher]{}, S., [Hartmann]{}, L., [et al.]{} 1998, , 503, L79+
, J., [Augereau]{}, J.-C., [Dullemond]{}, C. P., [et al.]{} 2006, , 639, 275
, H. H. & [Lin]{}, D. N. C. 2001, , 554, 1095
, M. C. 2004, Science, 305, 1442
, K. L. & [Rieke]{}, G. H. 1999, , 525, 440
, D. G., [Levine]{}, S. E., [Canzian]{}, B., [et al.]{} 2003, , 125, 984
, A., [Testi]{}, L., [Calvet]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2007, in Protostars and Planets V, University of Arizona Press, ed. B. [Reipurth]{}, D. [Jewitt]{}, & K. [Keil]{}, 767–781
, S.-J. & [Mellema]{}, G. 2004, , 425, L9
, K. M., [Fraser]{}, H. J., [Dartois]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2003, , 408, 981
, A. C., [Blackman]{}, E. G., [Frank]{}, A., & [Varni[è]{}re]{}, P. 2004, , 612, L137
, W. K. M., [Armitage]{}, P. J., [Wood]{}, K., & [Lodato]{}, G. 2006, , 373, 1619
, A., [Hartmann]{}, L., [Calvet]{}, N., [et al.]{} 2006, , 638, 897
, M. F., [Cutri]{}, R. M., [Stiening]{}, R., [et al.]{} 2006, , 131, 1163
, H., [Himeno]{}, Y., & [Ida]{}, S. 2005, , 625, 414
, R., [Min]{}, M., [Waters]{}, L. B. F. M., [et al.]{} 2005, , 437, 189
, E. F., [Dartois]{}, E., [Pontoppidan]{}, K. M., [et al.]{} 2003, The Messenger, 113, 49
, S. J. 1997, Icarus, 127, 290
, B. A., [Lada]{}, C. J., & [Young]{}, E. T. 1989, , 340, 823
, N., [Monet]{}, D. G., [Levine]{}, S. E., [et al.]{} 2004, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 1418–+
[^1]: Based on observations obtained at the European Southern Observatory, Paranal, Chile, within the observing program 075.C-0211, and observations obtained with the WHT operated on the island of La Palma by the Isaac Newton Group.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Due to notable discoveries in the fast evolving field of complex networks, recent research in software engineering has also focused on representing software systems with networks. Previous work has observed that these networks follow scale-free degree distributions and reveal small-world phenomena, when we here explore another property commonly found in complex networks, i.e. community structure. We adopt class dependency networks, where nodes represent software classes and edges represent dependencies among them, and show that these networks reveal significant community structure, characterized by similar properties as observed in other complex networks. However, although intuitive and anticipated by different phenomena, identified communities do not exactly correspond to software packages. We empirically confirm our observations on several networks constructed from *Java* and various third party libraries, and propose different applications of community detection to software engineering.'
address: 'Faculty of Computer and Information Science, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia'
author:
- Lovro Šubelj
- Marko Bajec
title: |
Community structure of complex software systems:\
Analysis and applications
---
community structure ,complex networks ,software systems\
*PACS:* 89.75.Fb ,89.75.Hc ,89.20.Ff
\[sec\_intro\]Introduction
==========================
Analysis of complex real-world networks has led to some significant discoveries in the recent years. Research community has revealed several common properties of various real-world networks [@WS98; @BA99; @GN02], including different social, biological, Internet, software and other networks. These properties provide an important insight in the function and structure of general complex networks [@Str01; @PDFV05], moreover, they allow for better comprehension of the underlying real-world systems and thus give prominent grounds for future research in a wide variety of different fields.
In the field of software engineering, network analysis has just recently been adopted to acquire better comprehension of the complex software systems [@Mye03; @LHH08; @CY09; @Koh09]. Nowadays, software represents one of the most diverse and sophisticated human made systems; however, only little is known about the actual structure and quantitative properties of (large) software systems. Cai and Yin [@CY09] have denoted this dilemma as *software law problem*, which represents an effort towards identifying and formulating physics-like laws, obeyed by (most) software systems, that could later be applied in practice. However, the main objective of software law problem is in investigating how software looks like.
In the context of employing complex networks analysis, research community has already made several discoveries over the past years. In particular, different authors have observed that networks, constructed from various software systems, follow *scale-free* [@BA99] (i.e. power-law) degree distributions and reveal *small-world* [@WS98] phenomena. We proceed their work by exploring another property commonly found in real-world networks, i.e. *community structure* [@GN02]. The term denotes the occurrence of local structural modules (*communities*) that are groups of nodes densely connected within and only loosely connected with the rest of the network. Communities play crucial roles in many real-world systems [@GD03; @PDFV05], however, the community structure of complex software system networks has not yet been thoroughly investigated.
Main contributions of our work are as follows. We adopt *class dependency networks*, where nodes represent software classes and edges represent dependencies among them, and show that these networks reveal significant community structure, with similar properties as observed for other complex networks. We also note that network, representing core software library, exhibits less significant community structure. Furthermore, we prove that, although intuitive and anticipated by different phenomena, revealed communities do not (completely) correspond to software packages. Thus, we demonstrate how community detection can be employed to obtain highly modular software packages that still relate to the original packaging.
The rest of the article is structured as follows. First, in [section \[sec\_rw\]]{}, we briefly present relevant related work and emphasize the novelty of our research. Next, [section \[sec\_cdn\]]{} introduces employed class dependency networks. In [section \[sec\_eval\]]{} we present empirical evaluation of community structure of class dependency networks, and propose possible applications to software engineering. Last, in [section \[sec\_conc\]]{}, we give final conclusions and identify areas of further research.
\[sec\_rw\]Related work
=======================
Although software law problem has already been investigated over $30$ years [@Hal77], research community has only recently begin to employ network analysis to gain better comprehension of the software systems [@LHH08; @CY09; @Koh09; @SB10]. As mentioned above, different authors have observed that networks, constructed from software systems, follow scale-free degree distributions [@VCS02; @Mye03; @HCK05; @CMPS06] and exhibit small-world property [@Mye03; @LW04; @VS07]. Software networks thus reveal common behavior, similar as observed in other complex networks [@Str01; @GN02]. Furthermore, authors have also identified several different phenomena (e.g. software optimization) that might govern such complex behavior [@VCS02; @GP04; @VS07; @ZZLW08]. Moreover, analysis of *clustering* [@WS98] has revealed hierarchical structure in software networks [@Mye03].
On the other hand, community structure of software networks has not yet been investigated. Several authors have already discussed the notion of communities in the context of software systems [@Mye03; @BFNRSVMT06; @VS07; @JK07; @LHH08], however, no general empirical analysis and formal discussion was ever conducted (due to our knowledge). Still, authors have observed different phenomena that could promote the emergence of community structure in software networks [@BFNRSVMT06; @LHH08] and discussed possible applications within software engineering and other sciences [@Mye03; @LHH08].
In a wider context of software networks analysis, different random-walk based measures have been proposed to measure key (i.e. most influential) classes and packages [@ZCDP05; @Koh09]. The researchers have also investigated connectedness, robustness, motifs and patterns within software networks [@Mye03; @JK07]. Just recently software systems were also treated as evolving complex networks [@CY09].
\[sec\_cdn\]Class dependency networks
=====================================
Previous research on the analysis of software systems has employed a variety of different types of software networks (i.e. graphs). In particular, *package*, *class* and *method collaboration graphs* [@Mye03; @HCK05], *subrutine call graphs* [@Mye03], *software architecture* [@JK07] and *software mirror graphs* [@CY09], *software architecture maps* [@VCS02], *inter-package dependency networks* [@LW04] and others [@Mye03; @VS07; @WKD07]. The networks primarily divide whether they are constructed from source code, byte code or software execution traces, and due to the level of software architecture they represent. However, as discussed in [section \[sec\_rw\]]{}, most of these networks share some common characteristics.
![\[fig\_jung\]Class dependency network for *JUNG* graph and network framework [@OFWSB05]. Node colors indicate four high-level packages of the framework – `visualization` (green), `algorithms` (red), `graph` (orange) and `io` (blue). The network reveals rather clear community structure that roughly coincides with the software packages.](jung){width="0.50\columnwidth"}
For the purpose of this research we introduce *class dependency networks* ([Fig. \[fig\_jung\]]{}). Here an object-oriented software is represented by an undirected multi-graph $G(N,E)$, where $N$ is the set of nodes and $E$ is the set of edges. Graph $G$ is constructed from software source code in the following manner. Each software class $c$ is represented by a node $n_c\in N$, when edge $\{n_{c_1},n_{c_2}\}\in E$ represents a *dependency* between classes $c_1$ and $c_2$. Dependencies are of four types, namely, *inheritance* (class $c_2$ inherits or implements class $c_1$), *field* ($c_2$ contains a field of type $c_1$), *parameter* ($c_2$ contains a method that takes type $c_1$ as a parameter) and *return* ($c_1$ contains a method that returns type $c_2$).
Note that class dependency networks are constructed merely from the header information of the classes, and their methods and fields. As this information is commonly determined by a group of developers, prior to the actual software development, it is less influenced by the subjective nature of each particular developer. Hence, the networks thus more adequately represent the (intended) structure of some particular software, still, some relevant information might thus be discarded.
An example of class dependency network is shown in [Fig. \[fig\_jung\]]{}. The network reveals strong community structure, furthermore, the communities also roughly coincide with the actual software packages. However, as will be shown in [section \[sec\_eval\]]{}, modularity of the natural communities, depicted in the network’s topology, is much larger than that of the packages, determined by the developers.
\[sec\_eval\]Empirical analysis and applications
================================================
In the proceeding sections we present and discuss results of the empirical evaluation of community structure of class dependency networks ([section \[sec\_eval\_cs\]]{}), address the relation between communities and software packages ([section \[sec\_eval\_sp\]]{}) and propose possible applications of community detection to software engineering ([section \[sec\_eval\_app\]]{}).
The empirical evaluation is done using $8$ class dependency networks constructedfrom *Java* and several third party libraries ([Table \[tbl\_net\]]{}). The networks range from those with hundreds of nodes to those with several tens of thousands of edges (all isolated nodes have been discarded). Due to generality, networks were selected thus they represent a relatively diverse set of software systems.
------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- -------
Network Description $|N|$ $|E|$ $|P|$
*junit* *JUnit* 4.8.1 (testing framework). [@Aut00junit] 128 470 22
*jmail* *JavaMail* 1.4.3 (mail and messaging framework). [@Aut00jmail] 220 893 14
*flamingo* *Flamingo* 4.1 (GUI component suite). [@Aut00flamingo] 251 846 16
*jung* *JUNG* 2.0.1 (graph and network framework). [@OFWSB05] 422 1730 39
*colt* *Colt* 1.2.0 (scientific computing library). [@Aut00colt] 520 3691 19
*org* *Java* 1.6.0 (*org* namespace). [@Aut00java] 716 7895 47
*javax* *Java* 1.6.0 (*javax* namespace). [@Aut00java] 2581 22370 110
*java* *Java* 1.6.0 (*java* namespace). [@Aut00java] 2378 34858 54
------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ------- -------
: \[tbl\_net\]Class dependency networks for different software systems ($|P|$ is the number of packages).
To reveal community structure of each network we employ three community detection algorithms. In particular, a divisive algorithm based on *edge betweenness* [@GN02], a greedy agglomerative optimization of *modularity* (see below) [@New04; @CNM04] and a fast partitional algorithm based on *label propagation* [@RAK07]. The algorithms are denoted *EB*, *MO* and *LP* respectively, whereas, the detailed description is omitted. It should be noted that our objective is not to compare the algorithms, but rather to compare the revealed communities, and thus address their stability.
The community structure, identified by the algorithms, is assessed using *modularity* $Q$ [@NG04] that measures the significance of communities due to a selected *null model*. Let $l_i$ be the community (label) of node $n_i\in N$ and let $A_{ij}$ denote the number of edges incident to nodes $n_i, n_j\in N$. Furthermore, let $P_{ij}$ be the expected number of incident edges for $n_i,n_j$ in the null model. The modularity then reads $$\begin{aligned}
Q & = & \frac{1}{2m}\sum_{n_i,n_j\in N}\left(A_{ij}-P_{ij}\right)\delta(l_i,l_j),\end{aligned}$$ where $m$ is the number of edges, $m=|E|$, and $\delta$ is the Kronecker delta. The modularity thus measures the fraction of the difference between the number intra-community edges and the expected number of edges in the null model ($Q\in [-1,1]$). Higher values represent stronger community structure. Commonly a random graph with the same degree distribution as the original is selected for the null model. Hence, $P_{ij}=\frac{k_ik_j}{2m}$, where $k_i$ is the degree of node $n_i\in N$. It should be noted that modularity has some known deficiencies, e.g. *resolution limit* [@FB07], however, it is still widely adopted for the analysis of network community structure.
Furthermore, the identified community structure is also compared to the actual software packages. Let $\mathcal{L}$ be the partition (i.e. communities) revealed by some algorithm and $\mathcal{P}$ the partition that represents software packages (corresponding random variables are $L$ and $P$ respectively). We compare the partitions by computing their *normalized mutual information NMI* [@DDDA05] ($\mbox{\textit{NMI}}\in [0,1]$). Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{\textit{NMI}} & = & \frac{2I(L,P)}{H(L)+H(P)},\end{aligned}$$ where $I(L,P)$ is the *mutual information* of the partitions, $I(L,P)=H(L)-H(L|P)$, and $H(L)$, $H(P)$ and $H(L|P)$ are standard and conditional entropies. *NMI* of identical partitions equals $1$, and is $0$ for independent partitions.
\[sec\_eval\_cs\]Community structure of class dependency networks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mean modularities obtained with three community detection algorithms for the selected set of class dependency networks ([section \[sec\_eval\]]{}) can be seen in [Table \[tbl\_q\]]{}. For all networks except *java*, the algorithms managed to reveal community structures with particularly high values of modularity, i.e. between $0.55$ and $0.75$ on average, where values above $0.30$ are commonly regarded as an indication of (significant) community structure [@RAK07; @BGLL08; @MHSWL09; @LM09b]. The networks thus reveal much stronger community structure than expected in a random network with the same degree distribution. Note also that all of the algorithms obtain high modularities for all of the networks considered. This indicates rather stable communities, strongly depicted in the networks’ topologies.
------------ -------- -------- -------- --------- ---------
Network *EB* *MO* *LP* $P^+$ $P$
*junit* 0.5587 0.5759 0.5542 0.1140 0.0893
*jmail* 0.5607 0.5972 0.5401 0.2350 0.2086
*flamingo* 0.6466 0.6823 0.6485 0.2870 0.2511
*jung* 0.7210 0.7324 0.6874 0.3279 0.3212
*colt* - 0.6025 0.5599 -0.0158 -0.0332
*org* - 0.5599 0.5254 0.1847 0.1830
*javax* - 0.7667 0.7422 0.3119 0.2907
*java* - 0.4664 0.4132 0.2269 0.2206
------------ -------- -------- -------- --------- ---------
: \[tbl\_q\]Mean modularities $Q$ obtained for class dependency networks of different software systems. Values were computed from $100$ iterations ($10$ iterations for *EB* algorithm), where missing values could not be recovered due to limited time resources. Modularities of the natural community structures, depicted in the networks’ topologies (i.e. extracted by the algorithms), are much larger than those of the actual software packages.
In the case of *java* network, observe that the average degree is considerably larger than for other networks ([Table \[tbl\_net\]]{}). Hence, the network is extremely dense and the communities are thus only loosely defined. Consequently the algorithms fail to attain any significant community structure; however, as the network represents the core of *Java* programming language, it is expected to convey less modular structure.
In [Fig. \[fig\_sizes\]]{} we show the (cumulative) distributions of community sizes obtained with *LP* algorithm for *jung*, *javax* and *java* networks. Interestingly, the distributions (roughly) follow power-laws with the exponents $\alpha$ around $2$ (i.e. $P(s)\sim s^{-\alpha}$, where $s$ is the community size). Scale-free distribution of community sizes is a common property, observed also in other complex networks [@New04; @PDFV05]; furthermore, the values of $\alpha$ also coincide with values found for other networks, where authors commonly report $\alpha$ between $1$ and $3$ [@CNM04; @New04; @RCCLP04; @PDFV05].
![\[fig\_sizes\]Cumulative distribution functions of community sizes for *jung*, *javax* and *java* networks. The distributions revealed by *LP* algorithm (roughly) follow power-laws with the exponents $\alpha$ shown (i.e. $P(s)\sim s^{-\alpha}$, where $s$ is the community size); however, the distributions of package sizes are not characterized by power-laws (e.g. log-normal distributions).](sizes){width="1.00\columnwidth"}
We conclude that class dependency networks contain significant community structure that also reveals similar properties as observed in other complex networks. Thus, besides scale-free degree distributions and small-world effect, software networks reflect another common network phenomena, i.e. community structure.
To further address the validity of our results, we briefly discuss different phenomena that could promote the emergence of community structure in software networks. Li et al. [@LHH08] and Jenkins and Kirk [@JK07] have discussed the influence of internal *cohesion*, i.e. functional strength of the components, and external *coupling*, i.e. inter-dependencies among components, on the structure of software systems (and networks). Highly modular software should clearly demonstrate *minimum coupling-maximum cohesion* principle [@SMC99], which would naturally promote the emergence of strong structural modules within software networks. The modularity of software networks thus reflects the modularity of underlying software systems.
Furthermore, Baxter et al. [@BFNRSVMT06] have emphasized that object-oriented software is commonly developed according to *Lego hypothesis* [@Szy98]. The hypothesis states that software is constructed out of a larger number of smaller components that are relatively independent of each other. This phenomena should clearly reflect in software networks, where components should emerge as network communities.
In summary, software networks enclose a strong natural tendency to form community structure. In the case of class dependency networks, communities should, due to the above discussion and by intuition, correspond to software packages ([Fig. \[fig\_cjung\]]{}). This aspect is thoroughly explored and discussed in the proceeding section.
![\[fig\_cjung\]Community network for *jung* class dependency network ([Fig. \[fig\_jung\]]{}) revealed by *LP* algorithm (modularity equals $Q=0.7062$). For each community we show the distribution of classes over software packages (weakly represented packages are not shown), where colors indicate four high-level packages of the framework (see [Fig. \[fig\_jung\]]{}). Communities clearly distinguish between high-level packages, but they do not completely coincide with the actual (bottom-most) packages.](cjung){width="1.00\columnwidth"}
\[sec\_eval\_sp\]Relation of network communities to software packages
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis of the relation between network communities and software packages reveals that packages are considerably different than communities. We first note that packages do not feature *connectedness* in class dependency networks (exact results are omitted). The latter is regarded as a basic property of communities and states that communities should correspond to connected sets of nodes. As a consequence, software packages can comprise of disconnected sets of nodes, which is an indicator of relatively poor modular structure.
Let $P$ represent the actual (bottom-most) software packages and let $P^+$ represent packages that feature connectedness (i.e. disconnected packages are treated as several different packages). [Table \[tbl\_q\]]{} shows modularities of software packages for the analyzed class dependency networks. The values are considerably lower than modularities of the natural community structures, revealed in the networks’ topologies (i.e. extracted by the algorithms), and cannot be regarded as an indication of significant modular structure. Moreover, in [Fig. \[fig\_sizes\]]{} we show the distributions of package sizes for *jung*, *javax* and *java* networks. The distributions are obviously not characterized by power-laws, as observed in the case of communities (distributions are, e.g., log-normal or stretched exponential, which coincides with the observations in [@BFNRSVMT06]). Last, we also (directly) compare the packages with network communities by computing *NMI* of the corresponding partitions ([Table \[tbl\_nmi\]]{}). The results further confirm above observations – software packages only weakly relate to network communities and are not characterized by the same laws or properties.
------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
Network *EB* *MO* *LP* $P^+$
*junit* 0.6605 0.5823 0.6285 0.8412
*jmail* 0.5300 0.5248 0.5553 0.8379
*flamingo* 0.5686 0.5408 0.5590 0.7882
*jung* 0.6011 0.6094 0.6887 0.9187
*colt* - 0.4784 0.5277 0.6507
*org* - 0.5301 0.5385 0.9123
*javax* - 0.6365 0.6826 0.8096
*java* - 0.3453 0.3063 0.8386
------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
: \[tbl\_nmi\]Peak (maximum) *NMI* between network communities, extracted by the algorithms, and software packages $P$ for different class dependency networks. Values were computed from $100$ iterations ($10$ iterations for *EB* algorithm). The results indicate relatively poor correspondence between natural network communities and software packages.
We stress that the origin of the disparity between network communities and software packages is not entirely evident. The lack of connectedness of software packages, and low values of modularity, suggest that class dependency networks give poor representation of software systems or disregard some relevant relations among classes (form the perspective of software packages). However, different distributions of sizes clearly show that there is some additional departure between the communities and software packages, which is independent of the actual network representation (i.e. class dependencies).
Last, we discuss a particularly low value of modularity for *colt* library packages ([Table \[tbl\_q\]]{}). As the library represents a core framework for scientific computing, where the performance is often of greater importance than extensibility, maintenance and modular structure, it is expected for the system to exhibit only poor modular structure. The modularity of software packages thus reflects the modularity of the underlying software system, which in fact motivates the application, presented in the proceeding section.
\[sec\_eval\_app\]Applications of community detection to software engineering
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to weak modular structure of software packages, an obvious application of community detection to software engineering is to reveal highly modular packaging of software systems ([Fig. \[fig\_colt\]]{}). The choice of class dependencies (i.e. type of the network) is in that case of course arbitrary. However, simply applying a community detection algorithm to employed networks would often prove useless, as the identified communities would only hardly be mapped to the existing software packages. The latter is vital due to the comprehension of the results. A simple solution is to start with the communities that represent original software packages, and refine them, using some community detection algorithm. The algorithm should thus merely refine and merge the communities, where no new communities (i.e. labels) should be introduced. This preserves original software packages, their hierarchy and identifiers, which enables complete comprehension of the final results. An example can be seen in [Fig. \[fig\_colt\]]{}.
![\[fig\_colt\]Community networks for class dependency network, representing classes within `cern.colt` and `cern.jet` packages of *colt* library (reduced to the largest connected component). Networks correspond to the original software packages $P$ (left) and communities, revealed with *LP* algorithm by refining software packages $P$ (right). For each community we show the distribution of classes over software packages, where colors indicate high-level packages of the framework. Refined communities (i.e. packages) obtain significantly higher modularity and can still be related to the original packaging.](colt){width="1.00\columnwidth"}
Another obvious application to software engineering is (network) *abstraction*. Community detection can be employed to obtain a clear representation of software systems on a relatively high level of abstraction. Furthermore, one can also address the *centrality* [@Fre77; @Fre79] (or other measures of influence) of the identified communities, to expose key nodes and structures throughout the entire system [@ZCDP05; @Koh09]. A simple application of community detection to software abstraction can be seen in [Fig. \[fig\_cjavax\]]{} (and [Fig. \[fig\_cjung\]]{}).
The article represents seminal work in the area of applying network community detection methods and techniques in software engineering. However, further work is needed to design sophisticated applications that would be of considerable benefit in practice.
![\[fig\_cjavax\]Community network for *javax* class dependency network revealed by *LP* algorithm (only the largest five connected components are shown; modularity equals $Q=0.7318$). For each community we show the distribution of classes over software packages, where colors indicate high-level packages of the framework. The representation gives a clear insight into the structure of the *javax* namespace, and shows relations (i.e. dependencies) among different sub-packages of the system.](cjavax){width="1.00\columnwidth"}
\[sec\_conc\]Conclusion
=======================
The article explores community structure of networks, constructed from complex software systems (i.e. class dependency networks). The main contribution is in showing that software networks reveal significant community structure, characterized by similar properties as commonly observed for other complex networks. Software networks thus reveal another general network phenomena, besides scale-free degree distributions and small-world effect, which is a prominent observation for the software-law problem. Furthermore, the results are of even greater importance, as software represents one of the most complex human made systems.
Future work will mainly focus on considering other types of class dependency networks that will include additional relations among classes. Moreover, we will introduce the notions of *positive* and *negative* relations, to more adequately model similarity and diversity among software classes. The main objective will be to establish further understanding of (community) structure of class dependency networks, and to assess its relation to software packages. The results could thus promote various novel applications in the software engineering domain.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixhref \#1\#2[\#2]{} \#1[\#1]{}
D. J. Watts, S. H. Strogatz, Collective dynamics of ’small-world’ networks, Nature 393 (6684) (1998) 440–442.
A. Barabási, R. Albert, Emergence of scaling in random networks, Science 286 (5439) (1999) 509–512.
M. Girvan, M. E. J. Newman, Community structure in social and biological networks, in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America, 2002, pp. 7821–7826.
S. H. Strogatz, Exploring complex networks, Nature 410 (2001) 268.
G. Palla, I. Derényi, I. Farkas, T. Vicsek, Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society, Nature 435 (2005) 814.
C. R. Myers, Software systems as complex networks: Structure, function, and evolvability of software collaboration graphs, Phys. Rev. E 68 (2).
D. Li, Y. Han, J. Hu, Complex network thinking in software engineering, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, 2008, pp. 264–268.
K. Cai, B. Yin, Software execution processes as an evolving complex network, Inform. Sciences 179 (12) (2009) 1903–1928.
G. A. Kohring, Complex dependencies in large software systems, Adv. Complex Syst. 12 (6) (2009) 565–581.
P. Gleiser, L. Danon, Community structure in jazz, Adv. Complex Syst. 6 (4) (2003) 565.
M. H. Halstead, Elements of software science, Elsevier, 1977.
L. Subelj, M. Bajec, Unfolding network communities by combining defensive and offensive label propagation, in: Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Analysis of Complex Networks, 2010, pp. 87–104.
S. Valverde, R. F. Cancho, R. V. Sole, Scale-free networks from optimal design, Europhys. Lett. 60 (4) (2002) 512.
D. [Hyland-Wood]{}, D. Carrington, S. Kaplan, Scale-free nature of java software package, class and method collaboration graphs, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering.
G. Concas, M. Marchesi, S. Pinna, N. Serra, On the suitability of yule process to stochastically model some properties of object-oriented systems, Physica A 370 (2) (2006) 817–831.
N. [LaBelle]{}, E. Wallingford, Inter-package dependency networks in open-source software, e-print [arXiv:0411096v1]{}.
S. Valverde, R. V. Sole, Hierarchical small worlds in software architecture, Dynam. Cont. Dis. Ser. B 14 (2007) 1–11.
A. A. Gorshenev, Y. M. Pis’mak, Punctuated equilibrium in software evolution, Phys. Rev. E 70 (6) (2004) 1–4.
X. Zheng, D. Zeng, H. Li, F. Wang, Analyzing open-source software systems as complex networks, Physica A 387 (24) (2008) 6190–6200.
G. Baxter, M. Frean, J. Noble, M. Rickerby, H. Smith, M. Visser, H. Melton, E. Tempero, Understanding the shape of java software, in: Proceedings of the [ACM]{} [SIGPLAN]{} International Conference on [Object-Oriented]{} Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications, 2006, pp. 397–412.
S. Jenkins, S. Kirk, Software architecture graphs as complex networks: A novel partitioning scheme to measure stability and evolution, Inform. Sciences 177 (12) (2007) 2587–2601.
A. Zaidman, T. Calders, S. Demeyer, J. Paredaens, Applying webmining techniques to execution traces to support the program comprehension process, in: Proceedings of the European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, 2005, pp. 134–142.
L. Wen, D. Kirk, R. G. Dromey, Software systems as complex networks, in: Proceedings of the [IEEE]{} International Conference on Cognitive Informatics, 2007, pp. 106–115.
J. [O’Madadhain]{}, D. Fisher, S. White, P. Smyth, Y. biao Boey, Analysis and visualization of network data using [JUNG]{}, J. Stat. Softw. 10 (2) (2005) 1–35.
testing framework, http://junit.org/.
mail and messaging framework, http://java.sun.com/products/javamail/.
Flamingo [GUI]{} component suite, https://flamingo.dev.java.net/.
Colt scientific computing library, http://acs.lbl.gov/software/colt/.
Java language, http://java.sun.com/.
M. E. J. Newman, Detecting community structure in networks, Eur. Phys. J. B 38 (2) (2004) 321–330.
A. Clauset, M. E. J. Newman, C. Moore, Finding community structure in very large networks, Phys. Rev. E 70 (6) (2004) 066111.
U. N. Raghavan, R. Albert, S. Kumara, Near linear time algorithm to detect community structures in large-scale networks, Phys. Rev. E 76 (3) (2007) 036106.
M. E. J. Newman, M. Girvan, Finding and evaluating community structure in networks, Phys. Rev. E 69 (2) (2004) 026113.
S. Fortunato, M. Barthelemy, Resolution limit in community detection, in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America, 2007, pp. 36–41.
L. Danon, A. [Díaz-Guilera]{}, J. Duch, A. Arenas, Comparing community structure identification, J. Stat. Mech. P09008.
V. D. Blondel, J. Guillaume, R. Lambiotte, E. Lefebvre, Fast unfolding of communities in large networks, J. Stat. Mech. P10008.
J. Mei, S. He, G. Shi, Z. Wang, W. Li, Revealing network communities through modularity maximization by a contractiondilation method, New J. Phys. 11 (4).
X. Liu, T. Murata, Advanced modularity-specialized label propagation algorithm for detecting communities in networks, Physica A 389 (7) (2009) 1493.
F. Radicchi, C. Castellano, F. Cecconi, V. Loreto, D. Parisi, Defining and identifying communities in networks, in: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 101, 2004, pp. 2658–2663.
W. P. Stevens, G. J. Myers, L. L. Constantive, Structured design, [IBM]{} Syst. J. 38 (2) (1999) 231–256.
C. Szyperski, Component software: Beyond object-oriented programming, [Addison-Wesley]{}, 1998.
L. Freeman, A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness, Sociometry 40 (1) (1977) 35–41.
L. C. Freeman, Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification, Soc. Networks 1 (3) (1979) 215–239.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Starting from the most general scalar-tensor theory with second order field equations in four dimensions, we establish the unique action that will allow for the existence of a consistent self-tuning mechanism on FLRW backgrounds, and show how it can be understood as a combination of just four base Lagrangians with an intriguing geometric structure dependent on the Ricci scalar, the Einstein tensor, the double dual of the Riemann tensor and the Gauss-Bonnet combination. Spacetime curvature can be screened from the net cosmological constant at any given moment because we allow the scalar field to break Poincaré invariance on the self-tuning vacua, thereby evading the Weinberg no-go theorem. We show how the four arbitrary functions of the scalar field combine in an elegant way opening up the possibility of obtaining non-trivial cosmological solutions.'
author:
- Christos Charmousis
- 'Edmund J. Copeland'
- Antonio Padilla
- 'Paul M. Saffin'
title: 'General second order scalar-tensor theory, self tuning, and [*the Fab Four*]{}'
---
In a little known paper published in 1974, G.W. Horndeski presented the most general scalar-tensor theory with second order field equations in four dimensions [@horny]. Given the amount of research into modified gravity over the last ten years or so (see [@review] for a review), it seems appropriate to revisit Horndeski’s work. Scalar tensor models of modified gravity range from Brans-Dicke gravity [@bdgravity] to the recent models [@covgal; @galmodels] inspired by galileon theory [@galileon], the latter being examples of higher order scalar tensor Lagrangians with second order field equations. Each of these models represent a special case of Horndeski’s panoptic theory.
In this letter, we study Horndeski’s theory on FLRW backgrounds. In particular we ask whether or not there are subclasses of [@horny] giving a viable self-tuning mechanism for solving the (old) cosmological constant problem. In other words, we ask if one can completely screen the spacetime curvature from the net cosmological constant. Naively one might expect this to be impossible on account of Weinberg’s no-go theorem [@nogo]. However, Weinberg not only assumes Poincaré invariance at the level of the spacetime curvature but also at the level of the self-adjusting fields. Here we follow a route similar to [@bigalileon] and allow our scalar field to break Poincaré invariance on the self-tuning vacua, whilst maintaining a flat spacetime geometry.
By demanding that the self-tuning mechanism continues to work through phase transitions that cause the vacuum energy to jump, we are able to impose some powerful restrictions on Horndeski’s theory. Based on equivalence principle (EP) considerations, we assume that matter is only minimally coupled to the metric and then pass the model through our self-tuning filter. This reduces it to four base Lagrangians each depending on an arbitrary function of the scalar only. We call these base Lagrangians [*the Fab Four*]{}, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:john}
{\cal L}_{john} &=& \sqrt{-g} V_{john}(\phi)G^{\mu\nu} \nabla_\mu\phi \nabla_\nu \phi \\
\label{eq:paul}
{\cal L}_{paul} &=&\sqrt{-g}V_{paul}(\phi) P^{\mu\nu\alpha \beta} \nabla_\mu \phi \nabla_\alpha \phi \nabla_\nu \nabla_\beta \phi \\
\label{eq:george}
{\cal L}_{george} &=&\sqrt{-g}V_{george}(\phi) R\\
\label{eq:ringo}
{\cal L}_{ringo} &=& \sqrt{-g}V_{ringo}(\phi) \hat G\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat G=R_{\mu\nu \alpha \beta}R^{\mu\nu \alpha \beta}-4R_{\mu\nu}R^{\mu\nu}+R^2$ is the Gauss-Bonnet combination, $\varepsilon_{\mu\nu\alpha \beta}$ is the Levi-Civita tensor and $P^{\mu\nu\alpha \beta} =-\frac{1}{4}\varepsilon^{\mu\nu \lambda \sigma } \;R_{\lambda \sigma \gamma \delta } \; \varepsilon^{\alpha\beta \gamma \delta}$ is the double dual of the Riemann tensor [@mtw].
Our results prove that any self tuning scalar-tensor theory (satisfying EP) must be built from the Fab Four. The weakest of the four is Ringo since this cannot give rise to self-tuning without “a little help from \[its\] friends", John and Paul. When this is the case, Ringo does have a non-trivial effect on the cosmological dynamics but does not spoil self-tuning. George also has difficulties in going solo: when $V_{george}=$ const., we just have GR and no self-tuning, whereas when $V_{george}\neq $ const., we have Brans-Dicke gravity with $w=0$, which does self-tune but is immediately ruled out by solar system constraints. Thus it is best to consider [*the Fab Four*]{} as combining to give a single theory, as opposed to four different theories in their own right. In particular we expect that one should always include John and/or Paul for the reasons given above, and because their non-trivial derivative interactions might give rise to Vainshtein effects [@vainsh] that would help in passing solar system tests. Chameleon effects [@cham] may also play an important role in this regard.
Horndeski’s theory {#appA}
==================
The most general second-order scalar tensor theory is \[eq:action\] S=S\_[H]{}\[g\_, \]+S\_m\[g\_; \_n\] where the Horndeski action, $S_{H}= \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} {\cal L}_{H}$, is obtained from equation (4.21) of ,
\[eq:hornyLagrangian\] [L]{}\_[H]{} &=& \^[ijk]{}\_\
& &+\_\^[ij]{} -3\[2(F+2W)\_[,]{}+\_8\]\_\^ +\_9(,),
with $\rho=\nabla_\mu\phi\nabla^\mu\phi$ and $\delta^{i_1i_2...i_n}_{\mu_1\mu_2...\mu_n}=n!\delta^{[i_1}_{\mu_1}\delta^{i_2}_{\mu_2}...\delta^{i_n]}_{\mu_n}$. We have four arbitrary functions of $\phi$ and $\rho$, $\kappa_i=\kappa_i(\phi,\rho)$ as well as $F=F(\phi, \rho)$, which is constrained so that $
F_{,\rho}=\kappa_{1,\phi}-\kappa_3-2\rho\kappa_{3,\rho}.
$ Note that $W=W(\phi)$, which means that it can be absorbed into a redefinition of $F(\phi, \rho)$. The matter part of the action is given by $S_m[g_{\mu\nu}; \Psi_n]$, where we require that the matter fields, $\Psi_n$, are all minimally coupled to the metric $g_{\mu\nu}$. This follows (without further loss of generality) from assuming that there is no violation of equivalence principle[^1]. This reasoning is consistent with the original construction of Brans-Dicke gravity [@bdgravity].
Here we are interested in Horndeski’s theory on FLRW backgrounds, for which we have a homogeneous scalar, $\phi=\phi(t)$, and a homogeneous and isotropic metric, g\_ dx\^dx\^=-dt\^2+a\^2(t)with $\kappa$ being a (positive or negative) constant, specifying the spatial curvature. Plugging this into (\[eq:hornyLagrangian\]), we obtain an effective Horndeski Lagrangian in the minisuperspace approximation \[eq:effectiveLag\] L\_H\^(a, a, , )=a\^3\_[n=0]{}\^3(X\_n-Y\_n)H\^n where $H=\dot a/a$ is the Hubble parameter, and we have, $$\begin{gathered}
X_0 =-\tilde{Q}_{7,\phi}\dot\phi+\kappa_9, \quad X_1 =3(2\kappa_8\dot\phi^3-4F_{,\phi}\dot\phi+Q_7\dot\phi-\tilde{Q}_7), \\
X_2 =-12(F+F_{,\rho}\dot\phi^2), \qquad X_3 =8\kappa_{1,\rho}\dot\phi^3, \\
Y_0=\tilde Q_{1,\phi}\dot\phi+ 12\kappa_3\dot\phi^2-12F, \qquad
Y_1=\tilde{Q}_1-Q_1\dot\phi \nonumber\end{gathered}$$ where $
Q_1 = \del \tilde{Q}_1/\del\dot\phi=-12\kappa_1$ and $Q_7 =\del \tilde{Q}_7/\del\dot\phi=6F_{,\phi}-3\dot\phi^2\kappa_8
$. In a cosmological setting, the matter action contributes a homogeneous and isotropic fluid with energy density $\rho_m$ and pressure $p_m$, satisfying the usual conservation law $\dot \rho_m+3H(\rho_m+p_m)=0$.
The generalized Friedmann equation follows in the standard manner by computing the Hamiltonian density for the Horndeski Lagrangian, and identifying it with the energy density, $\rho_m$, as follows \[eq:H\] [H]{}(a, a, , )==-\_m Since matter only couples directly to the metric, and not the scalar, the scalar equation of motion is given by $$\begin{gathered}
{\cal E}(a, \dot a, \ddot a, \phi, \dot \phi, \ddot \phi)= \frac{d}{dt} \left[\frac{\del L_H^\textrm{eff}}{\del \dot \phi}\right]-\frac{\del L_H^\textrm{eff}}{\del \phi}=0\label{eq:E}\end{gathered}$$ Note that this equation is always linear in both $\ddot a$ and $\ddot \phi$.
Self-tuning
===========
Since our ultimate goal is to identify those corners of Horndeski’s theory that exhibit self-tuning, we first ask what it means to self-tune, in a relatively model independent way. Consider our cosmological background in vacuum. The matter sector is expected to contribute a constant vacuum energy density, which we identify with the cosmological constant, $\langle \rho_{m}\rangle_\textrm{vac} =\rho_\Lambda$. In a self tuning scenario, this should not impact on the curvature, so whatever the value of $\rho_\Lambda$, we have a Minkowski spacetime[^2], with $H^2+\kappa/a^2=0$. This should remain true even when the matter sector goes through a phase-transition, changing the overall value of $\rho_\Lambda$ by a constant amount. This extra requirement will place the strongest constraints on our theory.
In order to proceed we shall take these transitions to be instantaneous, thereby assuming that $\rho_\Lambda$ evolves in a piecewise constant fashion. Now consider a self-tuning solution, $H^2+\kappa/a^2=0$, $\phi=\phi_\Lambda(t)$, satisfying the “on-shell-in-a” [^3] equations of motion for the metric \[eq:onshH\] |[H]{}(\_, \_, a) = -\_ and the scalar, \[eq:onshE\] |[E]{}(\_, \_, \_, a)= \_ f(\_,\_,a)+g(\_,\_,a)=0 Suppose that a phase transition occurs at some arbitrary time $t=t_*$, so that $ \rho_\Lambda(t_*^-) \neq \rho_{ \Lambda}(t_*^+)$. We require that the scalar field is continuous at the transition, $\phi_\Lambda(t_*^-)=\phi_{\Lambda}(t_*^+)$, but allow its derivative to jump, $\dot \phi_\Lambda(t_*^-) \neq \dot \phi_{ \Lambda}(t_*^+)$. We first consider equation (\[eq:onshH\]). This is discontinuous on the right hand side, so it must also be discontinuous on the left, which means that $\bar{\cal H}$ [*must*]{} have some non-trivial $\dot \phi_\Lambda$ dependence. Next consider equation (\[eq:onshE\]). As $\dot \phi_\Lambda$ is discontinuous, $\ddot \phi_\Lambda$ must run into a delta function at $t=t_*$. This is not supported on the right hand side of equation (\[eq:onshE\]), and since $t_*$ can be chosen arbitrarily, we deduce that $f$ must vanish independently of $g$, so that (\[eq:onshE\]) actually splits into two equations f(\_,\_,a)=0, g(\_,\_,a)=0 Focusing on the former it is clear that if $f$ has nontrivial dependence of $\dot \phi_\Lambda$ then it may be discontinuous at the transition. Since it is constrained to vanish either side of the transition we deduce that $\frac{\del f}{\del \dot \phi_\Lambda}=0$, or equivalently $f=f(\phi_\Lambda, a)$. Using this simplified form for $f$, we now take derivatives, staying on-shell-in-a, so that we have (\_,\_,a)=\_+=0 Again, applying similar logic we now conclude that $\frac{\del f}{\del \phi_\Lambda}=0$ or equivalently $f=f(a)$. An identical line of argument implies that $g=g(a)$. What this tells us is that the on-shell-in-a scalar equation of motion (\[eq:onshE\]) has lost all dependence on the scalar field $\phi_\Lambda$ and its derivatives. $\phi_\Lambda(t)$ is fixed by the gravity equation (\[eq:onshH\]), and must necessarily retain some non-trivial time dependence even away from transitions in order to evade the clutches of Weinberg’s theorem. More generally, in order to cope with transitions the on-shell-in-a gravity equation (\[eq:onshH\]) must depend on $\dot \phi_\Lambda$. The scalar equation (\[eq:E\]) should vanish identically on a flat spacetime, and must therefore have the schematic form. = \_[n1]{}\_n where $A_n=\ddot \phi \alpha(\phi, \dot \phi, a)+\beta(\phi, \dot \phi, a),~\tilde A_n=\ddot \phi \tilde\alpha(\phi, \dot \phi, a)+\tilde\beta(\phi, \dot \phi, a)$ and we define \_n=H\^n-()\^n which vanishes on-shell-in-a for $n>0$. Since the scalar equation (\[eq:E\]) ultimately forces self-tuning, it should not be trivial. Furthermore, for a remotely viable cosmology it should be dynamical in the sense that we can [*evolve*]{} towards $H^2+\kappa/a^2=0$ rather than having it be true at all times. This imposes the condition that at least one of the $\tilde A_n$ should be non-vanishing. Note that the sum does not include $n=0$, which is absolutely crucial in order to force self-tuning Let us now apply the self-tuning filters to Horndeski’s theory. Using equation (\[eq:E\]) we can infer the following form of the minisuperspace Lagrangian in a self tuning set-up, \[eq:selftunlag\] L\_\^=a\^3. In order for the on-shell-in-a gravity equation (\[eq:onshH\]) to retain dependence on $\dot \phi_\Lambda$ we demand that $
\sum_{n=1}^3 nZ_{n, \dot \phi} \left(\frac{\sqrt{-\kappa}}{a}\right)^n \neq 0
$. By requiring (\[eq:effectiveLag\]) to take the form (\[eq:selftunlag\]) up to a total derivative, we find that we must have $\kappa<0$, and that &&\_1=2V\_[ringo]{}’()-V\_[paul]{}()\
&&\_3=V\_[ringo]{}”()(||)-V\_[paul]{}’()-V\_[john]{}()\
&&\_8=V\_[john]{}’()(||),\_9=-\_\^-3V\_[george]{}”()\
&&F =V\_[george]{}()- V\_[john]{}()(||) with $V'_{george} \equiv 0$ allowed, if and only if there exist other non-vanishing potentials. It follows that the self-tuning version of Horndeski’s theory must take the form $$\begin{gathered}
S^\textrm{self-tun}=\int d^4 x \left[{\cal L}_{john}+ {\cal L}_{paul}+{\cal L}_{george}+{\cal L}_{ringo}\right. \\\left.-\sqrt{-g}\rho_{\Lambda}^\textrm{bare} \right]
+S_m[g_{\mu\nu}; \Psi_n] \label{selftun}\end{gathered}$$ where the base Lagrangians are built from [*the Fab Four*]{} (\[eq:john\]) to (\[eq:ringo\]). Note also the presence of the bare cosmological constant term $\rho_\Lambda^\textrm{bare}$ which can always be absorbed into a renormalisation of the vacuum energy (contained within $S_m$). This serves as a good consistency check of our derivation. Such a term had to be allowed by the self-tuning theories – if it had not been there it would have amounted to fine tuning the vacuum energy.
The cosmology of [*the Fab Four*]{}
===================================
We shall now briefly present the cosmological equations for the general self-tuning theory (\[selftun\]). To this end, we note that the minisuperspace Lagrangians for [*the Fab Four*]{} have the desired structure given by equation (\[eq:selftunlag\]), and that the Friedmann equations describing this cosmology are \_[john]{}+[H]{}\_[paul]{}+[H]{}\_[george]{}+[H]{}\_[ringo]{}=-where we have absorbed $\rho_\Lambda^\textrm{bare}$ into the vacuum energy contribution $\rho_\Lambda$, and &&[H]{}\_[john]{}=3V\_[john]{}()\^2(3H\^2+))\
&&[H]{}\_[paul]{}=-3V\_[paul]{}()\^3H(5H\^2+3)\
&&[H]{}\_[george]{}=-6V\_[george]{}()\
&&[H]{}\_[ringo]{}=-24V’\_[ringo]{}()H(H\^2+) The scalar equations of motion are ${\cal E}_{john}+{\cal E}_{paul}+{\cal E}_{george}+{\cal E}_{ringo}=0$ where &&[E]{}\_[john]{}= 6[d dt]{}- 3a\^3V\_[john]{}’()\^2\_2\
&&[E]{}\_[paul]{}= -9[d dt]{}+3a\^3V\_[paul]{}’()\^3H\_2\
&&[E]{}\_[george]{}= -6[d dt]{}+6a\^3V\_[george]{}”()\_1\
&&+6a\^3V\_[george]{}’()\_1\^2\
&&[E]{}\_[ringo]{} = -24 V’\_[ringo]{}() [d dt]{}We see that on-shell-in-a, $H^2=-\kappa/a^2$, Ringo’s contribution to the Friedmann equation loses its dependence on $\dot \phi$. This explains why Ringo cannot self-tune by itself. We should emphasize that Ringo does not [*spoil*]{} self-tuning when John and/or Paul are also present, even though it [*does*]{} alter the cosmological dynamics. Note also that if $V'_{george}=0$, and all the other potentials are vanishing, then the scalar equation of motion becomes trivial and does not force self-tuning.
For a generic combination of [*the Fab Four*]{} that includes John and/or Paul, we have a scalar tensor model of self-tuning. The self-tuning is forced by the scalar equation of motion, while the gravity equation links phase transitions in vacuum energy to discontinuities in the temporal derivative of the scalar field. On self-tuning vacua, the scalar field is explicitly time dependent, as it must be in order to evade Weinberg’s theorem [@nogo]. A detailed study of [*Fab Four*]{} cosmology will be presented elsewhere.
Discussion
==========
In this letter we have resurrected Horndeski’s theory that describes the most general scalar-tensor theory with second order field equations. We have asked which corners of this theory admit a consistent self-tuning mechanism for solving the (old) cosmological constant problem. Remarkably, this reduces the theory down to a combination of four base Lagrangians, dubbed [*the Fab Four*]{}. Self-tuning is made possible by breaking Poincaré invariance in the scalar sector.
There are hints at some deep underlying structure in this theory. This merits further investigation, but for now we note that each of [*the Fab Four*]{} can be associated with a dimensionally enhanced Euler density. This is immediately evident for George and Ringo, whereas for John and Paul we note that they can both be written in the form $ V(\phi) \nabla_\mu\phi \nabla_\nu \phi \frac{\delta W}{\delta g^{\mu\nu}}$, with $W_{john}=\int d^4 x\sqrt{-g} R$ and $W_{paul}= -\frac{1}{4}\int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \phi \hat G$.
Have we [*really*]{} solved the cosmological constant problem? We have certainly evaded Weinberg’s theorem, but there is plenty more to consider. Does the [*Fab Four*]{} ultimately give rise to a gravity theory that is phenomenologically consistent, in particular at the level of both cosmology and solar system tests. This is a work in progress, but there are reasons to be guardedly optimistic, especially when one considers the fact that John and Paul contain non-trivial derivative interactions that may give rise to a successful Vainshtein effect. Relevant work involving three of [*the Fab Four*]{} was carried out in [@Amendola:2008vd].
We should also ask whether or not the self-tuning property of [*the Fab Four*]{} is spoilt by radiative corrections. Chances are it probably is spoilt by matter loops, but it is interesting to note that the self-tuning is imposed by the scalar equation of motion, and the scalar does not couple directly to matter. The intriguing geometric properties of [*the Fab Four*]{} may also play a role here, but such considerations are beyond the scope of this letter.
In any event, the ethos behind our approach is not to make any grandiose claims regarding a solution of the cosmological constant problem but to ask what can be achieved in this direction at the level of a scalar tensor theory. Given that our starting point was the most general scalar tensor theory, we should be in a position to make some reasonably general statements. As we have shown, Weinberg’s theorem alone is not enough to rule out possible self-tuning mechanisms, so even if [*the Fab Four*]{} are ultimately ruled out by other considerations we should be able to say we have learnt something about the obstacles towards solving the cosmological constant problem and how one might think about extending the scope of Weinberg’s theorem.
EJC and AP acknowledge financial support from the Royal Society and CC from STR-COSMO, ANR-09-BLAN-0157. AP notes that he was born in the same hospital as John Lennon.
[99]{}
G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**10** ]{} (1974) 363-384.
T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, C. Skordis, \[arXiv:1106.2476 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
C. Brans, R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. [**124** ]{} (1961) 925-935.
C. Deffayet, G. Esposito-Farese, A. Vikman, Phys. Rev. [**D79** ]{} (2009) 084003. \[arXiv:0901.1314 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Deffayet, O. Pujolas, I. Sawicki, A. Vikman, JCAP [**1010** ]{} (2010) 026. \[arXiv:1008.0048 \[hep-th\]\]. F. P. Silva, K. Koyama, Phys. Rev. [**D80** ]{} (2009) 121301. \[arXiv:0909.4538 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, J. ’i. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105** ]{} (2010) 231302. \[arXiv:1008.0603 \[hep-th\]\]. A. De Felice, S. Tsujikawa, \[arXiv:1008.4236 \[hep-th\]\]. C. Deffayet, S. Deser and G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 064015 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.1967\]. C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer, G. Zahariade, \[arXiv:1103.3260 \[hep-th\]\]. T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi, J. ’i. Yokoyama, \[arXiv:1105.5723 \[hep-th\]\].
A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi, E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. [**D79** ]{} (2009) 064036. \[arXiv:0811.2197 \[hep-th\]\].
S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**61** ]{} (1989) 1-23.
A. Padilla, P. M. Saffin, S. -Y. Zhou, JHEP [**1012** ]{} (2010) 031. \[arXiv:1007.5424 \[hep-th\]\]. A. Padilla, P. M. Saffin, S. -Y. Zhou, JHEP [**1101** ]{} (2011) 099. \[arXiv:1008.3312 \[hep-th\]\].
C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler, San Francisco 1973, 1279p.
L. Amendola, C. Charmousis and S. C. Davis, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 084009 (2008) \[arXiv:0801.4339 \[gr-qc\]\]. A. I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. [**B39** ]{} (1972) 393-394. N. Kaloper, A. Padilla, N. Tanahashi, [*in preparation*]{}
J. Khoury, A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**93** ]{} (2004) 171104. \[astro-ph/0309300\].
[^1]: For EP to hold all matter must be minimally coupled to the [*same*]{} metric, $\tilde g_{\mu\nu}$, and this should only be a function of $g_{\mu\nu}$ and $\phi$. Dependence on derivatives is not allowed since it would result in the gravitational coupling to matter being momentum dependent, leading to violations of EP. Given $\tilde g_{\mu\nu}=\tilde g_{\mu\nu}(g_{\alpha\beta}, \phi)$, we simply compute $g_{\alpha\beta}=g_{\alpha\beta}(\tilde g_{\mu\nu}, \phi)$, and substitute back into the action (\[eq:action\]), before dropping the tildes. Since this procedure will not generate any additional derivatives in the equations of motion, it simply serves to redefine the Horndeski potentials, $\kappa_i(\phi, \rho)$.
[^2]: Different values of $\kappa$ represent different slicings of Minkowksi space: $\kappa=0$ corresponds to Minkowski coordinates; $\kappa<0$ corresponds to Milne coordinates; $\kappa>0$ is not permitted since one cannot foliate Minkowski space with spherical spatial sections.
[^3]: By “on-shell-in-$a$” we mean that we have set $H^2=-\kappa/a^2$.We shall see later that this is indeed a consistent solution to our system.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'There are multiple groups of comoving stars in the Solar neighbourhood, which can potentially be explained as the signatures of one of the fundamental resonances of non-axisymmetric structure such as the Galactic bar or spiral arms. One such stream, Hercules, has been proposed to result from the outer Lindblad resonance (OLR) of a short fast rotating bar as shown analytically, or the corotation resonance (CR) of a longer slower rotating bar as observed in an $N$-body model. We show that by including an $m=4$ Fourier component in an analytical long bar model, with an amplitude that is typical for bars in $N$-body simulations, we can reproduce a Hercules like feature in the kinematics of the Solar neighbourhood. We then describe the expected symmetry in the velocity distribution arising from such a model, which we will soon be able to test with $Gaia$.'
author:
- |
\
$^{1}$ Dunlap Institute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3H4, Canada\
$^{2}$ Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Toronto, 50 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S 3H4, Canada\
$^{3}$ Alfred P. Sloan Fellow\
bibliography:
- 'ref2.bib'
title: 'The 4:1 Outer Lindblad Resonance of a long slow bar as a potential explanation for the Hercules stream'
---
\[firstpage\]
Galaxy: bulge — Galaxy: disk — Galaxy: fundamental parameters — Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics — Galaxy: structure — solar neighbourhood
Introduction {#intro}
============
The kinematics of the Solar neighbourhood shows rich substructure in the form of streams or moving groups. One such stream, Hercules, consists of stars with $U\sim-30$ km s$^{-1}$, and $V\sim-50$ km s$^{-1}$ with respect to the Sun’s velocity, where $U$ is velocity in the direction of the Galactic centre, and $V$ is velocity in the direction of rotation. It has been proposed that Hercules is a result of the Outer Lindblad Resonance (OLR) of the Galactic bar [@D00]. This arrises naturally from resonant interaction between the disc and a short, fast rotating bar, as further explored in e.g. @Aetal14-2 [@Monari+16].
However, if the bar is longer, as favoured by more recent measurements of its extent [e.g. @WGP15], then the bar must rotate slower, because it may not extend past corotation [e.g. @Contopoulos80]. For such a bar, the OLR is located at around 10.5 kpc, making it unable to account for the Hercules stream [although note that a possible OLR feature has been observed around 10-11 kpc in @Liu+12].
[@P-VPWG17] present an alternate explanation for the Hercules stream arising from a bar with a half length of 5 kpc. In this model, stars orbiting the bar’s Lagrange points $\mathcal{L}_4$ and $\mathcal{L}_5$ move outward from corotation which occurs at $R=6$ kpc to reach the Solar neighbourhood. However, explorations of the distribution function in the outer disc for a long slow bar model, either show no Hercules like feature [e.g. @2017MNRAS.465.1443M], or one which is substantially weaker [@MFFB17; @Binney2018] than is seen in either the model from [@P-VPWG17], or the Solar neighbourhood. These models typically use a simple quadrupole bar potential [e.g. from @D00], which is a simple approximation for the complex structure in the inner Galaxy.
While the exact morphology of the bar is not yet fully constrained, various studies favour a more complicated potential than is given by the Dehnen bar. For example, the Milky Way appears to host an X-shaped bulge [e.g. @NL16] such as is often seen in external galaxies [e.g @LDP00] and can be easily created in $N$-body simulations [e.g. @CS81; @Athanassoula05; @AVSD17]. Fourier decomposition of the density distribution in simulated [e.g. @AM02] and observed [e.g. @QFG94; @BLSBK06; @D-GSL16] barred disc galaxies show evidence for the existence of higher order modes than the $m=2$ Dehnen bar. Thus, it is possible that the inability of the long-slow bar scenario to make a convincing analytical prediction of the Hercules stream arises from the simplicity of the assumed bar potential.
In this work, we show that a long slow bar such as is shown in [@P-VPWG17] is capable of producing a Hercules-like feature in the Solar neighbourhood $UV$ plane, when including an $m=4$ Fourier component in the model for the bar potential.
In Section \[simulation\] we present seven $N$-body galaxy models which show varying bar morphologies, and compute the $m=4$ Fourier mode of the bars. In Section \[modelling\] we present models of the long bar with and without a $m=4$ component and discuss the impact on the resulting velocity distribution, both in the Solar neighbourhood, and further across the Galactic disc. In Section \[4sym\] we discuss the expectation of symmetry in the velocity distribution across the Galactic disc if the bar has an $m=4$ component. In Section \[summary\] we summarize our results.
Simulations {#simulation}
===========
It is known from observations of external galaxies that within barred spiral disc galaxies the size and shape of the central bar can vary greatly. In this Section we present seven $N$-body models which display different morphological properties and perform a Fourier transform on their central bars to recover the amplitude of the various modes of the radial force.
The set of galaxies were generated with the $N$-body/SPH code [e.g. @KG03]. Most have been examined in other works, in which you will find the details of the numerical simulation code and the setup procedure. Table \[Tpars\] shows their basic parameters where $M_{200}$ ($M_{\sun}$) is the total halo mass, $M_{\mathrm{d}}$ ($M_{\sun}$) is the mass of the stellar disc, $c$ is the concentration parameter, $R_{\mathrm{d}}$ (kpc) is the scale length of the disc and $z_{\mathrm{d}}$ (kpc) is the scale height of the disc. For models including a thick disc, the parameter for the thick disc is in brackets.
------- --------------------- --------------------- ------ ------------------ ------------------ -- -- -- -- -- --
Model $M_{200}$ $M_{\mathrm{d}}$ $c$ $R_{\mathrm{d}}$ $z_{\mathrm{d}}$
($10^{12}M_{\sun}$) ($10^{10}M_{\sun}$) (kpc) (kpc)
A 2.5 4.0 10.0 2.5 0.35
B 2.0 5.0 9.0 3.0 0.3
C 1.5 4.5(1.5) 12.0 4.0(2.5) 0.35(1.0)
D 1.75 5.0 9.0 3.0 0.3
E 2.5 4.0(1.0) 10.0 2.5(2.0) 0.3(1.0)
F 1.0 5.5(0.5) 10.0 3.0(2.5) 0.35(1.0)
G 2.0 5.0 10.0 2.0 0.3
------- --------------------- --------------------- ------ ------------------ ------------------ -- -- -- -- -- --
: Parameters of the simulations displayed in Fig. \[morphology\]. For models with a thin and thick disc, the value outside the brackets is the parameter for the thin disc, and the value in the brackets is the parameter for the thick disc.[]{data-label="Tpars"}
Figure \[morphology\] shows the face on (left) and edge on (right) morphology of model galaxies A to G (top to bottom). Model A [which was previously analysed in @KHGPC14; @HKGMPC15] contains a short flat bar, with strong spiral structure and is comprised of a single disc. Model B [previously analysed as Target II in @HKM13] contains a long flat bar, with light spiral structure and is comprised of a single disc. Model C [previously analysed in @KGGCHB17] contains a long flat bar, with light spiral structure and is comprised of a thin and thick disc. Model D [previously analysed as Target IV in @HKM13] contains a short bar, little spiral structure and is comprised of a single disc. Model E contains a long flat bar and is composed of a thin and thick disc. Model F contains a short bar and is comprised of a thin and thick disc. Model G contains a short bar, light spiral structure and is comprised of a single disc. Models D, F and G have a pronounced X shape when viewed edge on, whereas A, C, D and E have little vertical structure.
Figure \[fourier2\] shows the Fourier decomposition of the radial force of the bar area, using the simple cut of $R_{\mathrm{G}}\leq5$ kpc, by distance from the galactic centre (left) and by angle at 8 kpc (right) of model galaxies A to G (top to bottom) for $m=2$ (blue solid), $m=4$ (green dashed), $m=6$ (red dash-dot) and $m=8$ (black dotted). The radial force at the Solar radius calculated from the bar region is dominated by the $m=2$ mode, with the force ranging from around 1.5% - 4% of the total force coming from the $m=2$ component of the bar, compared with the axisymmetric background at $R_0$. All Models except G have a visible $m=4$ component, albeit substantially weaker than the $m=2$ mode. The force contribution from the $m=4$ component ranges from 0.1% - 0.4% of the total force in Models A-F. Model G does contains a magnitude smaller $m=4$ force component with 0.001% of the total radial force. In general, the amplitude of the $m=4$ component of the radial force is around $5-10$% of the amplitude of the $m=2$ component. It is also worth noting that each simulation examined here contains a negative $m=4$ component, e.g. the maximum of the $m=2$ mode aligns with a minimum of the $m=4$ mode. We are not suggesting that all $m=4$ components are negative, it is merely the case for this set of models.
Figures \[morphology\] and \[fourier2\] do not indicate a strong link between a bar containing significant vertical structure such as a the X shape, and the density or radial force having a large $m=4$ component. However, there is a slight correlation in the strength of the $m=4$ component. For example, Models A, B, C and E, all contain flat bars, and while they are dominated solely by the $m=2$ bar, they contain $m=4$ components of similar amplitudes. Models D, F and G contain X shaped structure, and while they also contain $m=4$ components, in Models D and F the amplitude is slightly less than in the flat bars, and Model G has very little or no $m=4$ component. The correlation here is slight, and it would require further study to determine if such features are more likely to be found together, separately, or entirely uncorrelated. Regardless, we take the presence of $m=4$ components in the flat bar models as sufficient justification to explore the effect of the $m=4$ component in a two dimensional model in Section \[modelling\]. The models also contain small $m=6$ and $m=8$ components, but at a much lower amplitude.
![Face-on (left) and edge-on (right) view of Models A-G (top to bottom).[]{data-label="morphology"}](FaceAndEdge.png){width="\hsize"}
![Fourier decomposition of the ratio of the radial force $F(\Phi)_m/F(\Phi)_0$ for Models A-G (top to bottom) by galactic radius (left) and by angle at a distance of 8 kpc (right), for the $m=2$ (blue solid), $m=4$ (green dashed), $m=6$ (red dot-dashed) and $m=8$ (black dotted) mode compared to the axisymmetric background potential.[]{data-label="fourier2"}](FourierDecomRF.pdf){width="\hsize"}
Modelling the higher order Fourier components of the bar {#modelling}
========================================================
To make predictions of the velocity distribution in the Solar neighbourhood, resulting from resonant interaction with the Galactic bar, we use `galpy`[^1] [@B15] to simulate the stellar orbits. We choose to investigate the effects of including an $m=4$ component in the bar potential because it is the most significant of the higher order modes, and because for some long-slow bar models the 4:1 OLR occurs around the location of the Sun [e.g. $\sim8$ kpc in @LGSPW16]
As mentioned earlier, because the simulations in Section \[simulation\] show the $m=4$ component can occur in a flat bar, we ignore the vertical motions and only simulate the two-dimensional dynamics in the Galactic plane. As shown in [@Bovy10] and [@Hunt+18] we use a Dehnen distribution function [@Dehnen99] to model the stellar disc before bar formation, and represent the distribution of stellar orbits. This distribution function is a function of energy $E$ and angular momentum $L$ $$f_{\text{dehnen}}(E,L)\ \propto \frac{\Sigma(R_e)}{\sigma^2_{\text{R}}(R_e)}\exp\biggl[\frac{\Omega(R_e)[L-L_c(E)]}{\sigma^2_{\text{R}}(R_e)}\biggr],$$ where $R_e$, $L_c$ and $\Omega(R_e)$ are the radius, angular momentum and angular frequency, respectively, of a circular orbit with energy $E$. The gravitational potential is assumed to be a simple power-law, such that the circular velocity is given by $$v_c(R)=v_0(R/R_0)^{\beta}\,,$$ where $v_0$ is the circular velocity at the solar circle at radius $R_0$.
To model the bar we generalise the simple quadrupole bar potential from @D00 to a general $\cos(m\phi)$ potential such that $$\begin{split}
&\Phi_{\mathrm{b}}(R,\phi)=A_{\text{b}}(t)\cos(m(\phi_{\mathrm{b}}-\Omega_{\text{b}}t))\\
& \quad \quad \times
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} -(R/R_0)^p, & \mathrm{for}\ R \geq R_{\text{b}},\\ ([R_{\text{b}}/R]^p-2)\times(R_{\mathrm{b}}/R_0)^p, & \mathrm{for}\ R \leq R_{\text{b}}, \end{array}
\right.
\end{split}$$ where $R_{\text{b}}$ is the bar radius, set to $80\%$ of the corotation radius, $m$ is the integer multiple of the $\cos$ term, $\phi_{\mathrm{b}}$ is the angle of the bar with respect to the Sun–Galactic-center line and $p$ is the power-law index. To reproduce the Dehnen bar, $m=2$ and $p=-3$. The bar is grown smoothly following the prescription $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\text{b}}(t)=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll} 0,\ \frac{t}{T_{\text{b}}}<t_{\text{1}} \\ A_f\biggl[\frac{3}{16}\xi^5-\frac{5}{8}\xi^3+\frac{15}{16}\xi+\frac{1}{2}\biggr], t_{\text{1}}\leq\frac{t}{T_{\text{b}}}\leq t_{\text{1}}+t_{\text{2}}, \\ A_f,\ \frac{t}{T_{\text{b}}} > t_{\text{1}} + t_{\text{2}}. \end{array}
\right.\,\end{aligned}$$ where $t_1$ is the start of bar growth, set to half the integration time, and $t_2$ is the duration of the bar growth. $T_{\text{b}}=2\pi/\Omega_{\text{b}}$ is the period of the bar, $$\xi=2\frac{t/T_{\text{b}}-t_{\text{1}}}{t_{\text{2}}}-1,$$ and $$A_f=\alpha_{m}\frac{v_0^2}{3},$$ where $\alpha_{m}$ is the dimensionless ratio of forces owing to the $\cos(m\phi)$ component of the bar potential and the axisymmetric background potential, $\Phi_0$, at Galactocentric radius $R_0$ along the bar’s major axis, corresponding to the amplitude in Figure \[fourier2\]. Another common method of measuring bar strength is $Q_{\mathrm{r}}$, which is related to $\alpha$ such that $\alpha=Q_{\mathrm{r}}(R_0)$, where $$Q_{\mathrm{r}}(r)=\frac{\partial\Phi_{\mathrm{b}}/\partial r}{\partial\Phi_0/\partial r}.$$
![$UV$ plane in the Solar neighbourhood for an example of a short fast bar (left) and a long slow bar (right).[]{data-label="simple"}](UVshortlong.pdf){width="\hsize"}
![$UV$ plane in the Solar neighbourhood for the combined TGAS-RAVE data satisfying $\sigma_{\pi}/\pi\leq0.1$ and $1/\pi<0.2$ kpc.[]{data-label="tgasrave"}](UVTGASBW.pdf){width="\hsize"}
{width="\hsize"}
Figure \[simple\] shows the $UV$ plane in the Solar neighbourhood for the simple bar model for a short fast bar (left) and a long slow bar (right). For our fast bar model, we set $\alpha_{m=2}=0.01$, $R_0=8.0$ kpc, and $v_0=220$ km s$^{-1}$, the bar has an angle of $25^{\circ}$ with respect to the Sun–Galactic-center line, a pattern speed of $\Omega_{\text{b}}=1.85\times\Omega_0$ and a half length of 3.5 kpc. For the slow bar model we set $\alpha_{m=2}=0.01$, $R_0=8.0$ kpc and $v_0=220$ km s$^{-1}$, the bar has an angle of $25^{\circ}$ with respect to the Sun–Galactic-center line, a pattern speed of $\Omega_{\text{b}}=1.3\times\Omega_0$ and a half length of 5 kpc. For these simple bar models, the fast bar model naturally recreates a strong feature in the $UV$ plane in the region of Hercules, around $U=-30$ km s$^{-1}$ with respect to the LSR, or $U=-40$ km s$^{-1}$ with respect to the Sun, while the slow bar model does not. Note that these models are but a single example of the parameters for a short fast, and long slow bar, and different choices will result in a different $UV$ plane. However, the trend is consistent for short fast rotating bars which have been examined in numerous previous works [e.g. @D00; @Aetal14-2; @Monari+16].
For comparison, we cross match the Tycho-$Gaia$ Astrometric Solution [TGAS; @Michalik+15] catalogue from the European Space Agency’s $Gaia$ mission [@GaiaMission] with data from the Radial Velocity Experiment [RAVE; @Sea06] to attain six-dimensional phase space information for over 200,000 stars in the Solar neighbourhood. We perform a simple cut requiring fractional parallax error $\sigma_{\pi}/\pi\leq0.1$, and stellar distances of $1/\pi\leq0.2$ kpc, resulting in a sample of 26,792 stars. Fig. \[tgasrave\] shows the $UV$ plane in the Solar neighbourhood for this sample, without any correction for Solar motion. The Hercules stream is clearly visible in the lower left of the figure, around $(U,V)=(-40,-50)$ km s$^{-1}$. The Hyades, Pleiades, Coma Berenices and Sirius moving groups are also visible within the main mode.
Note that neither of the simple models presented in Fig. \[simple\] reproduce the complex structure in the main peak of the density in the $UV$ plane (e.g. the other moving groups) shown in Fig. \[tgasrave\]. This is unsurprising considering it is thought to be heavily influenced by interaction with other non-axisymmetric structure such as the spiral arms [e.g. @Quillen03; @QM05; @Sellwood2010; @MVB17].
To include an $m=4$ component of the bar, we add a hexadecapole bar potential. We grow this second potential along with the main bar, assuming the same bar length and rotation, and a radial drop-off of $p=-5$. We compare the $UV$ plane in the Solar neighbourhood for a pure $m=2$ bar against bars with a positive and negative $m=4$ component, although only a negative $m=4$ component is observed in the simulations, e.g. the maximum of the $m=2$ mode aligns with a minimum of the $m=4$ mode.
{width="\hsize"}
Figure \[m4slow\] shows the $UV$ plane in the Solar neighbourhood for a 5 kpc bar with pattern speed $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.3\times\Omega_0$ to $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.425\times\Omega_0$ from left to right for a pure $m=2$ bar model (upper row), a negative amplitude $m=4$ model (middle row) and a positive amplitude $m=4$ model (lower row), assuming a flat rotation curve and a velocity dispersion of $0.15\times v_0$. We set $\alpha_{m=4}=\pm0.0005$, which is lower than the measured values in Section \[simulation\]. However, the simulations also have higher values for $\alpha_{m=2}$ and the ratio between $\alpha_{m=2}$ and $\alpha_{m=4}$ (around $5-10$%) is consistent. The upper row of Figure \[m4slow\] shows that a long slow bar of 5 kpc with only an $m=2$ component does not reproduce a Hercules like feature within the range $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.3-1.425\times\Omega_0$. There is a slight deformation of the contours in the region of Hercules for $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.3-1.35\times\Omega_0$ arising from resonant trapping by the CR [@P-VPWG17], but no clearly separated modes which would reproduce the stream. At higher pattern speeds a feature develops at $V\sim30$ km s$^{-1}$ arising from resonant trapping by the OLR, which is not seen in the Solar neighbourhood. Both these features are known and explained in more detail in [@2017MNRAS.465.1443M].
The second row of Figure \[m4slow\] shows the $UV$ plane in the Solar neighbourhood for a 5 kpc bar comprised of a $m=2$ component with $\alpha_{m=2}=0.01$ and a negative $m=4$ component with $\alpha_{m=4}=-0.0005$. The negative $m=4$ component clearly creates a new divide in the $UV$ plane, which at higher pattern speeds is close to the observed location of Hercules. However, the bimodality only occurs in the right region to reproduce Hercules at pattern speeds where the OLR feature is also present at high $V$.
The lower row of Figure \[m4slow\] shows the $UV$ plane in the Solar neighbourhood for a 5 kpc bar comprised of a $m=2$ component with $\alpha_{m=2}=0.01$ and a positive $m=4$ component with $\alpha_{m=4}=0.0005$. The positive $m=4$ component also creates a new divide in the $UV$ plane, but it produces a feature at positive $U$, which is incompatible with the Hercules stream.
![$UV$ plane for the long slow bar model with $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.425\times\Omega_0$, $\alpha_{m=2}=0.01$ and $\alpha_{m=4}=-0.0005$ (contours) overlaid on the TGAS-RAVE $UV$ plane (hexbin).[]{data-label="425tgas"}](olr4.pdf){width="\hsize"}
The amplitude of the $m=4$ component also has a significant effect on the $UV$ plane. Figure \[ampsneg\] shows the $UV$ plane in the Solar neighborhood for a 5 kpc bar with pattern speed $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.3\Omega_0$ to $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.425\Omega_0$ from left to right for a bar with $\alpha_{m=2}=0.01$ and $\alpha_{m=4}=-0.0002$ to $-0.0012$ (top to bottom). When comparing the columns the progression of the resonance feature to lower $V$ with a higher pattern speed is clear, and to be expected. When comparing the rows the progressively stronger $m=4$ component leads to a larger deviation from the rough symmetry around $U=0$ of a pure $m=2$ bar. Once we approach $\alpha_{m=4}\approx-0.0008$ the perturbation in the contours of the velocity distribution becomes significantly less smooth, especially for the higher pattern speeds.
We find an amplitude of around $\alpha_{m=4}=-0.0005$ to be the best choice to reproduce a Hercules like feature, without causing a large disruption to the velocity distribution. Figure \[425tgas\] shows contours from the long slow bar model with $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.4\times\Omega_0$, $\alpha_{m=2}=0.01$, $\alpha_{m=4}=-0.0005$ and a velocity dispersion of $0.13\times v_0$ overlaid on the TGAS-RAVE $UV$ plane correcting for the Solar motion using the values $U_{\odot}=-10$ km s$^{-1}$ [@Betal12] and $V_{\odot}=24$ km s$^{-1}$ [@2015ApJ...800...83B]. For the chosen values of the Solar motion the resonance of the $m=4$ component produces a Hercules like feature around $(U,V)=(-20,-20)$ km s$^{-1}$. However, the high $V$ feature arising from the OLR is not observed in the Solar neighbourhood $UV$ plane. We can reduce the intensity of the OLR feature by reducing the strength of the $m=2$ component of the bar. However, we show here the model with $\alpha_{m=2}=0.01$ which is a standard choice for the Dehnen bar model [e.g. @D00].
This OLR feature around $V\sim30$ km s$^{-1}$ is an issue for a long bar model with $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}\gtrsim1.35\times\Omega_0$. Unless some other component of the potential can be shown to suppress this response (e.g. interaction between the bar and spiral resonances) the lack of any observation of a similar feature in the Solar neighbourhood argues against a 5 kpc bar model with a pattern speed much above $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.35\times\Omega_0$.
It is possible that a small OLR feature from a long slow bar at high $V$ has been observed in the TGAS proper motion data [@HKMGFS17] although it was interpreted as a signature of the Perseus arm in that work. It would require data at higher distances to trace whether the feature increases in strength with distance. Similarly, a small high $V$ feature is visible in the APOGEE2-S data [visible in Fig. 4 of @Hunt+18] along the line of sight $(l,b)=(270^{\circ},0)$, although both features are low significance. If this is what has been observed, it would fit with a weaker bar, or a pattern speed around $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.35\times\Omega_0$.
Four fold symmetry {#4sym}
==================
If the Hercules stream originates from the resonance of a bar with an $m=4$ component then similar kinematics should be observable in four locations around the disc. E.g., assuming the Sun lies at $\phi=0^{\circ}$, then the $UV$ plane at $\phi=90^{\circ}$, $180^{\circ}$ and $270^{\circ}$ should contain similar resonance features from the $m=4$ component (it will only be identical at $\phi=180^{\circ}$ owing to the primary $m=2$ mode of the bar). In contrast, if the Hercules stream originates from the $m=2$ short fast bar model or the $m=2$ component of a long slow bar, then similar kinematics should only occur at $\phi=180^{\circ}$.
Thus, if we can make observations across the disc we can potentially determine between Hercules resulting from a $m=2$ or $m=4$ component pattern. In turn, if we can make that distinction, we can also put a strong constraint on the pattern speed of the bar.
[@Bovy10] made a prediction across the disc for the Hercules stream if it originates from the short fast bar model. Here we make the same prediction around the $R_0=8$ kpc circle for the long slow bar with only an $m=2$ component with $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.3\times\Omega_0$, and one which includes an $m=4$ component with $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.4\times\Omega_0$ as shown in Figure \[425tgas\].
{width="\hsize"}
Figure \[symmetry\] shows the $UV$ plane along the Solar circle ($R=8$ kpc) at varying azimuths by column for the short bar model from [@Hunt+18] (top row), the $m=2$ component long slow bar model (centre row) where it is proposed the Hercules can originate from trapping around the CR, and the $m=4$ long bar model from Figure \[425tgas\] (bottom row) where it is proposed that Hercules can originate from the 4:1 OLR.
The top row of Figure \[symmetry\] shows the $UV$ plane for an example short bar model. It displays two fold symmetry, e.g. the $UV$ plane at 0 and $\pi$ rad is identical. The second row of Figure \[symmetry\] shows that the $UV$ plane of a standard Dehnen bar with $\alpha_{m=2}=0.01$ and $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.3\times\Omega_0$ also displays two fold symmetry. The third row of Figure \[symmetry\] shows the $UV$ plane for a 5 kpc bar with $\alpha_{m=2}=0.01$, $\alpha_{m=4}=-0.0005$ and $\Omega_{\mathrm{b}}=1.425\times\Omega_0$. This bar models shows a mix of two and four fold symmetry. The OLR feature at high $V$ which originates from the $m=2$ component is two fold symmetric, such that it repeats every $\pi$ radians. However, the feature around the area of Hercules arising from the $m=4$ component is four fold symmetric, such that it repeats every $\pi/2$ radians, visible at $\phi=0, \pi/2$ and $\pi$ rad.
In the near future data release 2 [DR2; @KB17] from the European Space Agency’s $Gaia$ mission [@GaiaMission] will provide detailed positions and proper motions for over $1.3\times10^9$ stars, and radial velocities for over $6\times10^6$ stars. This will allow us to explore kinematics away from the Solar neighbourhood and search for two or four fold symmetric features. We will not be able to examine the $UV$ plane across the disc specifically with DR2 owing to the lower number of radial velocities, but similar to the line-of-sight identified in [@Bovy10] which showed a strong signature of Hercules, there will exist lines of sight for which the gaps in the velocity distribution owing to various resonances are visible in the proper motion data alone.
For that reason we do not make a detailed prediction of the model parameters, but merely highlight another potential mechanism for the creation of the Hercules stream in a model with a long-slow bar which can be tested against the data from $Gaia$ and other Galactic surveys.
Discussion and outlook {#summary}
======================
In this work we have shown that it is possible to create a Hercules like feature in the Solar neighbourhood $UV$ plane in a model with a 5 kpc bar, containing both a $m=2$ and $m=4$ Fourier component. The other moving groups present in the main mode of the velocity distribution are not reproduced, likely because they originate from spiral resonances [e.g. @QM05; @Sellwood2010], or interaction between the bar and spiral resonances [e.g. @Quillen03; @MFSGKB16]. We will investigate this further in an upcoming work (Hunt et. al, In prep).
Although existing long bar models have been able to reproduce a Hercules like feature through resonant trapping around the corotation radius [@P-VPWG17; @MFFB17], the effect is weaker than observed in the data. We are not suggesting that the parameterization of this model is a perfect representation of the bar, considering the OLR feature present at high $V$, but merely that a resonance origin for Hercules is compatible with the 4:1 OLR of a long bar model, providing a more complex potential is used.
We make a general prediction of four fold symmetry across the Galactic disc if Hercules is caused by the $m=4$ component of the bar. At this stage we lack sufficient data to fully trace the stream to larger distances. However, in the near future $Gaia$ DR2 will provide detailed 5D phase space information for over $1.5\times10^9$ stars down to $\sim20$ mag, allowing us to trace how Hercules varies across the Galactic disc. This will enable us to make detailed comparisons with the competing models, and help explain the origins of the kinematic features in the Solar neighbourhood.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
JH is supported by a Dunlap Fellowship at the Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics, funded through an endowment established by the Dunlap family and the University of Toronto. JB received partial support from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. JB also received partial support from an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship. This work has made use of data from the European Space Agency (ESA) mission Gaia (https://www.cosmos.esa.int/gaia), processed by the Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC, https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/gaia/dpac/consortium). Funding for the DPAC has been provided by national institutions, in particular the institutions participating in the Gaia Multilateral Agreement. This work (or a part of this work) used the UCL facility Grace and the DiRAC Data Analytic system at the University of Cambridge, operated by the University of Cambridge High Performance Computing Service on behalf of the STFC DiRAC HPC Facility (www.dirac.ac.uk). This equipment was funded by BIS National E-infrastructure capital grant (ST/K001590/1), STFC capital grants ST/H008861/1 and ST/H00887X/1, and STFC DiRAC Operations grant ST/K00333X/1. DiRAC is part of the National E-Infrastructure.
[^1]: Available at <https://github.com/jobovy/galpy> .
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In an application, where a client wants to obtain many elements from a large database, it is often desirable to have some load balancing. Batch codes (introduced by Ishai *et al.* in STOC 2004) make it possible to do exactly that: the large database is divided between many servers, so that the client has to only make a small number of queries to every server to obtain sufficient information to reconstruct all desired elements. Other important parameters of the batch codes are total storage and the number of servers. Batch codes also have applications in cryptography (namely, in the construction of multi-query computationally-private information retrieval protocols).
In this work, we initiate the study of *linear* batch codes. These codes, in particular, are of potential use in distributed storage systems. We show that a generator matrix of a binary linear batch code is also a generator matrix of classical binary linear error-correcting code. This immediately yields that a variety of upper bounds, which were developed for error-correcting codes, are applicable also to binary linear batch codes. We also propose new methods to construct large linear batch codes from the smaller ones.
author:
-
title: Linear Batch Codes
---
Batch codes, error-correcting codes, computationally-private information retrieval, load balancing, distributed storage.
Introduction
============
Consider the scenario where a client wants to retrieve many (say $m$) elements from an $n$ element database, stored by a storage provider. Accessing a single server by all clients simultaneously can create serious performance problems. A simple solution is to duplicate the whole database between some $M$ servers, so that the client can query approximately $m / M$ elements from every server. However, that solution is very costly storage-wise, since all servers together have then to store $N = M n$ database elements.
The things get even more problematic in the cryptographic scenario. In an $m$-out-of-$n$ CPIR (computationally-private information retrieval [@Kushilevitz]), the client wants to retrieve $m$ elements from an $n$ element database without the storage provider getting to know which elements were retrieved. An additional problem in this case is the storage provider’s computational complexity that is $\Theta (n)$ per query in almost all known $1$-out-of-$n$ CPIR protocols. (The only exception is [@Lipmaa], where the per-query computational complexity is $O (n / \log n)$.) Just performing $m$ instances of an $1$-out-of-$n$ CPIR protocol would result in a highly prohibitive computational complexity.
To tackle both mentioned problems, Ishai *et al.* [@Ishai] proposed to use *batch codes*. More precisely, let $\Sigma$ be a finite alphabet. In an $(n, N, m, M, T)_{\Sigma}$ batch code, a database ${{\mbox{\boldmath $f$}}}$ of $n$ strings in $\Sigma$ is divided into $M$ buckets where each bucket contains $N / M$ strings in $\Sigma$. (W.l.o.g., we assume that $M \mid N$.) If a client is to obtain $m$ elements of the original database, he query (no more than) $T$ elements from each of the $M$ buckets. A batch code guarantees that based on the answers to the resulting $\leq M \cdot T$ queries, the client is able to efficiently reconstruct the $m$ elements he was originally interested in.
When using a batch code, the storage provider only needs to store $N$ elements. In addition, in the cryptographic scenario, the total computational complexity of the servers is $O (M T)$. Therefore, one is interested in simultaneously minimizing all three values $N$, $M$ and $T$.
Several different batch codes were proposed in [@Ishai]. Batch codes have been recently studied very actively in the combinatorial setting. Namely, a *combinatorial batch code* (CBC) satisfies the additional requirement that every element of every bucket is equal to some element of the original database. (See for example [@Brualdi; @Bhattacharya; @Bujtas].) New constructions of combinatorial batch codes, based on affine planes and transversal designs, were recently presented in [@Gal].
CBCs suffer from some limitations. First, the requirement that each element in the bucket is equal to the element of the original database is generally not necessary. Relaxing this requirement can potentially lead to better parameter trade-offs. Second, batch codes are usually constructed using designs and related combinatorial structures. However, if such designs are employed in the practical settings, it might be difficult to come up with efficient retrieval algorithms for such codes due to the not-so-compact representation of the codes. As an alternative, we propose linear batch codes, where each bucket contains a linear combination of the elements in the original database. By using their flexible algebraic structure, better codes and more efficient retrieval algorithms can potentially be developed.
We stress that linear batch codes are also well suitable for the use in the *distributed data storage* [@Dimakis]. The buckets can be viewed as servers. The reading of the requested data can be done “locally” from a small number of servers (for example, from those that are closer to the user, or connected by a higher-throughput links). The linear batch codes are generally fault-tolerable: if a small number of buckets stopped functioning, the data can be reproduced by reading data from (a small number) of other buckets. However, in order to achieve better *locality* and *repair bandwidth* (see [@Dimakis]), linear batch codes with *sparse* generator matrices can be particularly useful.
In this paper, we develop a novel framework for analysis of linear batch codes, which is similar to that of classical error–correcting codes (ECCs). In particular, the encoding is represented by multiplying an information vector by an analog of a generator matrix. As we show, generator matrices of good binary linear batch codes are also generator matrices of good classical ECCs. This immediately gives us a set of tools and bounds from the classical coding theory for analyzing binary linear batch codes. The converse, however, is not true: not every good binary linear ECC is a good linear batch code. Then, we present a number of simple constructions of larger linear batch codes from the smaller ones. It worth mentioning that this novel framework opens a number of research directions related to linear batch codes. We conclude the paper with the list of some of the open questions.
The paper is structured as follows. The notations and some known results are presented in Section \[sec:notation\]. The properties of linear batch codes are analyzed in Section \[sec:linear\]. New construction methods of linear batch codes are presented in Section \[sec:constructions\]. The paper is summarized in Section \[sec:discussion\].
Notation and known results {#sec:notation}
==========================
Let $[n] \triangleq \{1, 2, \cdots, n \}$. We use notation ${{\mathsf{d}}}_H({{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}, {{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}})$ to denote the Hamming distance between the vectors ${{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}$, and notation ${{\mathsf{w}}}_H({{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}})$ to denote the Hamming weight of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}$. We also denote by ${{\mbox{\boldmath $0$}}}$ the row vector consisting of all zeros, and by ${{\mbox{\boldmath $e$}}}_i$ the row vector having one at position $i$ and zeros elsewhere (the length of vectors will be clear from the context). The binary entropy function is defined as ${{\mathsf{H}}}_2(x) \triangleq - x \log_2 x - (1-x) \log_2 (1-x)$.
Let $\Sigma$ be a finite alphabet. We say that ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ is an $(n, N, m, M, t)_\Sigma$ batch code over a finite alphabet $\Sigma$ if it encodes any string ${{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}= (x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n) \in \Sigma^n$ into $M$ strings (buckets) of total length $N$ over $\Sigma$, namely ${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}_1, {{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}_2, \cdots, {{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}_M$, such that for each $m$-tuple (batch) of (not neccessarily distinct) indices $i_1, i_2, \cdots, i_m \in [n]$, the entries $x_{i_1}, x_{i_2}, \cdots, x_{i_m}$ can be retrieved by reading at most $t$ symbols from each bucket. The ratio $R {\stackrel{\triangle}{=}}n/N$ is called the rate of the code.
If for the code ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ it holds that $t=1$, then we use notation $(n, N, m, M)_\Sigma$ for it. This corresponds to an important special case when only one symbol is read from each bucket.
Note that the buckets in this definition correspond to the devices in the above example, the encoding length $N$ to the total storage, and the parameter $t$ to the maximal load.
If $\Sigma = {{\mathbb{F}}}_q$ is a finite field, we also use notation $(n, N, m, M, t)_q$ (or $(n, N, m, M)_q$) to denote $(n, N, m, M, t)_{\Sigma}$ (or $(n, N, m, M)_{\Sigma}$, respectively).
We say that an $(n, N, m, M, t)_{q}$ batch code is *linear*, if every entry of every bucket is a linear combination of original database elements.
Before going further, we recall the following code composition from [@Ishai Lemma 3.5].
\[fact:comp\] Let ${{\mathcal{C}}}_1$ be an $(n_1, N_1 = M_1 n_2, m_1, M_1)_{\Sigma}$ batch code and ${{\mathcal{C}}}_2$ an $(n_2, N_2, m_2, M_2)_{\Sigma}$ batch code such that the length of each bucket in ${{\mathcal{C}}}_1$ is $n_2$ (in particular, $N_1 = M_1 n_2$). Then, there exists an $(n = n_1, N = M_1 N_2, m = m_1 m_2, M = M_1 M_2)_{\Sigma}$ batch code ${{\mathcal{C}}}_1 \otimes {{\mathcal{C}}}_2$.
Thus, one can design batch codes by first considering special cases (like $M = N$), and then combining suitable batch codes to get rid of such restrictions.
Linear batch codes {#sec:linear}
==================
We start with the following example, which is based on so-called “subcube codes” in [@Ishai Section 3.2].
Consider a database of $n$ elements over ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$, where the user wants to retrieve any $m$ of them. Let $t$ and $n$ be integers, $2 | n$. Divide the database ${{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}= (x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_{n})$ into two buckets, where bucket $i$, $i=1,2$, contains elements $(x_{(i-1)n/2+1}, x_{(i-1)n/2+2}, \cdots, x_{i \cdot n/2})$. The third bucket will contain elements $(x_{1}+x_{n/2+1}, x_2 + x_{n/2+2}, \cdots, x_{n/2} + x_{n})$.
This code is a linear $[n, N = 1.5n, m = 2t, M = 3, t]_q$ code for any $1 \le t \le n/2$. Observe, however, that the proposed code can be viewed as $n/2$ copies of the same $[2, 3, 2, 3, 1]_q$ subcube code.
In what follows, we consider the case of a linear batch code ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ with $t=1$. Moreover, we limit ourselves to the case when $N = M$, which means that each encoded bucket contains just one element in ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$.
For simplicity we refer to a linear $(n, N=M, m, M)_{q}$ batch code as $[M, n, m]_q$ batch code.
As before, let ${{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}= (x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n)$ be an information string, and let ${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}= (y_1, y_2, \cdots, y_M)$ be an encoding of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}$. Due to linearity of the code, each encoded symbol $y_i$, $i \in [M]$, can be written as $y_i = \sum_{j=1}^n g_{j,i} x_j$ for some elements $g_{j,i} \in {{\mathbb{F}}}_q$, $j \in [n]$, $i \in [M]$. Then we can form the matrix ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ as follows: $${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}= \Big( g_{j,i} \Big)_{j \in [n], i \in [M]} \; ,$$ and thus $${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}= {{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}\; .$$ The $n \times M$ binary matrix ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ play a role similar to generator matrix for a classical linear ECC. In the sequel, we will call ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ *generator matrix* of the batch code ${{\mathcal{C}}}$. We denote by ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}_i$ the $i$-th row of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ and by ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}^{[i]}$ the $i$-th column of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$.
Observe that we can retrieve $x_j$ from ${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}$ (for some $j \in [n]$) using $[M, n, m]_q$ batch code if there exists a linear combinations of columns in ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ over ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$, which is equal to ${{\mbox{\boldmath $e$}}}_j$. Moreover, the following generalization of this property holds.
Let ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ be an $[M, n, m]_q$ batch code. It is possible to retrieve $x_{i_1}, x_{i_2}, \cdots, x_{i_m}$ simultaneously if there exist $m$ non-intersecting sets of indices of columns in ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$, and for the $r$-th set there exists a linear combination of columns of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ indexed by that set, which equals to the column vector ${{\mbox{\boldmath $e$}}}_{i_r}^T$, for all $r \in [m]$. \[prop:1\]
Let $${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}\triangleq \left[ {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}^{[1]} \; | \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}^{[2]} \; | \; \cdots \; | \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}^{[M]} \right] \; ,$$ where ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}^{[\ell]}$ is the $\ell$-th column in ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$. Let $T_1, T_2, \cdots, T_m$ be non-intersecting sets of indices, such that for each $r \in [m]$ $${{\mbox{\boldmath $e$}}}_{i_r}^T = \sum_{\ell \in T_r} \alpha_\ell \cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}^{[\ell]} \; ,$$ where all $\alpha_\ell \in {{\mathbb{F}}}_q$. Due to linearity, the encoding of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}= (x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n)$ can be written as $${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}= (y_1, y_2, \cdots, y_M) = {{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}\; .$$ Then, $$\begin{aligned}
x_{i_r} & = & {{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath $e$}}}_{i_r}^T \\
& = & {{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}\cdot \left( \sum_{\ell \in T_r} \alpha_\ell \cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}^{[\ell]} \right) \\
& = & \sum_{\ell \in T_r} \alpha_\ell ({{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}\cdot {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}^{[\ell]}) \\
& = & \sum_{\ell \in T_r} \alpha_\ell \cdot y_\ell \; , \end{aligned}$$ and therefore the value of $x_{i_r}$ can be obtained by querring only the values of $y_\ell$ for $\ell \in T_r$. The conclusion follows from the fact that all $T_r$ do not intersect.
In the rest of the paper we assume that the retrieving server performs only linear operations over the columns of the matrix ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ (in other words, it only adds and subtracts $y_1$, $y_2$, $\cdots$, $y_M$, and multiplies them by the elements in ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$). This is a standard assumption in many areas of linear coding (in particular, in network and index coding). In that case, the condition in Property \[prop:1\] becomes both neccessary and sufficient.
Consider the following linear binary batch code ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ whose $4 \times 9$ generator matrix is given by $${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}= \left(
\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
1 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1
\end{array}
\right) \; .$$
Let ${{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}= (x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}= {{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$.
Assume that we want to retrieve the values of $(x_1, x_1, x_2, x_2)$. Consider, for example, the following combinations of the columns of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0 \\
0 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) \; ,
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0 \\
0 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) +
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
1 \\
0 \\
0
\end{array}
\right)
\; , \\
&& \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
0
\end{array}
\right)
=
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
+ \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
\; , \\
&& \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) =
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right) + \left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
1 \\
1
\end{array}
\right) +
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0 \\
1 \\
0
\end{array}
\right)
+
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
1 \\
1 \\
1
\end{array}
\right)
\; .\end{aligned}$$ Then, we can retrieve $(x_1, x_1, x_2, x_2)$ from the following set of equations: $$\left\{
\begin{array}{ccl}
x_1 & = & y_1 \\
x_1 & = & y_2 + y_3 \\
x_2 & = & y_5 + y_8 \\
x_2 & = & y_4 + y_6 + y_7 + y_9
\end{array} \right. \; .$$ Moreover, it is straightforward to verify that any $4$-tuple $(x_{i_1}, x_{i_2}, x_{i_3}, x_{i_4})$, where $i_1, i_2, i_3, i_4 \in [4]$, can be retrieved by using columns indexed by some four non-intersecting sets of indices in $[9]$. Therefore, the code ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ is a $[9, 4, 4]_2$ batch code. As a matter of fact, this code is the two-layer construction of “subcube code” in [@Ishai Section 3.2].
Next, we state the following simple lemmas.
Let ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ be an $[M, n, m]_q$ batch code. Then, each row of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ has Hamming weight at least $m$. \[lemma:distance\]
[**Proof.**]{} Consider row $j$, for an arbitrary $j \in [n]$. We can retrieve the combination $(x_j, x_j, \cdots, x_j)$ if there are $m$ non-intersecting sets of columns, such that sum of the elements in each set is equal ${{\mbox{\boldmath $e$}}}_j^T$. Therefore, there are at least $m$ columns in ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ with a nonzero entry in position $j$.
Let ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ be an $[M, n, m]_q$ batch code. Then, the matrix ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ is a full rank matrix. \[lemma:full-rank\]
[**Proof.**]{} We should be able to recover any combination of size $m$ of $\{ x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n \}$. Then, the column vectors $$\begin{gathered}
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
1 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\vdots \\
0
\end{array}
\right) , \;
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
1 \\
0 \\
\vdots \\
0
\end{array}
\right) , \;
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
1 \\
\vdots \\
0
\end{array}
\right) , \quad \cdots \quad
\left(
\begin{array}{c}
0 \\
0 \\
0 \\
\vdots \\
1
\end{array}
\right)\end{gathered}$$ are all in the column space of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$. Therefore, the column space of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ has dimension $n$, and so the matrix is full rank.
The following theorem is the main result of this section. The presented proof of this theorem works only for *binary* batch codes. However, binary codes are very important special case of batch codes, as typical practical applications use binary representation of information. The proof uses the fact that the codes are binary, — we are not aware of a simple generalization of this proof to nonbinary case.
Let ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ be an $[M, n, m]_2$ batch code ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ over ${{\mathbb{F}}}_2$. Then, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ is a generator matrix of the classical error-correcting $[M, n, \ge m]_2$ code. \[thrm:batch=linear\]
[**Proof.**]{} Let ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ be a classical ECC, whose generating matrix is ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$. It is obvious that the length of ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ is $M$. Moreover, since the matrix ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ is a full rank matrix due to Lemma \[lemma:full-rank\], we obtain that the dimension of ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ is $n$. Thus, the only parameter in question is the minimum distance of ${{\mathbb{C}}}$.
In order to show that the minimum distance of ${{\mathbb{C}}}$ is at least $m$, it will be sufficient to show that any non-zero linear combination of the rows of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ has Hamming weight at least $m$. Consider an arbitrary linear combination of the rows of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$, whose indices are given by a set $T \neq \varnothing$, $${{\mbox{\boldmath $z$}}}= \sum_{i \in T} {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}_i \; .$$ Take an arbitrary index $i_0 \in T$. Due to the properties of the batch codes we should be able to recover $(x_{i_0}, x_{i_0}, \cdots, x_{i_0})$ from ${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}$. Therefore, there exist $m$ disjoint sets of indices $S_1, S_2, \cdots, S_m$, $S_i \subseteq [M]$, such that for all $i \in [m]$: $$\sum_{j \in S_i} {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}^{[j]} = {{\mbox{\boldmath $e$}}}_{i_0}^T \; .
\label{eq:unity}$$
Now, consider the sub-matrix ${{\mbox{\boldmath $M$}}}_i$ of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ which is formed by the rows of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ indexed by $T$ and the columns of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ indexed by $S_i$. Due to (\[eq:unity\]), the row of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $M$}}}_i$ that corresponds to the row $i_0$ in ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$, has an odd number of ones in it. All other rows of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $M$}}}_i$ contain an even number of ones. Therefore, the matrix ${{\mbox{\boldmath $M$}}}_i$ contains an odd number of ones. This means that the vector of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $z$}}}$ will also contain an odd number of ones in the positions given by the set $S_i$. This odd number is at least one.
We conclude that ${{\mbox{\boldmath $z$}}}$ contains at least one ‘$1$’ in positions given by the set $S_i$, for all $i \in [m]$. The sets $S_i$ are disjoint, and therefore the Hamming weight of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $z$}}}$ is at least $m$.
The converse of Theorem \[thrm:batch=linear\] is generally not true. In other words, if ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ is a generator matrix of a classical error-correcting $[M, n, m]_2$ code, then the corresponding code ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ is not necessarily an $[M, n, m]_2$ batch code. For example, take ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ to be a generator matrix of the classical $[4, 3, 2]_2$ ECC as follows: $${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}= \left( \begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \; .$$ Let ${{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}= (x_1, x_2, x_3)$, ${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}= (y_1, y_2, y_3, y_4) = {{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$.
It is impossible to retrieve $(x_2, x_3)$. This can be verified by the fact that $$x_2 = y_1 + y_2 = y_3 + y_4 \quad \mbox{and} \quad x_3 = y_1 + y_3 = y_2 + y_4 \; ,$$ and so one of the $y_i$’s is always needed to compute each of $x_2$ and $x_3$.
[**Corollary.**]{} The topic of linear ECCs was very intensively studied over the years. Various well-studied properties of linear ECCs, such as MacWilliams identities [@MacWilliams], apply also to linear batch codes due to Theorem \[thrm:batch=linear\] (for $t=1$, $M=N$ and $q=2$). A variety of bounds on the parameters of ECCs, such as sphere-packing bound (\[eq:spacking-bound\]), Plotkin bound (\[eq:plotkin-bound\]), Griesmer bound (\[eq:griesmer-bound\]), Elias-Bassalygo bound (\[eq:elias-bound\]), McEliece-Rodemich-Rumsey-Welch bound (\[eq:MRRW-bound\]) [@Rodemich] (see also [@Roth-book Chapter 4], [@MacWilliams-Sloane]) apply to the parameters of linear binary $[M, n, m]$ batch codes.
$$2^{M-n} \ge \sum_{i=0}^{\lfloor (m-1)/2 \rfloor} {M \choose i} \;
\label{eq:spacking-bound}$$
$$m \le \frac{M \cdot 2^{n-1}}{2^{n}-1} \;
\label{eq:plotkin-bound}$$
$$M \ge \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \Big\lceil \frac{m}{2^i} \Big\rceil \;
\label{eq:griesmer-bound}$$
$$\frac{n}{M} \le 1 - {{\mathsf{H}}}_2 \left( \frac{1}{2} \left( 1 - \sqrt{1 - 2 \frac{m}{M}} \right) \right) + o(1) \;
\label{eq:elias-bound}$$
$$\frac{n}{M} \le {{\mathsf{H}}}_2 \left( \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\sqrt{m(M-m)}}{M} \right) + o(1) \;
\label{eq:MRRW-bound}$$
Constructions of New Codes {#sec:constructions}
==========================
In this section we present several simple methods to construct new linear batch codes from the existing ones.
Let ${{\mathcal{C}}}_1$ be an $[M_1, n, m_1]_q$ batch code and ${{\mathcal{C}}}_2$ be an $[M_2, n, m_2]_q$ batch code. Then, there exists an $[M_1+ M_2, n, m_1 + m_2]_q$ batch code.
[**Proof.**]{} Let ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}_1$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}_2$ be $n \times M_1$ and $n \times M_2$ generator matrices corresponding to ${{\mathcal{C}}}_1$ and ${{\mathcal{C}}}_2$, respectively. Consider the following $n \times (M_1+M_2)$ matrix $$\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}} = \left[ \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}_1 \; | \; {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}_2 \; \right] \; .$$ This matrix corresponds to a batch code of length $M_1 + M_2$ with $n$ variables. It is sufficient to show that any combination of $m_1+m_2$ variables can be retrieved. By the assumption, the first (any) $m_1$ variables can be retrieved from the first $M_1$ coordinates of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}$ and the last $m_2$ variables can be retrieved from the last $M_2$ coordinates of ${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}$. This completes the proof.
Let ${{\mathcal{C}}}_1$ be an $[M_1, n_1, m_1]_q$ batch code and ${{\mathcal{C}}}_2$ be an $[M_2, n_2, m_2]_q$ batch code. Then, there exists an $[M_1+ M_2, n_1 + n_2, \min\{m_1, m_2\}]_q$ batch code.
[**Proof.**]{} As before, denote by ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}_1$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}_2$ the $n_1 \times M_1$ and $n_2 \times M_2$ generator matrices corresponding to ${{\mathcal{C}}}_1$ and ${{\mathcal{C}}}_2$, respectively. Consider the following $(n_1 + n_2) \times (M_1+M_2)$ matrix $$\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}} = \left[ \begin{array}{c|c}
{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}_1 & {{\mbox{\boldmath $0$}}}\\
\hline
{{\mbox{\boldmath $0$}}}& {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}_2
\end{array} \right] \; .$$ The matrix $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}}$ corresponds to a batch code of length $M_1 + M_2$ with $n_1 + n_2$ variables. Moreover, any combination of $\min\{m_1, m_2\}$ variables can be retrieved. If all unknowns are from $\{x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_{n_1} \}$, then they can be retrieved by using only the first $M_1$ columns of $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}}$. If all unknowns are from $\{ x_{n_1+ 1}, x_{n_1 + 2}, \cdots, x_{n_1+n_2} \}$, then they can be retrieved by using only the last $M_2$ columns of $\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}}$. Generally, some unknowns can be retrieved by using combinations of the first $M_1$ columns, while the other unknowns are retrieved using combinations of the last $M_2$ columns. Since the number of unknowns is at most $\min\{m_1, m_2\}$, we can always retrieve all of them simultaneously.
The next theorem presents another construction of batch code from a smaller batch code.
Let ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ be an $[M, n, m]_q$ batch code, and let ${{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}$ be the corresponding $n \times M$ matrix. Then, the code $\hat{{{\mathcal{C}}}}$, defined by the $(n + 1) \times (M + m)$ matrix $$\begin{aligned}
& \hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}} = \left( \begin{array}{ccccc|cccc}
& & & & & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
& & {{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}& & & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
& & & & & \vdots & \vdots & \cdots & \vdots \\
& & & & & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\hline
\bullet & \bullet & \bullet & \cdots & \bullet & 1 & 1 & \cdots & 1 \\
\end{array}
\right) \\
& \phantom{ooo} \underbrace{\phantom{oooooooooooooooooi}}_{M} \underbrace{\phantom{ooooooooooooo}}_{m} \end{aligned}$$ is an $[M+m, n+1, m]$ batch code, where $\bullet$ stands for an arbitrary element in ${{\mathbb{F}}}_q$.
[**Proof**]{} As before, let ${{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}= (x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n, x_{n+1})$ and ${{\mbox{\boldmath $y$}}}= (y_1, y_2, \cdots, y_{M+m}) = {{\mbox{\boldmath $x$}}}\hat{{{\mbox{\boldmath $G$}}}}$. Assume that we want to retrieve the vector ${{\mbox{\boldmath $z$}}}= (x_{i_1}, x_{i_2}, \cdots, x_{i_m})$.
Take a particular $x_{i_j}$ in ${{\mbox{\boldmath $z$}}}$, $j \in [m]$. Consider two cases. If ${i_{j}} \neq {n+1}$ then, since ${{\mathcal{C}}}$ is a batch code, we have $$x_{i_j} = \sum_{\ell \in T_{i_j}} y_\ell \; + \; \xi \cdot x_{n+1} \; ,$$ where $T_{i_j} \subseteq [M]$ and $\xi \in {{\mathbb{F}}}_q$. In that case, if $\xi = 0$, then $x_{i_j} = \sum_{\ell \in T_{i_j}} y_\ell$. If $\xi \neq 0$, then $x_{i_j} = \sum_{\ell \in T_{i_j}} y_\ell + \xi \cdot y_{M+j}$. Observe that all $T_{i_j}$ are disjoint due to the properties of a batch code.
In the second case, ${i_{j}} = {n+1}$, and we simply set $x_{i_j} = x_{n+1}= y_{M+j}$.
In both cases, we used sets $\{ y_\ell \; : \; \ell \in T_{i_j} \cup \{M + j\} \}$ to retrieve $x_{i_j}$. These sets are all disjoint for $j \in [m]$.
We conclude that all $m$ unknowns $x_{i_j}$, $j \in [m]$, can be retrieved simultaneously.
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
In this paper, we studied *linear* batch codes. We defined generator matrices of such codes. We also showed that a generator matrix of a linear $[M, n, m]_2$ batch code is also a generator matrix of a classical $[M, n, m]_2$ ECC. The converse is not neccessarily true. Finally, we presented several simple ways to construct new linear batch codes from smaller codes.
Since linear batch codes are closely related to linear ECCs, various well-known properties of linear ECCs, and in particular bounds on their parameters (\[eq:spacking-bound\])-(\[eq:MRRW-bound\]) apply also to linear binary batch codes (for $t=1$ and $M=N$). Linear structure of batch codes can potentially be exploited in order to develop efficient retrieval algorithms. Therefore, linear batch codes are natural candidates for pratical applications, such as load balancing, CPIR and distributed storage. However, a lot of questions are remain open. We list some of them below.
1. Can the connection between linear batch codes and ECCs be extended to nonbinary codes?
2. Construct linear batch codes with better trade-offs between their parameters.
3. Construct linear batch codes suitable for distributed storage settings, in particular codes having sparse generator matrices. Obtain bounds on locality and repair bandwidth for such codes.
4. Do linear batch codes have as good parameters as their nonlinear counterparts do?
5. Develop efficient retrieval algorithms for batch codes.
Asnwering some of these questions could help in developing of new and more efficient batch codes, which can potentially be used in practical applications.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Dominique Unruh for helpful discussions.
[99]{}
, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 165–174, 2012.
, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 419–431, 2010.
, vol. 38, pp. 201–206, 2011.
, pp. 41–50, 1995.
, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4539–4551, 2010.
, June 2004, Chicago, IL.
, pp. 364–373, 1997.
, pp. 193–210, 2009.
, 42 (1963), 79–94.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands; North-Holland, 1978.
, vol. IT-23, pp. 157–166, Mar. 1997.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2006.
preprint is available online [http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.5505]{}.
, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 13–17, 2009.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'This paper introduces and studies a categorical analogue of the familiar monoid semiring construction. By introducing an axiomatisation of summation that unifies notions of summation from algebraic program semantics with various notions of summation from the theory of analysis, we demonstrate that the monoid semiring construction generalises to cases where both the monoid and the semiring are categories. This construction has many interesting and natural categorical properties, and natural computational interpretations.'
author:
- 'Peter M. Hines'
title: A categorical analogue of the monoid semiring construction
---
\[1996/06/01\]
Introduction {#intro}
============
The monoid semiring construction – in particular, the special case of the group ring construction – is one of the most familiar and useful algebraic constructions. This paper places this construction within a significantly more general categorical setting, where the monoid is generalised to a category (with a suitable smallness condition) and the semiring is replaced by a category equipped with a suitable notion of partial summation on hom-sets.
Cauchy products and monoid semirings
------------------------------------
In the formal theory of power series, an infinite power series over some complex variable $z$, given as $P=\alpha_0 + \alpha_1z+\alpha_2z^2+\ldots$ may be treated as simply a function $P:{\mathbb N}\rightarrow {\mathbb C}$. Given another formal power series $Q:{\Bbb N}\rightarrow {\Bbb C}$ over the same variable, their [*convolution*]{}, or [*Cauchy product*]{}, is the formal power series $(Q*P):{\Bbb N}\rightarrow {\Bbb C}$ given by $(Q*P)(n) = \sum_{n=y+x} q(y)p(x)$.
A formal power series $P:{\mathbb N}\rightarrow {\mathbb C}$ converges absolutely within the unit disk $\{ \| z\| \leq 1\}$ when the sum $\sum_{n\in {\Bbb N}} P(n)$ converges absolutely and it is a straightforward result of analysis [@T] that the Cauchy product of two formal power series that converge absolutely within the unit disk itself converges absolutely within the unit disk (and much more general conditions may also lead to convergence — we again refer to [@T]).
When restricting formal power series to the case where only a finite number of coefficients are non-zero (i.e. polynomials in some complex variable $z$), convergence is guaranteed not only within the unit disk, but for all $z\in {\Bbb C}$. Algebraically, this naturally generalises to the familiar theory of monoid semirings [@JG].
[*Monoid semirings*]{}\[msr\]\
Let $(M,\cdot)$ be a monoid, and $(R,\times,+,1_R,0_R)$ be a unital semiring. The [**monoid semiring**]{} $R[M]$ is the unital semiring whose elements are functions $\eta :M\rightarrow R$ such that $\| \{m: \eta(m)\neq 0 \}_{m\in M} \|<\infty$. The multiplication and addition in this semiring are given by
- $(\eta \times \mu)(m) = \sum_{m=qp} \eta(q)\mu(p)$,
- $(\eta + \mu)(m) = \eta(m)+\mu(m)$.
The additive identity is the function $0(m)=0_R \ \forall m\in M$, and the multiplicative identity is the function $1(m)= \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} 1_R & m=1_M\ \\ 0_R & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$ When $(M,\cdot)$ is a group, $R[M]$ is called the [**group semiring**]{}; similarly, when $R$ is a ring, then $R[M]$ is called the [**monoid (or group) ring**]{}.
This paper generalises the above construction of monoid semirings in two ways:
- The finite sums of a semiring are replaced by a more general axiomatic summation of (possibly infinite) indexed families.
- The monoids $(M,\cdot)$ and $(R,\times )$ are replaced by categories. Thus, the unital ring $R$ is replaced by a category with some appropriate notion of summation on homsets.
An axiomatic notion of summation {#PCM-start}
================================
For the programme outlined above, we replace semirings with categories equipped with a partial summation on hom-sets. The overall intention of this paper is to provide a categorical analogue of the monoid semiring construction that generalises the usual theory, but is also applicable to categories used in algebraic program semantics. As discussed in Appendix \[appendix\], axiomatisations of summation commonly used within algebraic program semantics have properties that rule out various analytic notions of summation such as absolute convergence of real or complex sums.
We therefore introduce a very general axiomatisation of summation that includes, as special cases, various notions of summation from both theoretical computer science (in particular, algebraic program semantics) and analysis. By comparison with other notions of summation discussed in Appendix \[appendix\], this is a very weak axiomatisation — in particular, the expressive power we require comes from both the axioms we now present, and the axioms for the interaction of summation and composition given in Section \[summcats\].
\[PCM\][*Partial Commutative Monoids (PCMs)*]{}\
Given sets $M$ and $I$, an [**$I$-indexed family of elements**]{} of $M$ is defined to be a function $x:I\rightarrow M$. For simplicity, we denote this by $\{ x_i \}_{i\in I}$. Throughout this paper, we restrict ourselves to countable (i.e. either finite or denumerably infinite) indexing sets, and hence [**countably indexed families**]{}.
A [**partial commutative monoid**]{} or [**PCM**]{} is a non-empty set $M$ together with a partial function $\Sigma$ from indexed families of $M$ to elements of $M$. An indexed family of elements of $M$ is called [**summable**]{} when it is in the domain of $\Sigma$, and summation is required to satisfy the following two axioms:
1. The [**Unary Sum axiom**]{} Any family $\{ x_i \}_{i\in I}$, where $I = \{i'\}$ is a singleton set, is summable, and $\sum_{i\in I} x_i = x_{i'}$.
2. The [**Weak Partition-Associativity axiom**]{} Let $\{x_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a [*summable*]{} family, and let $\{I_j\}_{j\in J}$ be a countable partition[^1] of $I$. Then $\{ x_i\}_{i\in I_j}$ is summable for every $j\in J$, as is $\{ \sum_{i\in I_j}x_i
\}_{j\in J}$, and $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i = \sum_{j\in J} \left(\sum_{i\in I_j} x_i \right)$$
$ $\
Given a summable family $x = \{x_i\}_{i\in I}$, we may write $\Sigma (x)$ (unambiguously) as $\sum_{i\in I}x_i$. In particular, if $I = \{1, \ldots , n\}$, we write $\Sigma (x) = x_1 + x_2 + x_3 +
\cdots + x_n$, and if $I = {{\mathbb N}}$, $\Sigma (x) = x_1 + x_2 + x_3 +
\cdots $. Notice that by Weak Partition Associativity, we may equate different partitions of a summable family $x$, for example: $$\begin{aligned}
x_1 + x_2 + x_3 + \cdots & = & x_1 + (x_2 + x_3 + \cdots + x_n + \cdots)\\
& = & (x_1 + x_2) + (x_3 + x_4) + \cdots + (x_n + x_{n+1}) + \cdots \\
& = & (x_1+x_3 +x_5 + \cdots) + (x_2+x_4 + x_6 + \cdots) \\\end{aligned}$$
[**The WPA axiom**]{}\[hilleQuote\] The above Weak Partition Associativity axiom is clearly a weakening of the usual Partition Associativity Axiom from algebraic program semantics [@MA; @HA], where the two-sided implication is weakened to a one-sided version (see Appendix \[appendix\] for more details). However, in this weakened form it is also familiar from traditional analysis. For example, in [@EiHi], p. 108, the following property of absolute convergence of real number is stated and proved:
> “An absolutely convergent series may be split into mutually exclusive subseries, finite or infinite in number. The sum of these subseries is equal to the sum of the original series.”
(Note that the prior assumption of an absolutely convergent series in this quotation means that this statement is not equivalent to the usual Partition Associativity axiom described in Definition \[sigmamon\]). In Appendix \[appendix\] we give various examples of PCMs from both analysis and algebraic program semantics, and compare this formalism to other axiomatisations of summation used in various fields.
We first demonstrate that the indexed summation of a PCM is invariant under isomorphism of indexing sets.
\[welldefined\] Let $x:I\rightarrow M$ and $y:J\rightarrow M$ be countably indexed families and let $\phi:I\rightarrow J$ be a bijection satisfying $y{{\circ}}\phi = x$. Then $\Sigma(y)$ is defined exactly when $\Sigma(x)$ is defined, in which case they are equal.
For arbitrary $i\in I$, the set $J_i = \{\phi(i)\}$ is a singleton, and hence, by the unary sum axiom, is summable. As indexing families are countable, $\{J_i \ | \ i\in I\}$ is a countable partition of $J$. Let us now assume that $\{y_j\} _{j\in J}$ is summable: we deduce that: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{j\in J} y_j & = & \sum_{i\in I}\sum_{j\in J_i} y_j \qquad
\mbox{Weak partition associativity}\\
& = & \sum_{i\in I}y_{\phi(i)} \qquad \mbox{Defn, and Unary sum axiom}\\
& = & \sum_{i\in I}x_i \qquad \mbox{Defn}\end{aligned}$$ Alternatively, let us assume that $\{y_j\}_{j\in J}$ is not summable. Then the assumption that $\{x_i\}_{i\in I}$ is summable will (by interchanging the roles of $x$ and $y$ in the above argument) imply the summability of $ \{y_j\}_{j\in J}$ – a contradiction. Therefore, $\{y_j\}_{j\in J}$ is summable exactly when $\{x_i\}_{i\in I}$ is summable, in which case their sums are equal.
Note the similarity of this notion with either the permutation-independence of [*absolute convergence*]{} of real sums (Definition \[realsums\]), or the notion of [*unconditional convergence*]{} of sums in Banach space (Definition \[banachsums\]).\
The following basic properties of PCMs will be used throughout:
\[basics\] Let $(M,\Sigma )$ be a PCM. Then
1. [*(Summable Subfamilies)*]{} Let $\{ x_i \}_{i\in I}$ be a summable family of $M$. Then any subfamily $\{x_i\}_{i\in K}$, where $K \subseteq I$, is also summable.
2. [*(Existence of Zero)*]{} The empty set is summable, and $x+ \{ \} = x = \{ \} +
x$ for all $x\in M$. Hence it is a zero for $M$, and we write $0 = \sum \{ \}$.
3. [*(Sums of Zeros)*]{} For any index set $I$, let $0_I: I\rightarrow M$ denote the constantly zero family (so $0_I(i) = 0$, for all $i\in I$). Then $0_I$ is summable, and $\Sigma_I 0_I = 0$. More generally, for any element $x \in M$, $x + 0 + 0 + 0 + \cdots = x ~ $ (where $0 + 0 + \cdots$ denotes (the sum of) either a finite or infinite sequence of $0$’s).
\[pcmsums\]
[*The proofs of (1) and (2) below are based on very similar proofs (for the special case of partially additive monoids – see Appendix A) presented in [@MA].*]{}\
1. [*(Summable Subfamilies)*]{} Any subset $K\subseteq I$ defines a partition of $I$, namely $\{K, I\setminus K\}$. By Weak Partition Associativity, $\sum_{i\in K}x_i$ exists.
2. [*(Existence of Zero)*]{} As $M$ is by definition non-empty, the unary sum axiom implies that the set of summable families is also non-empty. The empty family is a subfamily of any summable family; hence letting $K = \emptyset$ in the partition above, we see that the empty family $\{ \}$ is summable. It is then immediate that $\sum \{\} =0$ is a zero for the summation operation, and $0+x=x=x+0$ exists for arbitrary $x\in M$.
3. [*(Sums of Zeros)*]{} Pick any partition of $I$ whose first cell is $I$ itself, and the remaining cells are empty (the number of empty cells is either finite or infinite, depending upon whether one wishes a finite (resp. infinite) sum of $0$’s. For example, write $I = I_1
\uplus (\uplus_{n>1} I_n)$, where $I_1 = I$, $I_i =
\emptyset$, if $i> 1$. If $x =
\{x_i\}_{i\in I}$ is an $I$-indexed [*summable*]{} family, then by Weak Partition Associativity we have: $\sum_{i\in I}x_i =
\sum_{i\in I_1}x_i +
\sum_{n>1}(\sum_{i\in I_n}x_i) = \sum_{i\in I_1}x_i + 0 + 0 + \cdots$. Now pick a singleton family $\{x\}$, so $\Sigma(x) = x$. The result follows.
We now define homomorphisms of PCMs, and show that the class of all PCMs, together with this notion of homomorphism, forms a category:
[*PCM homomorphisms, the category of PCMs*]{}\
A [**homomorphism**]{} of PCMs is a function $f:(M,\Sigma )\rightarrow (N,\Sigma')$ satisfying the following natural property:\
Given a summable family $\{ m_i \}_{i\in I}$ of $(M,\Sigma )$, then $\{ f(m_i) \}_{i\in I}$ is a summable family of $(N,\Sigma')$, and $f\left( \Sigma_{i\in I} m_i \right) \ = \ \Sigma'_{i\in I} f(m_i)$.\
The class of all PCMs, together with the above notion of homomorphism, forms a category that we denote ${\mbox{\bf PCM}}$.
First note that for a PCM $(M,\Sigma^M)$ the identity function $1_M:M\rightarrow M$ is a PCM homomorphism. Next, consider PCM homomorphisms $f:(A,\Sigma^A)\rightarrow (B,\Sigma^B)$ and $g:(B,\Sigma^B)\rightarrow (C,\Sigma^C)$, together with a summable family $\{ a_i\}_{i\in I}$ of $A$. Then the function $gf:A\rightarrow C$ satisfies $g\left(f\left(\Sigma^A_{i\in I} a_i\right)\right) = g\left( \Sigma^B_{i\in I} f(a_i) \right) = \Sigma^C_{i\in I} gf(a_i)$. (Note these sums are required to exist, by the definition of PCM homomorphism). Thus $gf$ is a PCM homomorphism from $(A,\Sigma^A)$ to $(C,\Sigma^C)$. Finally, associativity of composition follows from the associativity of composition for functions.
Examples of PCMs are given in Appendix \[appendix\]. For the program outlined in Section \[intro\], we now require categories whose hom-sets are PCMs, together with a specified interaction between summation and composition.
Categories with a notion of summation on hom-sets {#summcats}
=================================================
We now introduce a certain class of categories whose hom-sets are PCMs, together with axioms for the interaction of summation and composition:
\[PCMcats\][*PCM-categories*]{}\
We define a [**PCM-category**]{} to be a locally small[^2] category ${{\mathcal C}}$, together with, for all $X,Y\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$, a partial function $\Sigma^{(X,Y)}$ from countably indexed families over ${{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ to ${{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ (we will often omit the superscript, when this is clear from the context).
This class of partial functions is required to satisfy the following axioms:
1. [**(PCM-structure on hom-sets)**]{}\
$\left( {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y),\Sigma^{(X,Y)}\right) $ is a PCM, for all $X,Y\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$.
2. [**(Strong distributivity)**]{}\
Given summable families $\{ f_i\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{i\in I}$ and $\{ g_j \in {{\mathcal C}}(Y,Z)\}_{j\in J}$, then $\{ g_jf_i \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z)\}_{(j,i)\in J\times I}$ is a summable family satisfying $$\sum_{(j,i)\in J\times I }^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (X,Z)} g_jf_i \ = \ \left( \sum_{j\in J}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (Y,Z)} g_j \right) \left( \sum_{i\in I}^{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (X,Y)} f_i \right)$$
We consider examples of PCM-categories in Appendix \[appendix\], and properties of PCM-categories in Section \[PCMcatprops\] below.
#### **PCM-categories, and categorical enrichment** {#pcm-categories-and-categorical-enrichment .unnumbered}
A very natural question at this point is whether a “PCM-category” is a category enriched over some suitable (monoidal, or closed) category of PCMs. We refer to Section \[neverending\] for this question.\
Properties of PCM-categories {#PCMcatprops}
----------------------------
As may be expected, the strong distributivity property, together with the unary sum axiom, implies the usual left- and right- distributivity laws:
\[distrib\] Let $\left( {{\mathcal C}}, \Sigma^{(\underline{ \ } , \underline{ \ })} \right)$ be a PCM category, and let $\{ g_i \in {{\mathcal C}}(Y,Z) \}_{i\in I}$ be a summable family. Then, for all arrows $f\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ and $h\in {{\mathcal C}}(Z,T)$, $$\{ hg_i \in {{\mathcal C}}(Y,T) \}_{i\in I} \ \mbox{ and } \ \{ g_if \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z) \}_{i\in I}$$ are summable families, and $$h\left( \sum_{i\in I} g_i \right) \ =\ \sum_{i\in I} (hg_i) \ \ \mbox{ and } \ \ \left( \sum_{i\in I} g_i \right) f \ = \ \sum_{i\in I} (g_if)$$
Consider the index set $A=\{ a'\}$, and the indexed family $\{ h_a \}_{a\in A}$ given by $h_{a'}=h$. By the unitary sum axiom $h=\sum_{a\in A} h_a$, and so $$h\sum_{i\in I} g_i = \left( \sum_{a\in A} h_a \right) \left( \sum_{j\in J} g_j \right)$$ By strong distributivity $$\left( \sum_{a\in A} h_a \right) \left( \sum_{j\in J} g_j \right) = \sum_{(a,j) \in A\times J } h_a g_j$$ As $A$ is a single element set, $A \times J \cong J$, and $h_a=h$. Therefore, by Proposition \[welldefined\], $$h\sum_{j\in J} g_j \ = \ \sum_{j \in J } h g_j$$ The proof for the opposite distributive law is almost identical.
\[zeroarrows\] Every PCM-category has zero arrows.
Let $\left( {{\mathcal C}}, \Sigma^{(\underline{\ },\underline{\ })} \right)$ be a PCM-category. For all $X,Y\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$ we define $0_{XY}$ to be the sum of the empty set $ \{ \}_{XY} \subseteq {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$. Then by the above distributive laws, for all $f\in {{\mathcal C}}(Y,Z)$, $f0_{XY} = f\left(\sum\{ \}_{XY}\right)$, and hence $f0_{XY}=\left(\sum \{\}_{XZ}\right)=0_{XZ}$. Similarly $0_{XY}g=0_{WY}$, for all $g\in {{\mathcal C}}(W,X)$.
[The usual treatment of distributivity]{} The usual approach in algebraic program semantics is to take the above left- and right- distributivity laws as axiomatic, and use the (much stronger) notion of summation to prove an analogue of strong distributivity. This is described in Appendix \[appendix\]. We do not take this approach, because the axiomatisation of summation this requires is too strong — it imposes the [*positivity property*]{} that $x+y=0 \ \Rightarrow \ x=0=y$. Were we to have taken this approach, it would have meant ruling out many of the motivating examples for the Cauchy product construction, including Group Rings, convergent polynomials over real and complex variables, etc.
Instead, as we demonstrate by example in Appendix \[appendix\], neither the PCM axiomatisation, nor strong distributivity, implies the positivity property.\
We now consider some implications of strong distributivity:
\[reorderingsummations\] Let $\left( {{\mathcal C}}, \Sigma^{(\underline{\ },\underline{\ })} \right)$ be a PCM-cat. and let $\{ g_j \in {{\mathcal C}}(Y,Z) \}_{j\in J}$ and $\{ f_i \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{i\in I}$ be summable families. Then $\sum_{j\in J} \left( \sum_{i\in I} g_jf_i \right)$ and $\sum_{i\in I}\left( \sum_{j\in J} g_jf_i\right)$ are both defined, and $$\sum_{i\in I} \left( \sum_{j\in J} g_jf_i \right) = \sum_{(i,j)\in I \times J} g_jf_i = \sum_{j\in J} \left( \sum_{i\in I} g_jf_i \right)$$
By the strong distributivity property, the family $\{ g_jf_i \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z) \}_{(j,i)\in J\times I}$ is summable. Now consider the partition of $J\times I$ given by $\{ \{ (j,i) \}_{j\in J }\}_{i\in I}$. By the weak partition-associativity axiom, for arbitrary fixed $i\in I$ the family $\{ g_jf_i \}_{j\in J}$ is summable, as is $\left\{ \sum_{j\in J} g_jf_i \right\}_{i\in I}$ and $$\sum_{i\in I} \left( \sum_{j\in J} g_jf_i \right) = \sum_{(i,j)\in I \times J} g_jf_i$$ The dual identity $$\sum_{j\in J} \left( \sum_{i\in I} g_jf_i \right) = \sum_{(i,j)\in I \times J} g_jf_i$$ follows by partitioning $J\times I$ as $\{ \{ (j,i) \}_{i\in I} \}_{j\in J}$, and therefore $$\sum_{i\in I} \left( \sum_{j\in J} g_jf_i \right) = \sum_{(i,j)\in I \times J} g_jf_i = \sum_{j\in J} \left( \sum_{i\in I} g_jf_i \right)$$
\[composingsums\] Let $\left( {{\mathcal C}}, \Sigma^{(\underline{\ },\underline{\ })} \right)$ be a PCM-cat. and let $\{ s_i \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,X) \}_{i\in I}$ be a summable family. Then for all $n>0$, the family $$\{ s_{i_n}s_{i_{n-1}} \ldots s_{i_2}s_{i_1} \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,X) \}_{(i_n,\ldots i_1)\in I^n }$$ is summable, as are all its subfamilies.
[*(By induction)* ]{} The result is trivially true for $n=1$. Now assume it holds for some $k>0$. Then by strong distributivity, $$\{ s_i s_{i_k} \ldots s_{i_1} \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,X) \}_{(i,(i_k,\ldots i_1))\in I\times I^k }$$ is also summable, and our result follows by induction. Finally, recall the summable subfamilies property (Proposition \[basics\]).
\[monoidsums\] Let $\left( {{\mathcal C}}, \Sigma^{(\underline{\ },\underline{\ })} \right)$ be a PCM-cat. and let $F= \{ f_i \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,X) \}_{i\in I}$ be a summable family containing the identity. Then
1. Arbitrary finite subsets of the submonoid of ${{\mathcal C}}(X,X)$ generated by $F$ are summable.
2. Let $F'$ denote the indexed subfamily given by removing all occurrences of $1_X$ from $F$. When there exists some word $w$ in the subsemigroup generated by $F'$ satisfying $w=1_X$, then
1. The sum $\sum_{i=1}^M 1_X$ exists, for all $M\in {\Bbb N}$.
2. For all $f\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ and $g\in {{\mathcal C}}(W,X)$, the sums $$\sum_{i=1}^M f \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \ \mbox{ and } \ \sum_{i=1}^M g\in {{\mathcal C}}(W,X)$$ exist, for all $M\in {\Bbb N}$.
<!-- -->
1. Consider a finite subset $T\subseteq F^*\subseteq {{\mathcal C}}(X,X)$, where $F^*$ denotes the free monoid on $F$. As $T$ is finite, there exists some $K\in {\Bbb N}$ such that each $t\in T$ may be written as a distinct word of no more than $K$ members of $F$. However, since $F$ contains the identity, each word of $T$ may be written as a distinct word of exactly $K$ members of $\{ f_i\}_{i\in I}$. Thus, our result follows by Proposition \[composingsums\] above and the summable subfamilies property (Proposition \[basics\]).
2. We now assume the additional condition on $F$ given above:
1. Let us write $w=1_X$ as a word of $K$ elements of $F'$. Then by Proposition \[composingsums\] above, the family $$\{ 1_X^{K(M-N)} w 1_X^{KN} \}_{N=1..M}$$ is summable. However, $1_X^{K(M-N)} w 1_X^{KN}=1_X$, for all $N=1..M$. Therefore $\sum_{N=1}^M 1_X$ exists, as does $\sum_{N=1}^{M'}1_X$, for all $0<M'<M$, by the summable subfamilies property (Proposition \[basics\]).
2. By distributivity (Proposition \[distrib\] above) $\{ f1_X \ \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{i=1..M}$ exists, and hence $\sum_{i=1}^M f$ exists. The proof for arbitrary $g\in {{\mathcal C}}(W,X)$ is similar.
The category of PCM-categories {#PCM-end}
------------------------------
The class of all PCM-categories is itself a category:
[*PCM-functors, the category ${\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$*]{}\
Given PCM-categories ${{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathcal D}}$, we say that a functor $\Gamma : {{\mathcal C}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal D}}$ is a [**PCM-functor**]{} when:
- Given a summable family $\{ f_i \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{i\in I}$, then $\{ \Gamma(f_i) \in {{\mathcal D}}(\Gamma(X),\Gamma(Y)) \}$ is a summable family, and $$\Gamma \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right) = \sum_{i\in I} \Gamma (f_i)$$
We denote the category of all PCM-categories and PCM-functors by ${\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$.
${\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$ is well-defined.
First note that identity functors on PCM-categories are trivially PCM-functors. To prove compositionality, consider two PCM-functors $\Gamma\in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}})$ and $\Delta \in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathcal E}})$. By definition, for any summable family $\{ f_i\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{i\in I}$, the family $\{ \Gamma(f_i ) \in {{\mathcal D}}(\Gamma(X),\Gamma(Y)) \}_{i\in I}$ is summable, as is $\{ \Delta \Gamma (f_i) \in {{\mathcal E}}(\Delta \Gamma (X) ,\Delta \Gamma (Y)) \}_{i\in I}$. Then, also by definition of PCM-functors, $$\Delta \left( \Gamma \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right) \right) \ = \
\Delta \left( \sum_{i\in I} \Gamma (f_i) \right) = \sum_{i\in I} \Delta\Gamma (f_i)$$ and hence $\Delta\Gamma$ is also a PCM-functor. Finally, associativity follows from the usual associative property for functors, and thus ${\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$ is well-defined.
We also have finite products of PCM-categories:
\[finprod\] The category ${\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$ has finite products.
Consider ${{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathcal D}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma})$. We define their product ${{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}$ in a similar way to the usual product of categories: objects are pairs $(A,X)$, where $A\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$ and $X\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$. The homset $({{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}})((A,X),(B,Y))$ is exactly the Cartesian product ${{\mathcal C}}(A,B) \times {{\mathcal D}}(X,Y)$, with the usual component-wise composition.
It remains to consider summation on homsets. The projections $\pi_1 : {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}$, and $\pi_2 : {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal D}}$ are defined exactly as in the usual product of categories. For non-empty $I$, a family $\{ f_i \in ({{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}) ((A,X),(B,Y)) \}_{i\in I}$ is summable exactly when $$\{ \pi_1(f_i) \in {{\mathcal C}}(A,B) \}_{i\in I} \ \mbox{ and } \ \{ \pi_2 (f_i ) \in {{\mathcal D}}(X,Y) \}_{i\in I}$$ are summable, in which case $$\sum_{i\in I} f_i \ = \ \left( \sum_{i\in I} \pi_1(f_i) \ , \ \sum_{i\in I} \pi_2 (f_i) \right) \in ({{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}) ((A,X),(B,Y))$$ When $I$ is empty, we simply take $\sum_{i\in I} f_i = (0_{AB},0_{XY})$.
We now demonstrate that this definition satisfies the required universal property for a categorical product: Given PCM-functors $\Gamma_1\in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({\mathcal X},{{\mathcal C}})$ and $\Gamma_2\in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({\mathcal X},{{\mathcal D}})$, we define $\langle \Gamma_1 , \Gamma_2 \rangle : {\mathcal X} \rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}$ by
- [*On objects*]{} $\langle \Gamma_1 , \Gamma_2 \rangle (R) = ( \Gamma_1(R),\Gamma_2(R))$, for all $R\in Ob({\mathcal X})$.
- [*On arrows*]{} $\langle \Gamma_1 , \Gamma_2 \rangle (f) = ( \Gamma_1(f),\Gamma_2(f))\in ({{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}})((\Gamma_1(R),\Gamma_2(R)),(\Gamma_1(S),\Gamma_2(S))$, for all $f\in {\mathcal X}(R,S)$.
Functoriality of $\langle \Gamma_1 , \Gamma_2 \rangle$ is immediate. To demonstrate that it is also a PCM-functor, consider a summable family $\{ f_i \in {\mathcal X}(R,S) \}_{i\in I}$. Then $$\{ \langle \Gamma_1 , \Gamma_2 \rangle (f_i) \}_{i\in I} \ = \ \{ ( \Gamma_1 (f_i) , \Gamma_2 (f_i)) \}_{i\in I}$$ which is summable by definition of summability in ${{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}$. By the definition of summation in ${{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}$, $$\sum_{i\in I} \langle \Gamma_1 , \Gamma_2 \rangle (f_i) \ = \ \left( \sum_{i\in I} \Gamma_1(f_i) \ , \ \sum_{i\in I} \Gamma_2 (f_i) \right)$$ and thus $\langle \Gamma_1 , \Gamma_2 \rangle$ is also a PCM-functor. Finally, by the usual theory of product categories, the following diagram commutes: $$\diagram
& {\mathcal X} \dlto_{\Gamma_1} \drto^{\Gamma_2} \dto|{\langle \Gamma_1,\Gamma_2 \rangle} \\
{{\mathcal C}}& {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\lto^{\pi_1} \rto_{\pi_2} & {{\mathcal D}}\\
\enddiagram$$
The categorical Cauchy product
==============================
We are now in a position to introduce a categorical analogue of the monoid semiring construction of Definition \[msr\]. In honour of the original axiomatisation of such products in the theory of formal power series, we refer to this as the [*(categorical) Cauchy product[^3]*]{}. However, we first require the following preliminary definition:
\[countablecat\][*Locally countable categories*]{}\
We say that a category ${{\mathcal D}}$ is [**locally countable**]{} when, for all $U,V\in Ob({{{\mathcal D}}})$, the homset ${{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$ is a countable set. We denote the full subcategory of [**Cat**]{}, whose objects are locally countable categories, by ${\mbox{\bf cCat}}$.
\[catcauchy\] Given a PCM-category ${{\mathcal C}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma})$ and a locally countable category ${{\mathcal D}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf cCat}})$, we define their [**Cauchy product**]{} ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]\in Ob({\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma})$ as follows:
- [**Objects**]{} $Ob({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]) = Ob(\mathcal C)\times Ob(\mathcal D)$
- [**Arrows**]{} The homset ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$ consists of all functions $$f : {\mathcal D}(U,V)\rightarrow {\mathcal C}(X,Y)$$ such that $\{ f(a) \in {\mathcal C}(X,Y) \}_{a\in {\mathcal D}(U,V)}$ is a summable family.
- [**Composition**]{} Given $g\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((Y,V),(Z,W))$ and $f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$ as functions $$f:{{\mathcal D}}(U,V)\rightarrow {{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Y) \ \mbox{ and } \ g:{{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\rightarrow {{{\mathcal C}}}(Y,Z)$$ then $gf\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Z,W))$ is the function from ${{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$ to ${{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Z)$ given by: $$gf (c) = \sum_{\{ (b,a) :c=ba \} \subseteq {{{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} } g(b)f(a)$$ For clarity, we will often use the shorthand notation $$gf (c) = \sum_{c=ba } g(b)f(a)$$
- [**Summation**]{} An indexed family $\{ f_i \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((X,U),(Y,V))\}_{i\in I}$ is summable exactly when $$\{ f_i (h) \in {{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Y) \}_{(i,h)\in I \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} \ \mbox{ is summable in } {{{\mathcal C}}}$$ in which case $$\left( \sum_{i\in I}f_i \right)(h) \ \stackrel{def.}{ = } \ \sum_{i\in I} f_i(h) \ \in \ {{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Y)$$
#### **Terminology** {#terminology .unnumbered}
In the above definition of the Cauchy product ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, we refer to the PCM-category ${{{\mathcal C}}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma})$ as the [**base category**]{} and the locally countable category ${{\mathcal D}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf cCat}})$ as the [**index category**]{}.\
We now prove that the above construction is well-defined:
\[cauchyproof\]The Cauchy product ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ defined above is a [**PCM**]{}-category.
[*We first show that ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ is a category, and then consider the indexed summation on homsets.*]{}\
We demonstrate that the composition of ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ is well-defined, associative, and has identities:
1. [**Composition is well-defined**]{} Given arrows $$g\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((Y,V),(Z,W))\ \ \mbox{ and } \ \ f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$$ (i.e. functions $f : {\mathcal D}(U,V)\rightarrow {\mathcal C}(X,Y)$ and $g : {\mathcal D}(V,W)\rightarrow {\mathcal C}(Y,Z)$ where $\{ f(a) \in {\mathcal C}(X,Y) \}_{a\in {\mathcal D}(U,V)}$ and $\{ g(b) \in {{{\mathcal C}}}(Y,Z) \}_{b\in {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)}$ are summable), we need to show that $(gf)(c)\in{{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Z)$ exists, for all $c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$, and $$\left\{ gf (c) = \sum_{c=ba} g(b)f(a) \right\} _{c\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z)}$$ is also a summable family. By definition, $\sum_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} f(a) \in {\mathcal C}(X,Y)$ exists, as does $\sum_{b\in {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)} g(b)\in {\mathcal C}(Y,Z)$. The strong distributivity property thus implies the summability of the indexed family $$P = \{ g(b) f(a)\}_{(b,a)\in {{\mathcal D}}(V,W) \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$$ together with the identity $$\left(\sum_{b\in {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)} g(b) \right) \left(\sum_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} f(a)\right) = \sum \left( P \right)$$ Given some arbitrary $c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$, consider the (possibly empty) subfamily of $P_c$ of $P$ given by $\{ g(b)f(a) \}_{ ba=c }$. This is a subfamily of $P$, and thus is itself a summable family, by the subfamilies property of Proposition \[basics\]. Therefore $(gf)(c)\in{{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Z)$ is well-defined, for all $c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$.
Finally, consider the family $\{ P_c \}_{c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)}$. Observe that, for distinct $x\neq y \in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$, the intersection of $P_x$ and $P_y$ is empty. Thus, $\{ P_c \}_{c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)}$ is a partition of the summable family $P$, and by the weak partition-associativity axiom is itself a summable family satisfying $$\sum_{c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)} P_c = \sum_{(b,a)\in {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} g(b)f(a)$$
2. [**Associativity of composition**]{}\
Consider arrows
- $h\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((Z,W),(T,P))$,
- $g\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((Y,V),(Z,W))$,
- $f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$.
By definition, $$(hg)(r) = \sum_{\{(q,p):r=qp \}\subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(W,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)} h(q)g(p)$$ and similarly, $$(gf)(c) = \sum_{\{ (b,a) : c=ba \}\subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} g(b)f(a).$$ Therefore, for all $\gamma\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,P)$, $$\left( h(gf) \right) (\gamma) = \sum_{ \{ (\beta,\alpha) : \gamma=\beta\alpha \}\subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(W,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)
}
h(\beta)\left( gf\right) (\alpha)$$ which, by definition of the composite $gf\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Z,W))$ is given by $$\left( h(gf) \right) (\gamma) = \sum_{ \{ (\beta,\alpha) : \gamma=\beta\alpha \}\subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(W,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)
}
h(\beta)\left( \sum _{\{ (b,a) : \alpha = ba \} \subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V) } g(b)f(a) \right) .$$ By distributivity (Proposition \[distrib\]) we may write this as $$\left( h(gf) \right) (\gamma) = \sum_{ \{ (\beta,\alpha) : \gamma=\beta\alpha \}\subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(W,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)
}
\left( \sum _{\{ (b,a) : \alpha = ba \} \subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V) } h(\beta)g(b)f(a) \right) .$$
$$$$ Conversely, $((hg)f)\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(T,P))$ is given by, for all $\nu\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,P)$, $$((hg)f)(\nu) = \sum_{ \{ (\mu,\lambda ):\nu=\mu\lambda \}\subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(V,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V) } (hg)(\mu)f(\lambda)$$ which, by definition of the composite $hg\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((Y,V),(T,P))$ is given by $$((hg)f)(\nu) = \sum_{\{ (\mu,\lambda ):\nu=\mu\lambda \}\subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(V,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V) } \left(
\sum_{ \{ (c,b) : \mu=cb \}\subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(W,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(V,W) } h(c)g(b)
\right)f(\lambda) .$$ Again by distributivity (Proposition \[distrib\]) this may be written as $$((hg)f)(\nu) = \sum_{\{ (\mu,\lambda ):\nu=\mu\lambda \}\subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(V,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V) } \left(
\sum_{ \{ (c,b) : \mu=cb \}\subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(W,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(V,W) } h(c)g(b)
f(\lambda) \right)$$
Now observe that, by definition of arrows of ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, the families
- $\{ h(c) \in {{\mathcal C}}(Z,T) \}_{c\in {{\mathcal D}}(W,P)} $
- $\{ g(b)\in {{\mathcal C}}(Y,Z) \}_{b\in {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)}$
- $\{ f(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}((X,Y) \}_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$
are all summable. Therefore, by the strong distributivity property, the family $$\{ h(c)g(b)f(a) \} _{(c,b,a)\in {{\mathcal D}}(W,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$$ is summable. Given arbitrary $d\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,P)$, let $Q_d$ be the subfamily of the above indexing set given by $$Q_d= \{ (c,b,a) : d=cba \} \subseteq {{\mathcal D}}(W,P)\times {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V) .$$ Then by the summable subfamilies property, this is summable. By the weak partition-associativity axiom, we may partition $\sum_{Q_d} h(c)g(b)f(a)$ in two distinct ways — by relabelling indices these may be seen to correspond to $((hg)f)(d)$ and $(h(gf))(d)$ respectively. Thus $((hg)f)(d)=(h(gf))(d)$, for all $d\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,P)$, and thus $(hg)f = h(gf)\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((X,U),(T,P))$, as required.
3. [**Identity arrows**]{} Recall the existence of zero elements in a PCM, from Proposition \[basics\], and the proof that PCM-categories have zero arrows, in Corollary \[zeroarrows\]. At an object $(X,U)\in Ob({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}])$, the identity arrow is given by $1_{(X,U)}$ by $$1_{(X,U)}(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} 1_X \in {{{\mathcal C}}}(X,X) & r=1_U\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,U) \\ 0_X & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$ From the definition of composition, and Proposition \[basics\], for all $g\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((X,U),(Y,V))$ and $f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((W,T),(X,U))$, $$\left(g1_{(X,U)}\right)(s) = g(s) \ \ \forall s\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$$ and $$\left(1_{(X,U)}f\right) (r) =f(r) \ \ \forall r\in {{\mathcal D}}( T,U)$$ Thus $1_{(X,U)}\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(X,U))$ is the identity, as required.
It now remains to show that ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ is not only a category, but a PCM-category:
1. [**Hom-sets are PCMs**]{} Given objects $(X,U),(Y,V)\in Ob({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}])$, we now demonstrate the summation given in Definition \[catcauchy\] above gives a PCM structure to ${{\mathcal C}}[D]((X,U),(Y,V))$.
- [**The unary sum axiom**]{}\
Consider an indexed family $$\{ f_i\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V)) \}_{i\in \{ i'\} } \ \mbox{ where } \ f_{i'}=f .$$ We first demonstrate that $\{ f_i(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{(i,a)\in \{ i'\} \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$ is summable in ${{\mathcal C}}$. As $\{ i'\}$ is a single-element set, $\{ i'\} \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)\cong {{\mathcal D}}$, and (trivially) $f_i=f$, for all $i\in \{ i'\}$. Therefore, by Proposition \[welldefined\] the summability of $\{ f_i(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{(i,a)\in \{ i'\} \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$ is equivalent to the summability of $\{ f(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$, and this is summable by the definition of arrows in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$. Thus singleton families are summable in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$. Finally, by definition of the summation of ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, and the unary sum axiom for the PCM $\left({{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) , \Sigma^{X,Y}\right)$, $$\left( \sum_{i\in \{ i'\} } f_i \right) (a) = \sum_{i\in \{ i'\} } f_i (a) = f(a)$$ and therefore $\sum_{i\in \{ i'\} } f_i = f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$.
- [**Weak partition-associativity**]{}\
Consider a summable family $\{ f_i \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V)) \}_{i\in I}$, and let $\{ I_j \}_{j\in J}$ be a partition of $I$. By definition of summability in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, the family $\{ f_i(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{(i,a)\in I\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$ is summable in ${{\mathcal C}}$. Now consider the family $\{ f_{i'}(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{(i',a)\in I_j \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V) }$. This is a subfamily of a summable family of ${{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ and thus, by the summable subfamilies property (Proposition \[basics\]) is itself a summable family. Therefore, by definition of summability in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, the family $\{ f_{i'} \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((X,U),(Y,V))\}_{i\in I'}$ is summable.
Similarly, to show that $\sum_{j\in J} \left( \sum_{i'\in I_j} f_{i'} \right)$ is summable in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$, note that $\{ \sum_{i'\in I_j} f_{i'}(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{(j,a)\in J\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$ is summable, by the weak partition-associativity axiom for the PCM $\left( {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y),\Sigma^{X,Y} \right)$, and (again, by WPA), $$\left( \sum_{j\in J} \left( \sum_{i'\in I_J} f_{i'} \right) \right) (a) = \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right) (a) \ \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$$ for all $a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$, and thus $$\left( \sum_{j\in J} \left( \sum_{i'\in I_J} f_{i'} \right) \right) = \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right) \ \in \ {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V)) .$$
Therefore, the summation on ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$ satisfies weak partition-associativity.
2. [**The strong distributive law**]{}\
Consider summable families of ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ $$\{ f_i \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((X,U),(Y,V)) \}_{i\in I} \ \mbox{ and } \ \{ g_j \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((Y,V),(Z,W))\}_{j\in J} .$$ Summability of these families is equivalent to the summability of the following families in ${{\mathcal C}}$ $$\{ f_i(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{(i,a)\in I\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} \ \mbox{ and } \ \{ g_j(b) \in {{\mathcal C}}(Y,Z)\}_{(j,b)\in J\times {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)} .$$ By the strong distributivity law for ${{\mathcal C}}$, the following family is therefore summable: $$\{ g_j(b)f_i(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z) \}_{(j,b,i,a)\in J\times {{\mathcal D}}(V,W) \times I \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} .$$ For all $c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$, consider the (possibly empty) subset $$P_c= \{ (j,b,i,a) : c=ba \} \subseteq J\times {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times I \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V) .$$ Note that $P_c\cap P_{c'}=\emptyset$, for all $c\neq c'$, and $$\bigcup_{c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)} P_c = J\times {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times I \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$$ giving a ${{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$-indexed partition of the summable family $$\{ g_j(b)f_i(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z) \}_{(j,b,i,a)\in J\times {{\mathcal D}}(V,W) \times I \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} .$$ Thus, by the weak partition-associativity property of $\left( {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z),\Sigma^{X,Y} \right) $, the family $$\{ g_j(b)f_i(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z) : ba=c \}_{(j,c,i)\in J\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,W) \times I }$$ is summable, demonstrating that $\{ g_jf_i \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V)) \}_{(j,i)\in J\times I} $ is summable in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, as required.
For all $c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$, the identity $$\left( \sum_{j\in J} g_j \right) \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right)(c) = \left( \sum_{(j,i)\in J\times I} g_jf_i \right) (c) \ \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z)$$ is then immediate from the existence of both sides of this equation, and the strong distributivity law for ${{\mathcal C}}$, and so $$\left( \sum_{j\in J} g_j \right) \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right) = \left( \sum_{(j,i)\in J\times I} g_jf_i \right) \ \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((X,U),(Z,W))$$ as required.
The Cauchy product as a bifunctor
---------------------------------
The Cauchy product of Definition \[catcauchy\] defines a bifunctor $$(\underline{\ \ })[\underline{\ \ }] : {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}\times {\mbox{\bf cCat}}\rightarrow {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$$ That is
1. Given ${{\mathcal D}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf cCat}})$, then $(\underline{\ \ })[{{\mathcal D}}] :{\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}\rightarrow {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$ is a functor.
2. Given ${{\mathcal C}}\in Ob({{\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}})$, then ${{\mathcal C}}[\underline{ \ \ }] : {\mbox{\bf cCat}}\rightarrow {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$ is a functor.
<!-- -->
1. We first demonstrate that for arbitrary ${{\mathcal D}}\in {\mbox{\bf cCat}}$, the map $(\underline{\ \ }) [{{\mathcal D}}] : {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}\rightarrow {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$ defines a functor.
- [**on Objects**]{} Given a PCM-category ${{\mathcal C}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma})$, then ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]\in Ob({\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma})$ is as defined in Definition \[catcauchy\].
- [**on Arrows**]{} Given $\Gamma \in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathcal E}})$, we define the functor $\left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right) \in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}],{{\mathcal E}}[{{\mathcal D}}])$ as follows:
- [*on Objects*]{} For all $(X,U)\in Ob({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}])$, we define $\left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right) (X,U)=(\Gamma(X),U)$.
- [*on Arrows*]{} Given an arbitrary arrow $f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$, we define $\left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right)(f) \in {{\mathcal E}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((\Gamma(X),U),(\Gamma(Y),V))$ by, for all $r\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$, $$\left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right)(f)(r) = \Gamma (f(r)) \in {{\mathcal E}}(\Gamma(X),\Gamma(Y))$$ It is immediate that this is well-defined as an arrow in ${{\mathcal E}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((\Gamma(X),U),(\Gamma(Y),V))$ since, as $\Gamma$ is a ${\mbox{\bf PCM}}$-functor (i.e. an arrow of ${\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal E}})$) $$\sum_{r\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} f(r) \ \mbox{ exists } \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ \sum_{r\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} \Gamma (f(r)) \ \mbox{ exists.}$$ $ $\
To prove compositionality, consider $$f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((X,U),(Y,V)) \ \mbox{ and } \ g\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((Y,V),(Z,W))$$ By definition of composition, $gf(c) = \sum_{c=ba}g(b)f(a)$, for all $c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$. However, by definition of the functor $\left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right)$, $$\left( \left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right)(g)\left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right)(f) \right) (c) = \sum_{c=ba} \Gamma(g(b))\Gamma(f(a))$$ By functoriality of $\Gamma$, $$\left( \left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right)(g)\left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right)(f) \right) (c) = \sum_{c=ba} \Gamma(g(b)f(a))$$ and as $\Gamma$ is a PCM-functor, $$\left( \left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right)(g)\left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}] \right)(f) \right) (c) = \Gamma \left( \sum_{c=ba} g(b)f(a) \right) = \left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}]\right) (gf)(c)$$
Finally, given another functor $\Delta \in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({{\mathcal E}},{{\mathcal F}})$, then
- On objects: $$\left( \Delta [{{\mathcal D}}]\right) \left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}]\right) (X,U) = (\Delta \Gamma (X),U) = \left( (\Delta \Gamma) [{{\mathcal D}}]\right) (X,U)$$
- On arrows: given $f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$, then $$\left( \Delta [{{\mathcal D}}]\right) \left( \Gamma [{{\mathcal D}}]\right) (f)(r) = \Delta (\Gamma (f))(r) = (\Delta \Gamma (f))(r) =
\left( (\Delta \Gamma) [{{\mathcal D}}]\right) (f)(r)$$
2. We now demonstrate that for arbitrary ${{\mathcal C}}\in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$, the map ${{\mathcal C}}[\underline{ \ \ }] : {\mbox{\bf cCat}}\rightarrow {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$ is also functorial.
- [**on Objects**]{} Given arbitrary ${{\mathcal D}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf cCat}})$, then ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ is given in Definition \[catcauchy\].
- [**on Arrows**]{} Given a functor $\Lambda\in {\mbox{\bf cCat}}({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathcal H}})$, we define ${{\mathcal C}}[\Lambda ]\in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}],{{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal H}}])$ by:
- [*on Objects*]{} ${{\mathcal C}}[\Lambda] (X,U) = (X,\Lambda(U))$.
- [*on Arrows*]{}, given $f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$, we define $$\left( {{\mathcal C}}[\Lambda]\right)(f) \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal H}}] ((X,\Lambda(U)),(Y,\Lambda(V)))$$ by, for all $x\in {{\mathcal H}}(\Lambda (U),\Lambda (V))$, $$\left( {{\mathcal C}}[\Lambda ] \right) (f) (x) = \sum_{x=\Lambda (a) } f(a) \ \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$$ The above sum is well-defined, since $\{ f(a) \}_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$ is a summable family. Also, note that $\{ x=\Gamma (a) \}_{x\in {{\mathcal H}}(\Gamma (U),\Gamma( V))}$ is a partition of ${{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$, and thus, by the weak partition-associativity axiom, $\{ \left( {{\mathcal C}}[\Lambda ] \right) (f) (x) \}_{x\in {{\mathcal H}}(\Lambda (U),\Lambda (V))}$ is summable, and so $\left( {{\mathcal C}}[\Lambda ] \right) (f) \ \in \ {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal H}}]((X,\Lambda (U)),(Y,\Lambda (V)))$ is well-defined.\
To prove compositionality, consider $$f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((X,U),(Y,V)) \ \mbox{ and } \ g\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((Y,V),(Z,W))$$ By definition of composition, $gf(c) = \sum_{c=ba}g(b)f(a)$, for all $c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$, and hence, for all $z\in {{\mathcal H}}(\Lambda (U),\Lambda (W))$, $$\left( {{\mathcal C}}(\Lambda)(gf)\right) (z) = \sum_{z=\Lambda (c)} (gf)(c)$$ Now note that, for all $y\in {{\mathcal H}}(\Lambda (V),\Lambda (W))$ and $x\in {{\mathcal H}}(\Lambda (U),\Lambda (V))$, $$\left( {{\mathcal C}}(\Lambda)(g)\right) (y) = \sum_{y=\Lambda (b)} g(b) \ \ \mbox { and } \ \
\left( {{\mathcal C}}(\Lambda)(f)\right) (x) = \sum_{x=\Lambda (a)} f(c)$$ and thus, by the strong distributive law for PCM-categories, and the functoriality of $\Lambda$, $$\left( {{\mathcal C}}(\Lambda)(g)\right) \left( {{\mathcal C}}(\Lambda)(f)\right) (z) = \sum_{z=\Lambda (c)} (gf)(c) = \left( {{\mathcal C}}(\Lambda)(gf)\right) (z) \ \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z)$$
Finally, given another functor $\Omega \in {\mbox{\bf cCat}}({{\mathcal H}},{{\mathcal K}})$, then
- On objects: $$\left( {{\mathcal C}}[\Omega]\right) \left( {{\mathcal C}}[\Lambda ] \right) (X,U) = (X,\Omega \Lambda (U)) = \left( {{\mathcal C}}[\Omega \Lambda ] \right) (X,U)$$
- On arrows: given $f\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$, then for all $p\in {{\mathcal K}}(\Omega \Lambda (U), \Omega \Lambda (V))$, $$\left( {{\mathcal C}}[\Omega ]\right)\left( {{\mathcal C}}[\Lambda ]\right) (f) (p) = \sum_{p=\Omega(x) \ , \ x=\Lambda (a)} f(a) =
\sum_{p=\Omega\Lambda (a)} f(a) = \left( {{\mathcal C}}[\Omega \Lambda ]\right) (f) (p)$$
#### **Is the Cauchy product a monoidal tensor?**
Since the Cauchy product is a bifunctor ${\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}\times{\mbox{\bf cCat}}\rightarrow {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$, it is natural to wonder whether, when restricted to locally countable PCM-categories, it is in fact a monoidal tensor. It is also easy to show that this is not the case: consider three locally countable PCM-categories, ${{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}},{{\mathcal E}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma})$, and denote their (object-indexed families of) summations by $\Sigma^{{{\mathcal C}}(\underline{\ } , \underline{\ })}$, $\Sigma ^{{{\mathcal D}}(\underline{\ } , \underline{\ })} $, $\Sigma^{{{\mathcal E}}(\underline{\ } , \underline{\ })}$ respectively. Then it is immediate that the structure of ${{\mathcal C}}[ {{\mathcal D}}[{{\mathcal E}}]]$ depends on the family of summations $\Sigma^ {{{\mathcal D}}(\underline{\ } , \underline{\ })} $ on the homsets of ${{\mathcal D}}$, whereas the structure of $({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}])[{{\mathcal E}}]$ is independent of $\Sigma ^{{{\mathcal D}}(\underline{\ } , \underline{\ })}$. Therefore, in general, $({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}])[{{\mathcal E}}]$ cannot be equal to ${{\mathcal C}}[ {{\mathcal D}}[{{\mathcal E}}]]$, even up to a canonical isomorphism.
Rather, as we now demonstrate, there exist embeddings of ${{\mathcal C}}$ into ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ indexed by objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$, together with embeddings of ${{\mathcal D}}$ into ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ indexed by objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$, and an embedding of the product ${{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}$ into ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$. The embeddings of ${{\mathcal C}}$ into ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ also have a common left-inverse, giving an indexed family of retractions.
Embedding the base category into a Cauchy product
=================================================
We now give an embedding of the base category ${{\mathcal C}}$ into the Cauchy product ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, and show that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a retract of ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$.
We first exhibit a forgetful functor from ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ to ${{\mathcal C}}$:
Given ${{\mathcal D}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf cCat}})$, and ${{{\mathcal C}}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma})$, we define $\sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}}:{{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]\rightarrow {{{\mathcal C}}}$ by
- [**(on objects)**]{} $\sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}}(X,U)=X$, for all $(X,U)\in Ob({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}])$.
- [**(on arrows)**]{} Given $h\in {{{\mathcal C}}} [D] ((X,U),(Y,V))$, then $$\sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}}(h) = \sum_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} h(a) \ \in \ {{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Y) .$$
$\sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}} : {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] \rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}$, as given above, is a PCM-functor.
First note that, by definition of arrows in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, the family $\{ h(a) \}_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$ is summable for all $h\in {{{\mathcal C}}} [D] ((X,U),(Y,V))$, and so $\sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}}(h) = \sum_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} h(a) \ \in \ {{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Y)$ is well-defined.
To prove functoriality, consider $k\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((Y,V),(Z,W))$. Then $$\sigma(k)\sigma(h) = \left( \sum_{b\in {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)} k(b) \right)\left( \sum_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} h(a) \right) .$$ By the strong distributivity property, $$\sigma(k)\sigma(h) = \sum_{(b,a)\in {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} k(b)h(a) .$$ Conversely, $kh\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U)(Z,W))$ is defined by, for all $c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)$, $$(kh)(c) = \sum_{c=ba}k(b)h(a) .$$ Now note that $\{ (kh)(c) \}_{c\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,W)}$ is a summable family, and by weak partition-associativity, $$\sigma(kh) = \sum_{c=ba}k(b)h(a) = \sum_{(b,a)\in {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)\times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} k(b)h(a) = \sigma(k)\sigma(h) .$$ Thus $\sigma : {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}$ preserves composition. The proof that it also preserves identities follows from the formula for identities in PCM-categories given in Theorem \[cauchyproof\], $$1_{(X,U)}(r) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} 1_X \in {{{\mathcal C}}}(X,X) & r=1_U\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,U) \\ 0_X & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$ It is immediate that $\sigma \left( 1_{(X,U)} \right) =1_X\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,X)$.
Now consider a summable family $\{f_i \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V)) \}_{i\in I}$. By definition of summation in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, the family $\{ f_i (a) \in {{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Y) \}_{(i,a)\in I \times {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$ is summable in ${{\mathcal C}}$, and again by definition $$\left( \sum_{i\in I}f_i \right)(a) \ = \ \sum_{i\in I} f_i(a) \ \in \ {{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Y) .$$ Thus, by weak partition-associativity, and Proposition \[welldefined\], $$\sum_{i\in I} \sigma(f_i) = \sum_{i\in I} \left( \sum_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} f(a) \right) = \sum_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i(a) \right) = \sigma \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right) .$$ Therefore, $\sigma : {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}$ is a PCM-functor.
We now exhibit a family of embeddings of ${{\mathcal C}}$ into ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, indexed by objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$:
\[baseinjection\] Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be an arbitrary category, and let ${{{\mathcal C}}}$ be a PCM-category. For all $U\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$, we define $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} :{{{\mathcal C}}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ by
- [**(on objects)**]{} $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (X)=(X,U)$, for all $X\in Ob({{{\mathcal C}}})$.
- [**(on arrows)**]{} Given $h\in {{{\mathcal C}}} (X,Y)$, then $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}}, U}(h)\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] ((X,U),(Y,U))$ is the function $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (h) : {{\mathcal D}}(U,U)\rightarrow {{{\mathcal C}}}(X,Y)$ given by $$\left( \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(h)\right) (a) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} h & a=1_U \\ 0_{XY} & a\neq 1_U \end{array}\right.$$
We prove that these maps are injective PCM-functors.
For all $U\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$, the map $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} :{{{\mathcal C}}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ defined above is an injective PCM-functor.
Given $h\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ then $\eta_U(h)$ is trivially well-defined as an arrow of ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,U))$, since $\sum_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,U)} h(a)=h$, by Proposition \[basics\]. Now consider $k\in {{\mathcal C}}(Y,Z)$. By definition of composition in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, $$\left( \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (k) \right) \left( \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (h)\right) (c) = \sum_{c=ba} \left( \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (k)\right)(b)
\left( \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (h)\right)(a)$$ However, $$\left( \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (k)\right)(b)
\left( \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (h)\right)(a) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} kh & b=a=1_U \\ 0_{XY} & \mbox{otherwise}\end{array}\right.$$ and therefore $$\left( \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (k) \right) \left( \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (h)\right) (c) =
\left\{ \begin{array}{lr} kh & c=1_U \\ 0_{XY} & c\neq 1_U \end{array}\right.$$ giving $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (k) \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(h) = \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(kh)$ as required. It is immediate from the definition that $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(1_X) = 1_{(X,U)}\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(X,U))$, for all $X\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$.
For the summation, consider a summable family $\{ f_i\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)\}_{i\in I}$. By definition of summability in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, the family $\{ \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(f_i) \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] \}_{i\in I}$ is also summable, and $$\sum_{i\in I} \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(f_i) \ = \ \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right)$$
The injectivity of $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} :{{{\mathcal C}}}\rightarrow {{{\mathcal C}}} [U]$ on objects is immediate. To demonstrate injectivity on arrows, consider $f,f'\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ satisfying $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(f) = \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(f')$. Then, for all $a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,U)$, $$\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(f)(a) = \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(f')(a)$$ Taking $a=1_U$ gives $f=f'$, as required.
We therefore have a family of injective PCM-functors from ${{{\mathcal C}}}$ to ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ indexed by the objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$.
Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be an arbitrary category, and let ${{{\mathcal C}}}$ be a PCM-category. Then there exists a family of retractions from ${{\mathcal C}}$ to ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, indexed by objects of ${{\mathcal D}}$.
For arbitrary $U\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$, we demonstrate that $\sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}} \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} = Id_{{{\mathcal C}}}$:
- On objects: $$\sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}} \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} (X) = \sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}}(X,U)=X$$
- On arrows: given $f\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$, then $$\sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}}(\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(f)) = \sum_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,U)}(\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(f)) \ \ \mbox{ where } \eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(f)(a) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} f & a=1_U \\ 0_{XY} & \mbox{otherwise}\end{array}\right.$$ and so by proposition \[basics\], $\sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}}(\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(f))=f\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$.
Thus $\sigma_{{{\mathcal C}},{{\mathcal D}}}: {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}$ is left-inverse to $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} : {{\mathcal C}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, and so ${{\mathcal C}}$ is a retract of ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$, with retractions indexed by $U\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$.
Embedding the index category into a Cauchy product
==================================================
Similar to the way in which there exists an (object-indexed) family of embeddings of the base category into a Cauchy product, we now exhibit a family of embeddings of the index category into a Cauchy product, indexed by objects of the base category:
\[indexinjection\] Let ${{\mathcal D}}$ be an arbitrary category, and let ${{{\mathcal C}}}$ be a PCM-category. For all $X\in Ob({{{\mathcal C}}})$ we define the functor $\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}} : {{\mathcal D}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ by
- [**(On objects)**]{} $\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(U)=(X,U)$, for all $U\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$,
- [**(On arrows)**]{} Given $h\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$, then $\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(h)\in{{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(X,V))$ is defined by $$\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(h)(a) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} 1_X & a=h \\ 0_X & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$
$\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}} : {{\mathcal D}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$,as defined above, is an injective functor for all $X\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$.
By Proposition \[basics\], it is immediate that, for all $h\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$, the family $\{ \gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(h)(a) \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,X) \}_{a\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)}$ is summable, and hence $\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(h)$ is an arrow of ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(X,V))$. To demonstrate functoriality, consider $k\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$. Then $$\left( \gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(k) \gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(h) \right) (c) = \sum_{c=ba} \gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(k)(b) \gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(h)(a)$$ However, $$\gamma_X(k)(b) \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} 1_X & b=k \\ 0_{XX} & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}\right.$$ and $$\gamma_X(h)(a) \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} 1_X & a=h \\ 0_{XX} & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}\right.$$ Therefore, $$\left( \gamma_X(k) \gamma_X(h) \right) (c) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} 1_X & c=kh \\ 0_{XX} & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right.$$ and thus $\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(k)\gamma(X,{{\mathcal D}})(h) = \gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}(kh)$. The proof that $\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}$ also preserves identities is trivial.
To demonstrate injectivity, consider $h,h'\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$. Then $$\gamma_X(h)(a) \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} 1_X & a=h \\ 0_{XX} & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}\right.$$ and $$\gamma_X(h')(a) \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} 1_X & a=h' \\ 0_{XX} & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}\right.$$ These are identical exactly when $h=h'$.
We therefore have a family of injective functors from ${{\mathcal D}}$ to ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ indexed by objects of ${{{\mathcal C}}}$.
Embedding the product of base and index into the Cauchy product
===============================================================
As well as the above embeddings of the base and index categories into the Cauchy product, there exist a straightforward embedding of the product of the base and index categories into the Cauchy product.
\[stardef\] Given a PCM-Category ${{\mathcal C}}$, and a locally small category ${{\mathcal D}}$, we define the functor [^4] $$(\underline{\ \ } \star \underline{\ \ }): {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$$ as follows:
- [**(Objects)**]{} Given $X\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$ and $U\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$, then $X\star U = (X,U)\in Ob({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}])$
- [**(Arrows)**]{} Given $f\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ and $g\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$, then $f\star g \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$ is the function $$(f\star g)(h) \ = \ \left\{\begin{array}{lr} f & g=h \\ 0_{X,Y} & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$ It is immediate that the family $\left\{ (f\star g)(h) \right\}_{h\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V)} $ is summable, and hence this is indeed an arrow of ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$.
The operation $(\underline{\ \ } \star \underline{\ \ }): {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ is indeed a functor.
$ $\
[**Compositionality**]{} Consider arrows $$f\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \ , \ f'\in {{\mathcal C}}(Y,Z) \ \ , \ \ g\in {{\mathcal D}}(U,V) \ , \ g'\in {{\mathcal D}}(V,W)$$ By definition, $f'f \star g'g \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Z,W))$ is given by the function $$(f'f\star g'g)(k) \ = \ \left\{\begin{array}{lr} f'f & k=g'g \\ 0_{X,Z} & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$ Similarly, the arrows $f\star g\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$ and $ f'\star g' \in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((Y,V),(Z,W))$ are, by definition, the functions $$(f\star g)(h) \ = \ \left\{\begin{array}{lr} f & h=g \\ 0_{X,Y} & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$ and $$(f'\star g')(j) \ = \ \left\{\begin{array}{lr} f' & j=g' \\ 0_{Y,Z} & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$ Then, by definition of composition in ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ $$\left( (f'\star g')(f\star g)\right) (k) \ = \ \sum_{k=jh} (f'\star g')(j)(f\star g)(h)$$ From the definition of $ f'\star g'$ and $f\star g$, we see that $$\sum_{k=jh} (f'\star g')(j)(f\star g)(h) \ = \ \left\{\begin{array}{cc} f'f & k=g'g \\ 0_{X,Z} & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array}\right.$$ Hence, $\left( (f'\star g')(f\star g)\right) (k) = (f'f\star g'g)(k)$, as required.\
[**Identities**]{} By definition, $1_X \star 1_U\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(X,U))$ is the function $$(1_X\star 1_U)(h) \ = \ \left\{\begin{array}{cc} 1_X & h=1_U \\ 0_{XX} & \mbox{otherwise.} \end{array} \right.$$ which, from Theorem \[cauchyproof\], is precisely $1_{(X,U)}\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(X,U))$.
The functor $(\underline{ \ \ } \star\underline{\ \ }) : {{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ is an embedding of ${{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}$ into ${{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$.
By definition $X\star U \stackrel{def}{=} (X,U)$, and hence $(\underline{ \ \ } \star\underline{\ \ })$ is bijective on objects. To see injectivity on arrows, recall that $(f\star g),(h\star k)\in {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]((X,U),(Y,V))$ are functions from ${{\mathcal D}}(U,V)$ to ${{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ given in Definition \[stardef\]. From this definition, these are identical exactly when $f=h$ and $g=k$, and hence are equal in ${{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}$ – i.e. $$f\star g \ =\ h\star k \ \ \Leftrightarrow \ \ f\times g \ = \ h \times k$$
Universal properties, and the Cauchy product
============================================
The functors $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} :{{\mathcal C}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ and $\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}:{{\mathcal D}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]$ are clearly (object-indexed) categorical analogues of the usual [*augmentation*]{} and [*inclusion*]{} maps used in the demonstration of the universal property of the monoid semiring construction (see [@MS] for a good exposition, albeit in the special case of monoid rings). It is natural to wonder whether an analogous property holds for the categorical Cauchy product. In the following sections, we give an exposition of the usual universal property of monoid semirings, and demonstrate that a straightforward generalisation to the Cauchy product is not possible, except in the trivial one-object case. The computational significance of this is discussed, and we consider the additional structure that would be required in order to have a suitable universal property in the full multi-object case.
The universal property of monoid semirings
------------------------------------------
The universal property of monoid semirings is a canonical example of a universal property (see, for example, [@MS]).
\[semiuniversal\] Let $(M,\cdot)$ be a monoid, and $(A,\times,+,1_A,0_A)$ and $(B,\times_B,1_B,0_B)$ be unital semirings. Further, let $f:A\rightarrow B$ be a unital semiring homomorphism, and let $g:(M,\cdot ) \rightarrow (B,\times_B)$ be a monoid homomorphism. Finally, let $\eta:A\rightarrow A[M]$ and $\gamma :M\rightarrow A[M]$ be the usual augmentation and inclusion maps. Then there exists a unique unital semiring homomorphism $h:A[M]\rightarrow B$ such that the diagram of Figure \[semiringuniversal\] commutes.
$$\xymatrix{
A \ar[r]^{\eta}\ar[dr]_f & A[M] \ar[d]_{h} & M \ar[l]_{\gamma} \ar[dl]^g \\
& B & \\
}$$
The semiring homomorphism $h:A[M]\rightarrow B$ is defined as follows:
Given $\alpha: M\rightarrow A$, an element of $A[M]$, then $$h(\alpha) \ = \ \sum_{m\in M} f(\alpha(m)) g(m)$$ The proof that this is a unique unital semiring homomorphism that makes the above diagram commute is then straightforward, and may be found in many algebra texts (e.g. [@MS]).
[Interpretation]{}\[universalinterpretation\] The usual interpretation of the above universal property is that the unique unital semiring homomorphism making the diagram of Figure \[semiringuniversal\] commute describes the computational process of [*instantiating a free variable*]{}. In order to provide motivation for this interpretation, we describe a simple example.
Consider the monoid ${\Bbb Z}_p=\{ 0,1,\ldots ,p-1\}$ for some prime $p$, along with the semiring of natural numbers $\Bbb N$. The members of the monoid semiring $\Bbb N[\Bbb Z_p]$ are often written as ‘polynomials’ in some formal variable $z$, so the function $f:\Bbb Z_p\rightarrow \Bbb N$ would be written as $$f(0)z^0 + f(1)z^1+f(2)z^2+\ldots + f(p-1)z^{p-1}$$ with the understanding that multiplication of this formal variable is defined by $z^az^b=z^{a+b\ (mod\ p)}$. Using this polynomial formalism, the augmentation $\eta : \Bbb N\rightarrow \Bbb N[\Bbb Z_p]$ and inclusion $\gamma : \Bbb Z_p\rightarrow \Bbb N[\Bbb Z_p] $ are given by $$\eta (n)= nz^0 \ \ , \ \ \gamma(r) = z^r$$
Let us now consider the usual semiring homomorphism $\iota : \Bbb N\rightarrow \Bbb C$ given by the canonical inclusion together with the monoid homomorphism $\chi_s: \Bbb Z_p \rightarrow \Bbb C$ defined by $\chi_s(a)=e^{2\pi i \frac{as}{p}}$ for some fixed $s\neq 0 \in \Bbb N$.
The universal property of the monoid semiring construction tells us that there is a unique induced universal map $sub: \Bbb N[\Bbb Z_p] \rightarrow \Bbb C$ that makes the diagram of Figure \[NZPuniversal\] commute.
$$\xymatrix{
\Bbb N \ar[r]^{\eta}\ar[dr]_\iota & \Bbb N[\Bbb Z_p] \ar[d]|{sub} & \Bbb Z_p \ar[l]_{\gamma} \ar[dl]^{\chi_s} \\
& \Bbb C & \\
}$$
From the prescription given in the proof of Theorem \[semiuniversal\], it is immediate that the action of the universal arrow is given by $$\xymatrix{
f(0)z^0\ +\ f(1)z^1\ +\ f(2)z^2\ +\ \ldots \ + \ f(p-1)z^{p-1} \ar@{|->}[d]|{sub} \\
f(0)\ +\ f(1)e^{2\pi i \frac{s}{p}}\ +\ f(2)e^{2\pi i \frac{2s}{p}}\ +\ \ldots \ + \ f(p-1)e^{2\pi i \frac{(p-1)s}{p}}
}$$ (Note that we elide the inclusion homomorphism $\iota : \Bbb N\rightarrow \Bbb C$, for clarity). Thus, the induced universal map simply interprets as substituting a concrete value for the formal variable $z$.
An immediate question is whether such a property also exists for the categorical Cauchy product? That is, given a PCM-functor $\Gamma \in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({{\mathcal C}}, {{\mathcal E}})$ together with ${{\mathcal D}}\in Ob({\mbox{\bf cCat}})$ and a functor $\Delta \in {\mbox{\bf Cat}}({{\mathcal D}},{{\mathcal E}})$, does there exist an object-indexed family of functors $\Upsilon_{X,U} \in {\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] , {{\mathcal E}})$ making the diagram of Figure \[epicfail\] commute, for arbitrary choice of $X\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$ and $U\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$?
$$\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal C}}\ar[r]^{\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}}\ar[dr]_\Gamma & {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] \ar[d]|{\Upsilon_{X,U}} & {{\mathcal D}}\ar[l]_{\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}} \ar[dl]^\Delta \\
& {{\mathcal E}}& \\
}$$
However, it is straightforward that, simply because the categorical version is the multiple-object setting, such a universal property can only ever hold in a very restricted setting, as the following result demonstrates:
\[notypeduniversals\] Let us assume the existence of an object-indexed family of functors $\Upsilon_{X,U} : {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}]\rightarrow {{\mathcal E}}$ making the diagram of Figure \[epicfail\] commute, for all $X\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$ and $U\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$. Then $\Gamma (X)=\Delta(U)$, for all $X\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$ and $U\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$.
Let us fix some arbitrary $X\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$ and $Y\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$, so that the following diagram commutes: $$\xymatrix{
{{\mathcal C}}\ar[r]^{\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}}\ar[dr]_\Gamma & {{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}] \ar[d]|{\Upsilon_{X,U}} & {{\mathcal D}}\ar[l]_{\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}} \ar[dl]^\Delta \\
& {{\mathcal E}}& \\
}$$ Then for all $P\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$, $$\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}(P)\ =\ (P,U)\in Ob({{\mathcal C}}[{{\mathcal D}}])$$ by definition of $\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U}$, and by commutativity of the above diagram $\Upsilon_{X,U}\eta_{{{\mathcal C}},U} = \Gamma$. Therefore, $\Upsilon_{X,U} (P,U)=\Gamma(P)$. Similarly $ \gamma _{X,{{\mathcal D}}} (Q) = (X,Q)$, for all $Q\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$, and therefore $ \Upsilon_{X,U} (X,Q) = \Delta(Q) $, since $\Upsilon_{X,U}\gamma_{X,{{\mathcal D}}}=\Delta$. Combining these, we see that $$\Upsilon_{X,U}(X,U) \ = \ \Gamma(X)\ =\ \Delta(U)$$ Finally, $X$ and $U$ were chosen arbitrarily, and so $\Gamma(X)\ =\ \Delta(U) $, for all $X\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$ and $U\in Ob({{\mathcal D}})$.
[The multi-object case, and universal arrows]{} A simple corollary of the above proof is that, when such a universal family of functors exists, $\Gamma: {{\mathcal C}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal E}}$ and $\Delta: {{\mathcal D}}\rightarrow {{\mathcal E}}$ map all objects of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}}$ to the same object of ${{\mathcal E}}$ (It is then straightforward, although deeply uninteresting, to demonstrate that in the restricted case where the target in the diagram of Figure \[epicfail\] is a one-object PCM category, we do indeed have a universal property that is a direct generalisation of that of Theorem \[semiuniversal\]). Note also that the above proof is entirely based on how such a universal family of functors might act on the [*objects*]{} of these categories. Therefore, it does not depend on any subtlety about the precise notion of summation used, or even the definition of composition; rather, it fails on the simple fact that ${{\mathcal E}}$ has more than one object.
From an algebraic point of view, this appears to be a serious drawback — indeed, it is not uncommon to [*define*]{} the monoid semiring construction simply in terms of the existence of a suitable universal arrow. However, from a more computational point of view, it appears reasonable: from the interpretation given in Remark \[universalinterpretation\] we should think of the construction of a universal arrow as substituting values for variables. When we consider the multi-object setting, the multiplicity of objects gives distinct [*types*]{} for both variables and values. The interpretation of Proposition \[notypeduniversals\] is then that, when we try to substitute values for variables, we must do so in a context where all types agree. From a computational, rather than an algebraic, point of view this is to be expected!
However, this does not mean that no suitable universal property may exist. The key question is simply which object of ${{\mathcal E}}$ is the appropriate target of $\Upsilon_{X,U}$? Let us now assume that the PCM-category ${{\mathcal E}}$ also has a monoidal tensor $(\underline{\ }\otimes \underline{\ })$ that is required to satisfy some universal property for bilinearity, analogous to either that of the usual tensor product of Hilbert spaces, or the constructions of [@AB] for Partially Additive Monoids. In this case, the natural candidate must be the object $\Gamma (X) \otimes \Delta(U) \in Ob({{\mathcal E}})$. It therefore seems that questions of universal properties must await a theory of [*monoidal*]{} PCM-categories. As we demonstrate in Section \[neverending\], such a theory would be key to many reasonable generalisations and applications, both algebraic and computational.
Conclusions
===========
We have demonstrated that the monoid-semiring construction can be placed within a significantly more general categorical and multi-object setting. In order for this more general theory to be equally applicable in both ‘analytic’ and ‘algebraic’ settings, this was done using an axiomatisation of summation that unifies notions from analysis with notions from algebraic program semantics.
Future directions {#neverending}
=================
As well as the program outlined above, work continues in several related directions:
- [**Categorical enrichment**]{} A natural question about this paper is whether the notion of ‘PCM-category’ is in fact an example of categorical enrichment (as in [@GMK]) over the category [**PCM**]{}? Enrichment requires either a monoidal, or a closed, (or monoidal closed) structure. It has recently been demonstrated by the author and P. Scott (Ottawa) that [**PCM**]{} is a closed category in the sense of [@LA], and a monoidal tensor adjoint to the closed structure has been given explicitly by T. Porter (Wales). This monoidal tensor appears to exhibit a universal property for a suitable notion of bilinear maps of PCMs (similar to the constructions of [@AB] for Partially Additive Monoids). It is expected that a category enriched over this monoidal closed category is exactly a ‘PCM-category’, as defined in Definition \[PCMcats\]. This is the subject of ongoing work.
- [**The Cauchy product and monoidal structures**]{} Although we have demonstrated that the Cauchy product is a bifunctor, with interesting embedding properties, we have not yet considered the case where either the base category, or the index category (or both) have a monoidal tensor. This requires studying the monoidal structure of [**PCM**]{} (as above) in order to describe what it means for a PCM-category to have a monoidal tensor. This is undoubtedly an interesting route to explore, and is also important for applications to semantics described below.
- [**PCM-categories, algebraic program semantics, and axiomatisations of summation**]{} From the beginning, the notion of a PCM-category was intended as a unification of the forms of summation used in algebraic program semantics with more analytic notions of summation used in Hilbert and Banach spaces. A very natural question is therefore how much of the traditional theory may be carried through to this more general setting, and whether such constructions as the Elgot dagger, (presumably partial) particle-style categorical traces, etc. may be defined[^5]. Again, the absolute starting point for this is the definition of suitable monoidal tensors, and their interaction with notions of summation.
Note that all the above future directions depend on a detailed study of monoidal tensors and closed structures in both ${\mbox{\bf PCM}}$ and members of ${\mbox{\bf Cat}_\Sigma}$. Thus, it appears that pursuing such questions as pure theory may be the most profitable route!
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author wishes to acknowledge the contribution of P. Scott (Ottawa) to the definitions and properties of Partial Commutative Monoids, as developed from Section \[PCM-start\] to Section \[PCM-end\], as well as many of the examples presented in Appendix \[appendix\]. Thanks are also due to S. Abramsky (Oxford) for insisting on the importance of permutation independence (Proposition \[welldefined\]), and pointers towards the proof of this. Similarly, thanks are due to T. Porter (Wales) for assistance with the monoidal closed structure of the category ${\mbox{\bf PCM}}$ (an ongoing project).
The author also wishes to thank anonymous referees of MSCS for many helpful comments and suggestions that have assisted substantially in refining and clarifying the theory developed, and the editor M. Mislove (Tulane) for a great deal of patience!
[5]{} Geometry of interaction and linear combinatory algebras, [*Math. Struct. Comput. Sci. 12 (5)*]{} 625-665 Abstract Scalars, Loops, and Free Traced and Strongly Compact Closed Categories, [*Springer LNCS Vol. 3629*]{} 1- 29 Tensor Product of Partially-Additive Monoids, [*Semigroup Forum (32)*]{} 31-53 ($3^{rd}$ edition), Springer-Verlag, New York Machines, Logic, and Quantum Physics [*arXiv:math.HO/9911150 v1*]{} A categorical approach to linear logic, geometry of proofs and full completeness, [*PhD Thesis, Univ. Ottawa*]{} A categorical model for the Geometry of Interaction, [*Theoretical Computer Science 350(2)*]{} 252-274 I. Gelfand (1938) Abstrakte Funktionen und lineare Operatoren [*Rec. Math. \[Mat. Sbornik\] N.S. 4(46) vol. 2*]{} 235-286 , Springer, Mathematics and Its Applications series, Vol. 488 AMS Chelsea publishing Machine Semantics, [*Theoretical Computer Science 409(1)*]{} 1-23 Machine Semantics: from Causality to Computational Models, [*International Journal of Unconventional Computation 4(3)*]{} 249-272 Quantum Circuit Oracles for Abstract Machine Computations [*Theoretical Computer Science 411*]{} 1501-1520 Categorical Traces from Single-Photon Linear Optics [*in S. Abramsky, M. Mislove (ed.s), AMS Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics (71)*]{} 89-124 , Dover Publications, New York Am. Math. Soc., Providence Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory, [*LMS Lecture notes 64*]{}, Cambridge University Press, [*Reprinted in [@GMK2]*]{} Basic Concepts of Enriched Category Theory, [*Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories (10)*]{} A note on Subseries Convergence [*Proc. Am. Math. Soc. (12) 4*]{} 540-545 Springer-Verlag The inverse Semigroup of a Sum-Ordered Semiring [*Semigroup Forum 31*]{} 129-152 Subseries in Banach spaces [*Mathematica Slovaca (52) 3*]{} 361-368 Coherence in Nonmonoidal Closed Categories, [*Trans. Am. Math. Soc.*]{}, V. 230 293-311 , Cambridge University Press Über unbedingte Konvergenz in Functionenraumen I, [*Studia Math. 4*]{} 33-37 Iterated series and the Hellinger-Toeplitz theorem [*Publicacions Matemàtiques 36*]{} 167-173. Towards a quantum programming language, [*Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 14(4)*]{} 527-586 Polynomial time algorithms for prime factorisation and discrete logarithms on a quantum computer [*SIAM review 41*]{} 303-332 Prindle, Weber and Schmidt [*updated version (2006) available online as http://math.albany.edu/$\sim$mark/algebra.pdf*]{} , Oxford University Press On the equivalence of certain notions of bounded variation [*Journal London Math. Soc. 43*]{} 247-252
PCMs and PCM-categories {#appendix}
=======================
We consider various examples of both PCMs and PCM-categories, as defined in Definitions \[PCM\] and \[PCMcats\] respectively. We also compare with other axiomatisations of summation from the field of algebraic program semantics.
Examples of PCMs from algebraic program semantics
-------------------------------------------------
Both [*$\Sigma$-monoids*]{}, and [*partially additive monoids*]{}, as introduced in [@EMDB; @MA] and used in [@HA; @AHS; @HS], may be given as special cases of PCMs:
\[sigmamon\][*($\Sigma$-monoids, Partially additive monoids)*]{}\
A PCM $(M,\Sigma )$ is called a [**$\Sigma$-monoid**]{} when it satisfies the following additional axiom:
- The [**(full) Partition-Associativity Axiom.**]{} Let $\{x_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a countably indexed family, and let $\{I_j\}_{j\in J}$ be a countable partition of $I$. Then $\{ x_i\}_{i\in
I}$ is summable if and only if $\{ x_i\}_{i\in I_j}$ is summable for every $j\in J$, and $\{ \sum_{i\in I_j}x_i \}_{j\in J}$ is summable, in which case $$\sum_{i\in I} x_i = \sum_{j\in J} \left( \sum_{i\in I_j} x_i \right)$$
Note that this is a special case of the [*weak partition-associativity axiom*]{}, with a two-way, instead of a one-way, implication.
A $\Sigma$-monoid is called a [**Partially Additive Monoid**]{} (PAM) when it satisfies the following additional axiom:
- The [**Limit Axiom.**]{} Given $\{ x_i\}_{i\in I}$, a countably indexed family where$\{
x_i\}_{i\in F}$ is summable for every finite $F\subseteq I$, then $\{x_i\}_{i\in I}$ is summable.
The following are Partially Additive Monoids, and are therefore examples of PCMs:
- [*Partial functions, with the usual summation*]{}\
An indexed family of partial functions $\{ f_i : X\rightarrow Y \}_{i\in I}$ is [**summable**]{} exactly when $dom(f_i)\cap dom (f_j) = \emptyset$ for all $i\neq j$. The [**sum**]{} is given by:\
$ \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right) (x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} f_{i}(x) & x\in dom(f_i) \\ \mbox{undefined} & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}\right.$
- [*Relations, with set-theoretic union*]{}\
Any indexed family of relations $\{ R_i :X\rightarrow Y \}_{i\in I}$ is [**summable**]{}, and the [**sum**]{} is simply set-theoretic union.
- [*Partial injective functions*]{}\
The following distinct summations both give a PAM structure to hom-sets of partial injective functions:
- [*The disjointness summation*]{} An indexed family of partial functions $\{ f_i : X\rightarrow Y \}_{i\in I}$ is [**disjointness-summable**]{} exactly when $dom(f_i)\cap dom (f_j) = \emptyset$ for all $i\neq j$. The [**sum**]{} is given by:\
$ \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right) (x) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} f_{i}(x) & x\in dom(f_i) \\ \mbox{undefined} & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array}\right.$
- [*The overlap summation*]{} An indexed family of partial functions $\{ f_i : X\rightarrow Y \}_{i\in I}$ is [**overlap-summable**]{} exactly when $x\in dom(f_i)\cap dom (f_j) \ \Rightarrow \ f_i(x) =f_j(x)$, for all $i,j\in I$. The [**sum**]{} is as given above.
The following example is not a partially additive monoid, but is a $\Sigma$-monoid, and thus also an example of a PCM:
- [*Absolute convergence on positive cones*]{}\
We refer to [@PS] for categories of positive cones, and summation based on the usual summation of positive elements in finite-dimensional vector space.
Given our stated aim of unifying notions of summation from both analysis and algebraic program semantics, both $\Sigma$-monoids, and Partially Additive Monoids have undesirable properties for our purposes. The [*limit axiom*]{} is clearly undesirable for any example based on real or complex numbers: all finite families of complex numbers are summable, but the same is certainly not true (as the limit axiom would imply) for arbitrary countably infinite families.
The full partition-associativity axiom is also undesirable for slightly more subtle reasons, as the following proposition (taken from [@MA]) demonstrates:
\[positive\] Let $(M ,\Sigma )$ be a $\Sigma$-monoid, and let $X=\{ x_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a summable family of $M$ satisfying $\sum_{i\in I} x_i=0$. Then $x_i = 0$ for all $i\in I$.
For some $i\in I$, we define $Y=\{ x_j\}_{j\neq i\in I}$, so $x_i + \sum Y = 0 = \sum Y + x_i$ by weak partition associativity. Then by the full partition-associativity axiom, $$\begin{aligned}
x_i & = & x_i + 0 + 0 + 0 + \ldots \quad \mbox{by
Proposition \ref{pcmsums}}\\
& = & x_i + (\sum Y + x_i) + (\sum Y + x_i) + (\sum Y + x_i) + \ldots \\
& & ( \mbox{by full partition
associativity})\\
& = & (x_i + \sum Y) + (x_i + \sum Y) + (x_i + \sum Y) + \ldots \\
& = & 0 + 0 + \cdots ~ = ~ 0 , \mbox{by
Proposition \ref{pcmsums}} \end{aligned}$$ Hence $x_i=0$. However, as $i$ was chosen arbitrarily, $x_k=0$ for all $k\in I$.
Positivity, computation, and the PCM axioms
-------------------------------------------
From a certain point of view, positivity seems to be a natural property of notions of summation used in theoretical computer science. Taking the ‘sum’ of a family of arrows in a category is often interpreted in a very domain-theoretic manner, as looking at the total information provided by all these arrows. The challenge to this intuition comes from the field of quantum computation, where summing amplitudes leads to both constructive and destructive interference effects. From [@DEL]
> Amplitudes are complex numbers and may cancel each other, which is referred to as destructive interference, or enhance each other, referred to as constructive interference. The basic idea of quantum computation is to use quantum interference to amplify the correct outcomes and to suppress the incorrect outcomes of computations.
From this point of view, at least, enforcing positivity in models of quantum computation would seem to rule out the phenomena that distinguish quantum computation. A good example is provided by the quantum Fourier transform (required in, for example, Shor’s algorithm [@Shor] and quantum period-finding generally [@NC]), which is based on group homomorphisms $\chi:{\Bbb Z}_n \rightarrow \mbox{\bf Hilb}(H,H)$ satisfying $\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\chi(j)= 0_H$. Clearly, assuming positivity will only allow for the trivial homomorphism.
Finally, we refer to [@TCS2] for an application of category theory to quantum circuits that relies on both summing linear maps, and composition based on convolved (i.e. Cauchy) products.
Non-positive examples of PCMs {#analyticexamples}
-----------------------------
The proof of positivity for Sigma monoids given in Proposition \[positive\] does [*not*]{} apply to general PCMs, as it depends on the two-way implication in the (full) partition-associativity axiom. We give various examples of PCMs that need not be either Partial Additive Monoids or Sigma-monoids. Many of these are based on the theory of Cauchy sequences [@EH; @T], and various analytic notions of summability, such as absolute convergence of real or complex sums.
\[realsums\] Let $ \sum_{j=0}^\infty
a_j$ be a formal (i. e. not necessarily convergent) series of real numbers. The $n^{th}$ partial sum is defined by $A_n=\sum_{j=0}^n a_j$. When $lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}(A_n)$ exists, then the infinite series is said to [**converge**]{}. Note that convergence is [*permutation-dependent*]{}. Let $ \sum_{j=0}^\infty
a_j$ and $\sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k$, be series satisfying $b_k=a_{\sigma(j)}$, for some permutation $\sigma: \Bbb N \rightarrow \Bbb N$. Then the convergence of $ \sum_{j=0}^\infty
a_j$ is not enough to guarantee the convergence of $\sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k$.
A convergent series $ \sum_{j=0}^\infty
a_j$ is said to [**converge absolutely**]{} when it satisfies the additional property that the non-negative series $ \sum_{j=0}^\infty |
a_j|$ is convergent. Alternatively, a convergent series $ \sum_{j=0}^\infty
a_j$ is said to be [**permutation-independent**]{} when $\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_{\sigma(i)}$ converges for arbitrary permutations $\sigma:{\Bbb N} \rightarrow {\Bbb N}$.
The following is straightforward:
The real line, with summation defined by convergence, is [*not*]{} a PCM.
From Proposition \[welldefined\], summation in a PCM must satisfy permutation independence.
A standard result of analysis is that for real and complex numbers, absolute convergence is equivalent to permutation-independence[^6]. Real numbers with summation defined by absolute convergence then provides our first example of a PCM not satisfying the positivity property.
The real number line $\Bbb R$, together with summation defined by absolute convergence, satisfies the axioms for a PCM.
It is a triviality that the unary sum axiom is satisfied. To see that the weak partition associativity axiom is also satisfied, we refer to [@EiHi], p. 108 (also quoted in Remark \[hilleQuote\] of this paper). See also Theorem 8 of [@KK], p. 84.
The following corollary is then immediate:
the complex plane $\Bbb C$, together with the summation defined by absolute convergence, satisfies the PCM axioms.
The above results may be extended to finite-dimensional Hilbert and Banach spaces, with no substantial obstacles. However, it is more satisfactory to consider summation in the general setting, and restrict to these as special cases. As a preliminary, we need additional analytic notions of summation. The following definition is taken from [@MD]:
\[banachsums\] Let $X$ be an arbitrary Banach space. A series $\sum_{i=0}^\infty x_i$ is said to [**converge absolutely**]{} when $\sum_{i=0}^\infty \| x_i\| <\infty$. Alternatively, is is said to [**converge unconditionally**]{} when the series $\sum_{j=0}^\infty x_{\sigma (j)}$ converges for arbitrary permutations $\sigma : {\Bbb N}\rightarrow {\Bbb N}$. (Unconditional summability can simply be thought of as permutation-independent convergence, in a more general setting.) It is standard that for any unconditionally convergent series, all rearrangements have the same sum; also, every subseries of an unconditionally convergent series is itself unconditionally convergent [@BT].
\[finitedim\] In an arbitrary Banach space, absolute convergence implies unconditional convergence, but the converse is not generally true. However, in finite-dimensional Banach spaces, absolute convergence and unconditional convergence are equivalent.
This is a standard result of analysis – see, for example, [@KK], Theorem 1.3.3
\[subseries\] Let $X$ be an arbitrary Banach space. A series $\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i$ is [**subseries convergent**]{} when the partial sums $A_n = \sum _{j=0}^n \alpha(j) a_j$ form a Cauchy sequence, for arbitrary choice of $\alpha : \Bbb N \rightarrow \{ 0,1 \}$. Subseries convergence is often defined informally as ‘each subseries of $\sum_{i=0}^\infty a_i$ converges’.
In Banach spaces, subseries convergence provides a nice characterisation of unconditional convergence, as the following classic theorem demonstrates:
Let $X$ be an arbitrary Banach space. A series $\sum_{i=0}^\infty x_i$ is unconditionally convergent if and only if it is subseries convergent.
This is a corollary of the classic result of [@WO]. We refer to [@MD] for a (English language) textbook proof, and [@BLPD] for a nice elementary proof.
Note that the above result depends on the sequential completeness of Banach spaces, and thus in more general settings, subseries-convergence and unconditional convergence are not equivalent concepts. In particular, conditions equivalent to[^7] subseries convergence were introduced in [@IG] as ‘strong unconditional convergence’.
Absolutely convergent series in finite-dimensional Banach spaces are subseries-convergent.
This follows from Theorem \[finitedim\] above.
As may be expected, subseries-convergent series satisfy the weak partition associativity axiom. To prove this, we first need some unsurprising technical results.
Let $\sum_{j=0}^\infty y_j$ be an infinite series, and $\sum_{i=0}^\alpha x_i$ be a finite or infinite series in some Banach space $X$. We say that $\sum_{j=0}^\infty y_j$ is a 0-padding of $\sum_{i=0}^\alpha x_i$ when there exists some injection $\eta:\{0,\ldots \alpha\} \rightarrow {\Bbb N}$ such that for all $j\in {\Bbb N}$, $$y_j =\left\{\begin{array}{lr} x(i) & j=\eta(i) \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise.}\end{array}\right.$$
\[technical\]Let $\sum_{i=0}^\alpha x_i$ be a finite or countably infinite subseries-summable series in some Banach space $X$ and let $\sum_{j=0}^\infty y_j$ be a zero-padding of $\sum_{i=0}^\infty x_i$. Then $\sum_{j=0}^\infty y_j$ is subseries convergent and $\sum_{j=0}^\infty y_j = \sum_{i=0}^\alpha x_i$.
Let us assume that $\sum_{i=0}^\infty x_i$ is an infinite series, otherwise the result is trivial. Consider arbitrary $\beta : \Bbb N \rightarrow \{ 0,1 \}$, along with the sum $\sum_{j=0}^\infty \beta(j)y_j$, and let $\eta:{\Bbb N}\rightarrow {\Bbb N}$ be the embedding satisfying $y_j =\left\{\begin{array}{lr} x(i) & j=\eta(i) \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise.}\end{array}\right. $. Then since the partial sums $\left\{ \sum_{i=0}^n x_i\right\}_{n\in {\Bbb N}}$ form a Cauchy sequence so do the partial sums $\left\{ \sum_{j=0}^m y_j\right\}_{m\in {\Bbb N}}$. Thus, as $\beta : \Bbb N \rightarrow \{ 0,1 \}$ was chosed arbitrarily, we deduce that $\sum_{j=0}^\infty y_j$ is subseries convergent, as required. The equivalence of the two sums is then immediate.
This technicality then allows us to appeal to standard results, in order to demonstrate that subseries-convergent series in Banach spaces satisfy the Weak Partition Associativity axiom.
Let $\sum_{i=0}^\infty x_i$ be a subseries-convergent series in an arbitrary Banach space $X$, and let $\{I_j\}_{j\in J}$ be a countable partition of $I$. Then $\{ x_i\}_{i\in I_j}$ is subseries-convergent, as is $\{ \sum_{i\in I_j}x_i
\}_{j\in J}$, and $ \sum_{i\in I} x_i = \sum_{j\in J} \left(\sum_{i\in I_j} x_i \right)$.
This result is proved, for partitions into countably infinite sets, in Lemma 2 of [@BT]. The case where certain of these partitions are finite appears to be implicitly assumed in [@BT] – for a formal justification, we may consider zero-padding the original sequence, to replace finite subsums by infinite sums with a finite number of non-zero summands, and appealing to Lemma \[technical\] above.
We may now list a number of PCMs that do not, or are not required to, satisfy the positivity condition.
1. [*Absolute convergence of real or complex numbers*]{} Absolute convergence of countable sums in the real or complex plane is a motivating example for the theory of PCMs and PCM-categories. It arises as a special case of absolute convergence in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, as below:
2. [*Absolute convergence in finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces*]{} All finitely indexed families are summable, with the usual summation. A countably indexed family $\{ \psi_i \}_{i\in {\Bbb N}}$ is [**summable**]{} exactly when the sequence $\{ \sum_{i=1}^n \| \psi_i \| \}_{n\in {\Bbb N}}$ is a Cauchy sequence.
3. [*Subseries-summable summation in arbitrary Banach spaces*]{} All finitely indexed families are summable, with the usual summation. A countably indexed family $\{ b_i \}_{i\in {\Bbb N}}$ is [**summable**]{} exactly when the series $\sum_{i=0}^\infty b_i$ is subseries-summable in the sense of Definition \[subseries\], in which case the sum is the limit of the Cauchy sequence $\{ \sum_{i=1}^n b_i \}_{n\in {\Bbb N}}$.
4. [*The unit ball summation in finite-dimensional Banach spaces*]{} Let ${\mathcal B}$ be a finite-dimensional Banach space, and denote the unit ball by $Ball({\mathcal B}) =\{ b\in {\mathcal B}: \| b \| \leq 1\}$. An indexed family $\{ b_i \}_{i\in I}$ is summable exactly when $\sum_{i\in I} \| b_i \|\leq 1$, in which case its sum is the usual Banach space summation.
5. [*Any abelian monoid*]{} Given an abelian monoid $(M,+,0_M)$, then the following are distinct PCM-structures:
- [*The finite families summation*]{} An indexed set $\{ m_i\}_{i\in I}$ is summable exactly when the subfamily of non-zero elements $\{ m_j \}_{j\in J\subseteq I}$ is a finite family. The sum is defined by $$\sum_{i\in I} m_i = \left\{ \begin{array}{clr} \sum_{j\in J} m_j & J \neq \{ \} \\ & \\ 0_M & \mbox{otherwise,} \end{array}\right.$$ where the finitary sum on the r.h.s. is the usual sum of the abelian group.
- [*The $K$-bounded summation*]{} As above, but where the summable families are those with at most $K$ non-zero elements.
It is almost immediate from the commutativity and associativity of composition in $M$ that these both satisfy the PCM axioms.
6. [*Any abelian group*]{}, with either of the above the finite families summation, or $K$-bounded summation, as a special case of the abelian monoid examples.
Examples of PCM-categories
--------------------------
A PCM-category is defined in Definition \[PCMcats\] to be a category ${{\mathcal C}}$ where each hom-sets has a specified PCM structure, together with the [*strong distributivity*]{} axiom that connects composition and summation. This states that, given summable families $\{ g_j \in {{\mathcal C}}(Y,Z)\}_{j\in I}$ and $\{ f_i \in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y) \}_{i\in I}$, then $\{ g_jf_i\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z) \}_{(j,i)\in {{\mathcal C}}(X,Z)}$ is summable and $$\left( \sum_{j\in J} g_j \right) \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right) \ = \ \sum_{(j,i)\in J\times I } g_jf_i$$
- [*The real or numbers, with multiplication and absolute convergence*]{}\
Given two absolutely convergent sums of real or complex numbers, $\sum_{i\in I} r_i $ and $\sum_{j\in J} s_j$, then by definition of absolute convergence, $\sum_{(i,j)\in I\times J} r_i s_j$ exists, and $$\left( \sum_{i\in I} r_i \right) \left( \sum_{j\in J} s_j\right) =\sum_{(i,j)\in I\times J} r_is_j$$ Therefore, $({\Bbb R},\times )$ or $({\Bbb C},\times)$, with this indexed summation, is a one-object PCM-category.
- [*Linear maps on finite-dimensional Hilbert space, with composition and uniform convergence*]{}\
This follows similarly to the above examples. Note that the hom-set of maps between two finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces is itself a finite-dimensional Hilbert space, and the distinct notions of convergence with respect to various operator norms all coincide in the finite-dimensional case. The strong distributivity property is a classic result of analysis (see, for example [@CS] for a general setting).
- [*Any ring, with the finite families summation*]{}\
Let $(R,\times,+)$ be a ring. Then $(R,\times )$ is a monoid, and hence a one-object category. Its unique homset (i.e. the elements of $R$) is an abelian monoid, $(R,+)$. Hence we may take the the finite families summation $\Sigma_{<\infty}$ of Section \[analyticexamples\] above to get the PCM $(R,\Sigma_{<\infty})$. Given two summable families, $\{ s_j \}_{j\in J}$ and $\{ r_i\}_{i\in I}$, then the family $\{ s_j r_i \}_{(j,i)\in J\times I}$ has a finite number of non-zero elements, and hence is summable. Given the summability of the required families, the identity $$\left( \sum_{j\in I} s_j \right) \left( \sum _{i\in I} r_i \right) = \sum_{(j,i)\in J\times I} s_jr_i$$ is then straightforward from the definition of summation in terms of the addition in the ring $(R,\times ,+)$.
Note that, simply because the homsets of a category are PCMs, we no not necessarily have a PCM-category — we also need the strong distributivity condition of Definition \[PCMcats\]. For example, consider a unital ring $(R,\times,+,1,0)$. The multiplicative monoid $(R,\times,1)$ is trivially a one-object category, and as demonstrated in Section \[analyticexamples\], we may give the additive abelian monoid $(R,+,0)$ a PCM structure using the K-bounded summations $\Sigma_{\leq K}$ where a family is summable exactly when it has no more than $K$ non-zero elements. However, for $K>1$, the K-bounded summation does [*not*]{} in general make $(R,\times , \Sigma_{\leq K})$ a one-object PCM category. Let us assume that $R$ has no zero-divisors, and consider two summable families containing $K$ non-zero elements $\{ s_j \}_{j\in J}$ and $\{ r_i \}_{i\in I}$. Then the strong distributivity law does not hold, since $\{ s_jr_i \}_{(j,i)\in J\times I}$ is not a summable family, as it contains $K^2>K$ non-zero elements.\
We now demonstrate that there is a whole class of examples to be found within the field of algebraic program semantics. The proofs that these are PCM-categories arises from the following straightforward result:
\[sdfromfpa\] Let ${{\mathcal C}}$ be a category, together with, for all $X,Y\in Ob({{\mathcal C}})$ a function $\Sigma^{(X,Y)}$ from indexed families over ${{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ to ${{\mathcal C}}(X,Y)$ such that:
1. $\left( {{\mathcal C}}(X,Y), \Sigma^{(X,Y)} \right)$ is a PCM satisfying the additional [*full partition-associativity axiom*]{} of Definition \[sigmamon\].
2. The usual left and right distributivity conditions as satisfied: that is, given a summable family $\{ g_i\in {{\mathcal C}}(B,C) \}_{i\in I}$ and arbitrary $f\in {{\mathcal C}}(A,B)$ and $h\in {{\mathcal C}}(C,D)$, then the families $\{ hg_i\in {{\mathcal C}}(B,D) \}_{i\in I}$ and $\{ g_if\in {{\mathcal C}}(A,C) \}_{i\in I}$ are summable and $$h\left( \sum_{i\in I} g_i \right) \ =\ \sum_{i\in I} (hg_i) \ \ \mbox{ and } \ \ \left( \sum_{i\in I} g_i \right) f \ = \ \sum_{i\in I} (g_if)$$
then $\left( {{\mathcal C}},\Sigma^{(\underline{\ },\underline{\ })}\right)$ satisfies the strong distributivity condition of Definition \[PCMcats\], and thus is a PCM-category.
Let us write $f=\sum_{i\in I} f_i$ and $g=\sum_{j\in J} g_j$. Then, By left-distributivity, and the existence of $\sum_{i\in I} f_i$, we deduce $gf=\sum_{i\in I} gf_i$. However, $g=\sum_{j\in J} g_j$. Therefore, by full partition-associativity, $gf = \sum_{i\in I} \left( \sum_{j\in J} g_jf_i \right)$. Using the right distributivity law and full partition-associativity, $gf = \sum_{j\in J} \left( \sum_{i\in I} g_jf_i \right)$. Again by full partition-associativity, and Proposition \[welldefined\], we may replace the doubly-indexed sum by a single indexed sum, giving $gf=\sum_{(j,i)\in J\times I} g_jf_i$ and hence $$gf \ = \ \left( \sum_{j\in J}g_j \right) \left( \sum_{i\in I} f_i \right) \ = \ \sum_{(j,i)\in J\times I} g_jf_i$$ Therefore ${{\mathcal C}}$ satisfies strong distributivity, as required.
Note that the converse is not true: weak partition-associativity, together with the strong distributivity law, does not, in general, imply the full partition-associativity axiom. This is clear from the failure of positivity in many of the examples given.
The Partially Additive Categories (PACs) of [@MA] are PCM-categories, as are the Unique Decomposition Categories (UDCs) of [@HA], [@AHS], [@HS].
[^1]: Following [@MA], we also allow countably many $I_j$ to be empty.
[^2]: i.e. we allow for a proper class of objects, but require that all homsets are indeed sets.
[^3]: Some new terminology is certainly needed. Starting from the theory of monoid semirings, we will replace both monoids and semirings with categories. However, we wish to avoid replacing the term ‘monoid-semiring’ by ‘category-category’.
[^4]: Note that this is simply a functor, rather than a PCM-functor, since the product category ${{\mathcal C}}\times {{\mathcal D}}$ is not a PCM-category. However, the construction relies on the assumption that ${{\mathcal C}}$ is indeed a PCM-category.
[^5]: As supporting evidence that this is possible, we refer to [@HiSc; @TCS2] where partial categorical traces, based on notions of summation that do not satisfy positivity (but do, however, satisfy the PCM axioms), are both used to model quantum-optics thought experiments and to construct concrete quantum circuits.
[^6]: We emphasise that this is specific to the real and complex planes, and finite-dimensional spaces. In more general settings, general these are distinct concepts. In particular, infinite-dimensional Banach spaces or abstract topological groups provide counterexamples, as discussed following Definition \[banachsums\].
[^7]: We refer to [@CMA] for many conditions equivalent to subseries-convergence, including the definitions of [@IG].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'Daniela Calvetti A[^1]'
- 'Salvatore Cuomo B[^2]'
- 'Monica Pragliola[^3]'
- 'Erkki Somersalo[^4]'
- 'Gerardo Toraldo[^5]'
title: Computational issues and numerical experiments for Linear Multistep Method Particle Filtering
---
Introduction
============
The Linear Multistep Method Particle Filter (LMM PF) is a method for predicting the evolution in time of a evolutionary system governed by a system of differential equations. In order to appreciate the contribution of the LMM PF, let us suppose to deal with an ODEs system modelling an inverse problem and depending on unknown or poorly known parameters. The estimate of states and parameters for such a system from noisy measurements of a function of some of the states at discrete times is a central problem in several applications. In general, inverse problems are ill posed, that means, for instance, that the solution does not exist.\
A possible way to overcome the mentioned difficulties is to resort to a statistical approach, outlining a framework in which the unknown states and parameters are modelled as random variables and the uncertainties on them are represented by probability density functions. A great advantage in adopting such a point of view is that we do not have to worry about the existence of the solution, or of a unique solution, since the solution is not a single value, but a probability density function (posterior density). Nevertheless the original problem is not formulated in statistical terms. To find the value of the generic unknown, we can, for example, maximize the density function of the corresponding random variable. However, this optimization problem can not be solved directly. We need to appeal to a pre-processing phase that makes the issue practicable from a computational point of view, resorting to *sampling* techniques, such as LMM PF. The aim of sampling techniques is to draw information from probability density functions, whose analytical form is approximated by sample points. The computational efficiency of the sampling technique is crucial for the success of the method, since, the better the sampling, the more accurate and reliable is the final solution.\
Let us present a more detailed analysis of the issue and consider a system of differential equations depending on a vector of unknown parameters $\theta$: $$\frac{du}{dt}=f(t,u,\theta),\quad u(0)=u_{0},\quad t\in{[0,T]}.$$ where $u = u(t)\in R^{d}$ is a vector containing the states of the system, $f:\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}^{d}\times \mathbb{R}^{k}\longrightarrow R^{d}$ is the known model function, and $\theta \in \mathbb{R}^{k}$ is the vector of model parameters.\
Observe that (1) is not required to model an inverse problem, since the method proposed in the following can be successfully applied to every kind of ODEs system. Setting a discretization step for the time interval $[0,T]$, suppose that the measured observations are given by $$b_{j}=g(u(t_{j}),\theta)+e_{j} \in \mathbb{R}^{m},$$ where $g:\mathbb{R}^{d} \times \mathbb{R}^{k} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}^{m}$ is a known function and $e_{j}$ denotes the noise in the measurement process, which is additive for sake of simplicity.\
Formally, we are looking for an estimate of $u(t)$ at given times and $\theta$ from the measurements $b_{j}$.\
Let us denote by $D_{j}$ the set of data accumulated up to time $t=t_{j}$, $$D_{j}=\{b_{1},...,b_{j}\}.$$ As mentioned before, adopting a statistical approach, the final solution is a probability density function. In particular, here we are interested in updating the posterior density from one time instant to the next: $$\pi(u_{j},\theta|D_{j})\longrightarrow\pi(u_{j+1},\theta|D_{j+1}),$$ where $u_{j}$ denotes the discrete approximation of the state vector $u(t_{j})$.\
As we are working in a statistical framework, the analytical model (1) must be converted into a statistical one, the so called *evolution-observation model*. Let us show a possible way to carry out the mentioned transformation.\
Consider (1) over the time interval $[t_{j},t_{j+1}]$ $$\frac{du}{dt}=f(t,u,\theta), \quad t_{j}<t<t_{j+1},$$ and let $\psi^{exact}$ be the formal exact propagation operator: $$u(t_{j+1})=\psi^{exact}(t_{j+1},u(t_{j},\theta)).$$ We need to replace $\psi^{exact}$ by a numerical scheme. In particular, we choose an $r$-step solver $\psi$ such that $$u_{j+1}=\psi(u_{j},u_{j-1},...,u_{j-r+1},\theta,h),$$ where $h$ is the constant time step. Substituting in (4) the exact solution for the numerical one, the equality is retained if we take into account the approximation error, or local truncation error: $$u(t_{j+1})=\psi(u(t_{j}),u(t_{j-1}),...,u(t_{j-r+1}),\theta,h)+w_{j+1}.$$ If we look at $u(t_{j})$ as the realization of the random variable $U_{j}$, the previous formula defines an $r$-Markov model: $$U_{j+1}=\psi(U_{j},U_{j-1},...,U_{j-r+1},\theta,h)+W_{j+1},$$ for the stochastic process $\{U_{j}\}_{j=0}^{T}$, where $\{W_{j}\}_{j=1}^{T}$ is the associated innovation process.\
It is possible to turn the $r$-Markov model (5) into a $1$-Markov model by a change of variables: $$X_{j}=
\begin{bmatrix}
U_{j} \\
.\\
.\\
.\\
U_{j-r+1}
\end{bmatrix}
\quad
V_{j+1}=
\begin{bmatrix}
W_{j+1} \\
0\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
0
\end{bmatrix}
\quad
\Psi(X_{j},\theta,h)=
\begin{bmatrix}
\psi(X_{j},\theta,h) \\
U_{j}\\
.\\
.\\
.\\
U_{j-r+2}
\end{bmatrix}$$\
In the end we obtain the $1$-Markov model: $$X_{j+1}=\Psi(X_{j},\theta,h)+V_{j+1}.$$ Assume that $\{Y_{j}\}_{j=1}^{T}$ is the stochastic process modelling the observations of $U_{j}$. Then we have $$Y_{j}=G(X_{j})+E_{j},$$ where $\{E_{j}\}_{j=1}^{T}$ represents the measurement noise.\
Equations (6)-(7) constitute the discrete-time evolution-observation model obtained from a discrete-time propagation system. It is worth observing that the innovation term $V_{j+1}$ in (6) represents mainly the numerical approximation error due to the propagation scheme $\psi$, since most of its components are null.
LMM PF
======
Let us consider the discrete-time evolution-observation model (6)-(7): $$\begin{split}
X_{j+1}&=\Psi(X_{j},\theta,h)+V_{j+1}, \qquad V_{j+1}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\Gamma_{j+1}(X_{j},\theta))\\
Y_{j}&=G(X_{j})+E_{j},\qquad E_{j}\sim \mathcal{N}(0,\Sigma_{j}).
\end{split}$$ As mentioned in the previous section, $V_{j+1}$ is connected with the approximation error, in fact its covariance matrix $\Gamma_{j+1}$ is computed by resorting to error estimate strategies, such as the Higher Order Method Error Control strategy (HOMEC). Adopting HOMEC, we need to consider an LMM method of order $p$ and an LMM method of order $\hat{p}\geq p+1$ from the same family. Denoting with $u$ the solution computed by the LMM method of order $p$, and with $\hat{u}$ the solution computed by the LMM method of order $\hat{p}$, we obtain the following expression for the innovation covariance $$\Gamma_{j+1}=diag(\gamma),\quad \gamma_{i}=\tau^{2}(u_{j+1}-\hat{u}_{j+1})_{i}^{2},\quad i=1,...,d,$$ where $\tau>1$ is introduced to compensate for the omission of the higher order terms.\
Our purpose is to compute a sequential update of the posterior density such as (3): $$\pi(x_{j},\theta|D_{j})\longrightarrow \pi(x_{j+1},\theta|D_{j+1}).$$ As in the classical particle filter \[ref\], we deal with samples approximating densities. Hence, the update we are actually interested in is: $$S_{j}\longrightarrow S_{j+1}, \quad S_{j}=\big\{(x_{j}^{n},\theta_{j}^{n},w_{j}^{n})\big\}_{n=1}^{N},$$ where the pairs $(x_{j}^{n},\theta_{j}^{n})$ for $n=1,...,N$, have been drawn from the posterior density $\pi(x_{j},\theta|D_{j})$ with relative probabilities $w_{j}^{n}$.\
For simplicity, we first assume that the parameter $\theta$ is known and can therefore be dropped from the notation in (4.2) and the sample $S_{j}$ has the form: $$S_{j}=\big\{(x_{j}^{n},w_{j}^{n})\big\}_{n=1}^{N}.$$ The model (6)-(7) satisfies the following Markov properties:
- the state $X_{j+1}$ depends on the past data $D_{j}$ only through the previous state, i.e. $$\pi(x_{j+1}|x_{j},D_{j})=\pi(x_{j+1}|x_{j});$$
- the observation $Y_{j+1}$ depends on the past only through the current state $X_{j+1}$, i.e. $$\pi(y_{j+1}|x_{j+1},D_{j})=\pi(y_{j+1}|x_{j+1}).$$
The previous properties suggest us to rewrite the chain of update (9) adding an intermediate step: $$\pi(x_{j}|D_{j})\longrightarrow\pi(x_{j+1}|D_{j})\longrightarrow\pi(x_{j+1}|D_{j+1}),$$ Hence, two updating formulas must be derived. The first one is based on the Chapman-Kolmogorov formula and controls the evolution update: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi(x_{j+1}|D_{j})&=\int \pi(x_{j+1}|x_{j},D_{j})\pi(x_{j}|D_{j})dx_{j}\\
&=\int \pi(x_{j+1}|x_{j})\pi(x_{j}|D_{j})dx_{j}.\end{aligned}$$ The second updating formula is obtained by applying the Bayes’ formula and the Monte Carlo approximation and controls the observation update: $$\begin{split}
\pi(x_{j+1}|D_{j+1}) & \propto \pi(y_{j+1}|x_{j+1}) \int \pi(x_{j+1}|x_{j})\pi(x_{j}|D_{j})dx_{j}\\
& \propto \pi(y_{j+1}|x_{j+1}) \sum_{n=1}^{N}w_{j}^{n} \pi(x_{j+1}|x_{j}^{n}).
\end{split}$$ Basing on the layered sampling procedure, outlined in \[ref\], a new proposal $\hat{x}_{j+1}^{n}$ is drawn from the density $\pi(x_{j+1}|x_{j}^{n})$, for $n=1,...,N$. After the evaluation of the likelihoods $\pi(y_{j+1}|\hat{x}_{j+1}^{n})$ for each proposal particle, the algorithm resamples according to the relative likelihood. A possible consequence of this approach is the thinning of the sample, which is due to the discarding of the particles with the lowest likelihoods, and can be avoided by resorting to the auxiliary particle strategy \[ref\]. So, we choose as auxiliary particle $\mu_{j+1}^{n}=\overline{x}_{j+1}^{n}$ for each $n$, where $\overline{x}_{j+1}^{n}=\Psi(x_{j}^{n},h)$ is the expectation of $X_{j+1}$ conditioned that $X_{j}=x_{j}^{n}$. In particular, $\overline{x}_{j+1}^{n}$ is a predictor of the value of $X_{j+1}$ given the initial value $x_{j}^{n}$.\
We can now rewrite the updating formula (10) $$\pi(x_{j+1}|D_{j+1}) \propto \sum_{n=1}^{N} w_{j}^{n}\pi(y_{j+1}|\overline{x}_{j+1}^{n})\frac{\pi(y_{j+1}|x_{j+1})}{\pi(y_{j+1}|\overline{x}_{j+1}^{n})}\pi(x_{j+1}|x_{j}^{n}),$$ The above equation can be seen as a mixture model, where $g_{j+1}^{n}=w_{j}^{n}\pi(y_{j+1}|\overline{x}_{j+1}^{n})$ is said to be the *fitness* of the $n$-th *predictor*. In the following we are giving the algorithm of PF LMM for state estimation \[ref\]:\
**Algorithm 3: LMM PF for state estimation**\
**Input**: $\pi(x_{0})=\pi(x_{0}|D_{0})$ prior distribution.
1. **Initialize**: Draw the particle sample from $\pi(x_{0})$,\
$S_{0}=\{(x_{0}^{1},w_{0}^{1}),...,(x_{0}^{N},w_{0}^{N})\}.$ Set $j=0$;
2. **Propagation**: Compute the predictor using LMM,\
$\overline{x}_{j+1}^{n}=\Psi(x_{j}^{n},h), \quad 1\leq n\leq N;$
3. **Survival of the fittest**: For each $n$
- Compute the normalized fitness weights: $$g_{j+1}^{n}=w_{j}^{n}\pi(y_{j+1}|\overline{x}_{j+1}^{n}), \quad g_{j+1}^{n}\longleftarrow \frac{g_{j+1}^{n}}{\sum_{n}g_{j+1}^{n}};$$
- Draw indices with replacement $l_{n}\in \{1,...,N\}$ using probabilities $P(l_{n}=k)=g_{j+1}^{k}$;
- Reshuffle: $x_{j}^{n}\longleftarrow x_{j}^{l_{n}}, \quad \overline{x}_{j}^{n}\longleftarrow \overline{x}_{j}^{l_{n}}, \quad 1 \leq n \leq N.$
4. **Innovation**: For each $n$
- Using LMM error control, estimate $\Gamma_{j+1}^{n}$;
- Draw $v_{j+1}^{n} \sim \mathcal{N}(0,\Gamma_{j+1}^{n})$;
- Proliferate: $x_{j+1}^{n}=\overline{x}_{j+1}^{n}+v_{j+1}^{n}.$
5. **Weight updating**: For each $n$ compute $$w_{j+1}^{n}=\frac{\pi(y_{j+1}|x_{j+1}^{n})}{\pi(y_{j+1}|\overline{x}_{j+1}^{n})}, \quad w_{j+1}^{n}\longleftarrow \frac{w_{j+1}^{n}}{\sum_{n}w_{j+1}^{n}};$$
6. if $j<T$, set $j=j+1$ and repeat from Step 2; otherwise, stop.
**Output**: $S_{k+1}$, $k=0,...,T-1$.
The LMM PF can also face up with parameter estimation problem, as clearly shown in \[ref\]. Let us have a quick review of the types of errors we are dealing with. First of all, we must consider the error introduced in order to generate the initial particle ensemble $S_{0}$, i.e. the **initial variance** $V_{0}$ of the prior distribution $\pi_{0}$. Furthermore, at each time instant $t_{j}$, the **variance** $V_{j}$ of the sample $S_{j}$ and the **absolute error** $E_{j}$ can be computed. In particular, denoted with $y^{exact}(t_{j})$ the analytical solution of (1) in $t_{j}$ and with $y^{mean}(t_{j})$ the mean of the particle ensemble $S_{j}$, we have $$E_{j}=\lvert y^{mean}(t_{j})-y^{exact}(t_{j})\rvert.$$ The absolute error takes into account the contribution of the *global truncation error* and of the *round off error* at each time instant $t_{j}$. Our aim is to study the behaviour of the variances $V_{j}$ and of the errors $E_{j}$ for different values of $V_{0}$, when different numerical integration methods are considered.
Computational experiments
=========================
The LMM PF is applied to the dynamics of the skeletal muscle metabolism, in order to approximate concentrations of some metabolites in the blood and in the tissue during an episode of ischemia; $30$ out of $39$ are concentrations of metabolites in the tissue. The data consist of noisy observations of eight metabolites in the blood, which are glucose, lactate, alanine, triglyceride, glycerine, free fatty acid, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. The measurements are collected at $11$ time instants.\
It is worth doing some considerations about the nuemrical results. At first, we choose the method BDF1 of order $p=1$ to propagate the particle ensemble, and the method BDF2 to get an estimate of the error.
{width="70mm"}\
{width="70mm"}\
{width="70mm"}
In Figure 1, the black solid line represents the approximated solution, while the blue solid line represents the real behavior of the metabolite taken into account. The red solid line describes the evolution of the absolute error, that is the difference between the approximated and the real concentration for each metabolite. We can observe that the error presents an edge corresponding to the most complex dynamical phase. Moreover, in the second half of the time interval the red line increases significantly. This could be due to an accumulation of the error, which is reasonable since the system is studied over a very large time interval. Let us try and consider more accurate integration methods, such as BDF3 of order $p=3$ to propagate the particle ensemble, and BFD4 to get an estimate of the error (Figure 2).
{width="70mm"}\
{width="70mm"}\
{width="70mm"}
Although the error significantly decreases, it presents an increasing tendency towards the end of the time interval. Enlarging the observation time interval, it could be possible to observe a progressive separation between the blue and the black line, which is not reasonable comparing to the smoothness of the dynamic. It is worth emphasizing that the real solution of the ODEs system governing the problem is not known. The blue solid line is obtained by integrating the system with `ode15s`, which is a variable order solver usually used to deal with stiff problems, such as in this case. Therefore, the accumulation of the error could be due to the usage of three numerical solvers.\
To investigate the nature of the error, we apply the LMM PF to a test problem whose analytic solution is known. This allows us to avoid a possible source of error. We start by considering a very smooth problem: $$x'(t)=cos^{2}(t),\quad x(0)=1,$$ where $$x(t)=arctg(t).$$ We need to set the number `Nsample` of particles, the variance `V` of the initial set of particles and the discretization step `dt`:
Nsample=150;
V=0.1;
dt=0.1;
We choose the Adams-Bashforth method of order $p=1$ to propagate the particle ensemble, and the Adams-Bashforth method of order $p=2$ to get an estimate of the error.
{width="80mm"}
The error curve presents a reasonable edge corresponding to the increasing dynamical phase. Then, it does not increase anymore. The LMM PF algorithm does not worsen the stability of the numerical method chosen.\
Let us consider a less smooth problem, such as $$x'(t)=-2(t-1)x,\quad x(0)=1, \quad t\in [0,5],$$ where $$x(t)=e^{-t(t-2)}.$$ We are going to compute the solution for `V=0.1,0.01,0.001,0.0001` when different integration methods are considered. The numerical results are compared in terms of the absolute error and of the sample variance at each time instant. In the following experiments the discretization step and the number of particles are fixed as before:
Nsample=150;
dt=0.1;
We considered explicit and implicit linear multistep methods, such as Adams-Bashforth methods and Adams-Moulton methods. In particular, the adopted pair are AB1-AB2, AB3-AB4, AM1-AM2, AM3-AM4.
In Figure 4 and Figure 5, numerical results obtained with AB12 and AB34 respectively for `V=0.1` and `V=0.0001` are compared.
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}
Observe that the choice of a higher order method does not lead to a greater accuracy in the final solution. This is due to a reduction of the stability regions. An improvement could be observed decreasing $h$. The same issue occurs when considering the implicit pairs AM1-AM2 and AM3-AM4 (Figure 6, Figure 7).
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}
Table 1-4 emphasize the worsening in the accuracy, by showing the norm of the absolute error vector and of the variance vector for the above mentioned linear multistep method when different values of the initial variance $V$ are chosen. Furthermore, as we would expect, the choice of implicit methods rather than the explicit ones ensures an higher accuracy.
----------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
Method Absolute error ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{\infty}$) Sample variance ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{2}$)
$AB1-AB2$ $0,4292$ $0,1015$
$AB3-AB4$ $0,6795$ $0,1011$
$AM1-AM2$ $0,2265$ $0,1011$
$AM3-AM4$ $0,5728$ $0,1005$
----------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
: Numerical results for V=0.1
As the initial variance V decreases, the distance of the generic particle of the sample from the sample mean decreases too, i.e. the LMM PF is more precise.
----------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
Method (V=0.01) Absolute error ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{\infty}$) Sample variance ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{2}$)
$AB1-AB2$ $0,3724$ $0,0218$
$AB3-AB4$ $0,6142$ $0,0127$
$AM1-AM2$ $0,1545$ $0,0181$
$AM3-AM4$ $0,5030$ $0,0172$
----------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
: Numerical results for V=0.01
------------------ ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
Method (V=0.001) Absolute error ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{\infty}$) Sample variance ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{2}$)
$AB1-AB2$ $0,1216$ $0,0107$
$AB3-AB4$ $0,3645$ $0,0067$
$AM1-AM2$ $0,1132$ $0,0061$
$AM3-AM4$ $0,2873$ $0,0044$
------------------ ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
: Numerical results for V=0.001
------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
Method (V=0.0001) Absolute error ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{\infty}$) Sample variance ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{2}$)
$AB1-AB2$ $0,1140$ $0,0059$
$AB3-AB4$ $0,2484$ $0,0031$
$AM1-AM2$ $0,0681$ $0,0014$
$AM3-AM4$ $0,2282$ $0,0017$
------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
: Numerical results for V=0.0001
Let us now test the Runge-Kutta integration class method on (12). It is worth remarking that, as the order of the RK method increases, the stability region enlarges. Hence, we can consider RK methods of order $p\geq3$ without worrying about the stability properties of the final solution and we can consider a larger integration time interval, such as $[0,10]$. In the following, numerical results obtained with RK12 and RK45 for different values of $V$ are compared.
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}
{width="70mm"} {width="70mm"}
Let us emphasize that a better accuracy has been obtained without changing the integration step `dt=0.1`, that means that the integration time does not significantly increases. Moreover, fixing an admissible upper bound for the error, we can choose a not very accurate solver and a low initial variance, or a more accurate solver and a higher initial variance, i.e. we do not need to sample as better as possible at the initial time $t_{0}$.\
---------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
Method (V=0.1) Absolute error ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{\infty}$) Sample variance ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{2}$)
$RK1-RK2$ $0,3337$ $0,1024$
$RK4-RK5$ $0,2596$ $0,1014$
---------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
: Numerical results for V=0.1
----------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
Method (V=0.01) Absolute error ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{\infty}$) Sample variance ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{2}$)
$RK1-RK2$ $0,3303$ $0,0180$
$RK4-RK5$ $0,2862$ $0,0152$
----------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
: Numerical results for V=0.01
------------------ ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
Method (V=0.001) Absolute error ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{\infty}$) Sample variance ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{2}$)
$RK1-RK2$ $0,1574$ $0,0088$
$RK4-RK5$ $0,1488$ $0,0077$
------------------ ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
: Numerical results for V=0.001
------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
Method (V=0.0001) Absolute error ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{\infty}$) Sample variance ($\lVert\cdot\lVert_{2}$)
$RK1-RK2$ $0,1418$ $0,0035$
$RK4-RK5$ $0,0267$ $0,0023$
------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- --
: Numerical results for V=0.0001
[99]{} D. CALVETTI, E. SOMERSALO, *An Introduction to Bayesian Scientific Computing: ten Lectures on Subjective Computing*, Springer, 2007. A. ARNOLD, *Sequential Monte Carlo parameter estimation for differential equations*, Case Western Reserve University, 2014. A. ARNOLD, D. CALVETTI, E. SOMERSALO, *i*, IOP publishing, 2014. A. ARNOLD, D. CALVETTI, E. SOMERSALO, *Parameter estimation for stiff deterministic dynamical systems via ensemble Kalman filter*
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
[^4]: [email protected]
[^5]: [email protected]
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Three types of regression models researchers need to be familiar with and know the requirements of each: parametric, semiparametric and nonparametric regression models. The type of modeling used is based on how much information are available about the form of the relationship between response variable and explanatory variables, and the random error distribution. In this article, differences between models, common methods of estimation, robust estimation, and applications are introduced. The R code for all the graphs and analyses presented here, in this article, is available in the Appendix.
: Parametric, semiparametric, nonparametric, single index model, robust estimation, kernel regression, spline smoothing.
author:
- 'Hamdy F. F. Mahmoud$^{1,2}$'
title: Parametric versus Semi and Nonparametric Regression Models
---
=cmbx10 scaled4
[$^1$]{} Department of Statistics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA, USA.\
[$^2$]{} Department of Statistics, Mathematics and Insurance, Assiut University, Egypt.\
Introduction {#sec:sec1}
============
The aim of this paper is to answer many questions researchers may have when they fit their data, such as what are the differences between parametric, semi/nonparamertic models? which one should be used to model a real data set? what estimation method should be used?, and which type of modeling is better? These questions and others are addressed by examples.
Assume that a researcher collected data about Y, a response variable, and explanatory variables, $X=(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_k)$. The model that describes the relationship between Y and X can be written as $$Y=f(X,\boldsymbol\beta)+\epsilon,$$ where $\boldsymbol\beta$ is a vector of $k$ parameters, $\epsilon$ is an error term whose distribution may or may not be normal, $f(\cdot)$ is some function that describe the relationship between Y and X.
The model choice from parametric, semiparametric and nonparametric regression model depends on the prior knowledge of the functional form relationship, $f(\cdot)$, and the random error distribution. If the form is known and it is correct, the parametric method can model the data set well. However, if a wrong functional form is chosen, this will result in larger bias as compared to the other compititve models (Fan and Yao, 2003). The most common functional form is parametric linear model, as a type of parametric regression, is frequently used to describe the relationship between a dependent variable and explanatory variables. Parametric linear models require the estimation of a finite number of parameters, $\boldsymbol\beta$.
Parametric models are easy to work with, estimate, and interpret. So, why are semiparametric and nonparametric regression important? Over the last decade, increasing attention has been devoted to these regression models as new techniques for estimation and forecasting in different areas, such as epidemiology, agriculture, and economics. Nonparametric regression analysis relaxes the assumption of the linearity or even knowledge about the functional form priori in the regression analysis and enables one to explore the data more flexibly. However, in high dimensions variance of the estimates rapidly increases, called as curse of dimensionality, due to the sparseness of data. To solve this problem, some semiparametric methods have been proposed, such as single index model (SIM). In application, the three modeling approaches are compared in terms of fitting and prediction (Rajarathinan and Parameter 2011; Dhekale et al. 2017) and Mahmoud et al. (2016) showed that if the link function in generalized linear models is misspecified, semiparametric models are better than parametric models. In Section 2, the three types of models are introduced. In Section 3, which model should be used is addressed. In Section 4, common estimation methods for semiparametric and nonprametric models are displayed. In Section 5, multiple case is presented. Robust nonparametric regression method is introduced in Section 6. Section 7 is discussion and conclusion.
Parametric, semi and nonparametric regression models
====================================================
To differentiate between the three types of regression models, without less of generality, assume we have a response variable, Y, and two explanatory variables, $x_1$ and $x_2$. The regression model that describes the relationship between the response variable and two the explanatory variables can be written as: $$Y=f_1(x_1,\beta_1)+f_2(x_2,\beta_2)+\epsilon,$$ where $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ are some parameters need to be estimated, $\epsilon$ is a random error term, and $f_1(\cdot)$ and $f_2(\cdot)$ are functions describe the relationships.
Parametric models
-----------------
Parametric models are models in which the vector of parameters, $\boldsymbol\beta$ in model (1), is a vector in finite $p-$dimensional space ($p$ may be less or greater than $k$). Our interest in this case is estimating the vector of parameters. In parametric models, the researcher assumes completely the form of the model and its assumptions. Applying on model (2), $f_1(\cdot)$ and $f_2(\cdot)$ need to be known functions and $\epsilon$ distribution is known periori for inference purposes. For example, the researcher may assume they are linear and the error term follow normal distribution. In general, $f_1(\cdot)$ and $f_2(\cdot)$ can be assumed linear in parameters or nonlinear in the parameters $\beta$’s. For model validity, after fitting the data by the assumed model, the researcher needs to check whether the assumptions are correct using residuals.
### Linear models
Linear models are linear in the parameters (i.e., linear in the $\beta$’s). For example, polynomial regression that is used to model curvature in a data set by using higher-ordered values of the predictors is a linear model in $\beta$’s. However, the final regression model is just a linear combination of higher-ordered predictors. There are many examples of linear models, below are a few of them
- $Y=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_1+\beta_2 x_2+\epsilon$ (Multiple linear regression model)
- $Y=\beta_0+\beta_{10} x_1+\beta_{11} x_1^2+\beta_{20} x_2+\beta_{21} x_2^2+\epsilon$ (Polynomial regression model of second order)
- $\log (\mu)=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_1+\beta_2 x_2 $ (Poisson regression when Y is count data)
These models are linear in the parameters and the number of parameters is greater that the number of the explanatory variables with one ($p=k+1$). For this setting, there are many estimation methods for parameter estimation, such an ordinary least square method and maximum likelihood method. The main interest of the researcher, in this case, is estimating the vector of parameters. Once he estimated the parameters, everything is easy afterwards.
### Nonlinear models
The nonlinear regression models are parametric models and the function $f(\cdot)$ is known but nonlinear in the parameters. Below are some examples
- $Y=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_1+\beta_2 e^{(\beta_3 x_2)} +\epsilon$
- $Y=\frac{e^{\beta_0+\beta_1x_1}}{1+e^{\beta_0+\beta_1x_1}}+\epsilon$
- $Y=\beta_0+(0.4-\beta_0) e^{-\beta_1(x_1-5)}+\beta_2x_2+\epsilon$
For these setting, nonlinear least square method can be used to estimate the model parameters. There are many algorithms for nonlinear least squares estimation, such as
1. Newton’s method which is based on a gradient approach but it can be computationally challenging and dependents on initial values.
2. Gauss-Newton algorithm, it is a modification of Newton’s method that gives an approximation of the solution that Newton’s method but it is not guaranteed to converge.
3. Levenberg-Marquardt method, it has less computational difficulties compared to the other methods but it requires much work to reach the optimal solution.
There are some nonlinear models that can be made linear in the parameters by a simple transformation. For example:
$Y=\frac{\beta_0x}{\beta_1+x}$
can be written as $$\frac{1}{Y}=\frac{1}{\beta_0}+\frac{\beta_1}{\beta_0}\frac{1}{x}$$
$$Y^*=\theta_0+\theta_1 x^*$$
The last equation is linear in the parameters, so it is a linear model. If the researcher found that the relationship between the response and explanatory variable is not linear, simple solutions may work to fix the problem before working with nonlinear, nonparametric or semiparametric modeling, such as
- Use a nonlinear transformation to the dependent and/or independent variables such as a log transformation, square root, or power transformation.
- Add another regressor which is a nonlinear function of one of the other variables. For example, if you have regressed Y on X, it may make sense to regress Y on both X and $X^2$ (i.e., X-squared).
In real application, parametric models do not work for fitting data in many applications (Rajarathinan and Parmar (2011).
Nonparametric models
--------------------
The parametric and nonparametric models differ in that the model form is not specified a priori but is instead determined from data set. The term nonparametric does not mean that such models are completely lack parameters, but that the number of the parameters are flexible and not fixed periori. In parametric models, the vector of parameter, $\boldsymbol\beta$, is a vector in finite $p-$ dimensional space and our main interest is estimating that vector of parameters. In contrast, in nonparametric models, the set of parameters is a subset of infinite dimensional vector spaces. The primary interest is in estimating that infinite-dimensional vector of parameters. In nonparametric regression models, the relationship between the explanatory variables and response is unknown. Applying on model (2), $f_1$ and $f_2$ both are unknown functions. These functions can take any shape but they are unknown to the researcher, they maybe linear or nonlinear relationship but they are unknown to the researcher. In parametric modeling, you know which model exactly you use to fit to the data, e.g., linear regression line. The data tells you what the regression model should look like; the data will decide what the functions, $f_1$ and $f_2$, looks like
Semiparametric models
---------------------
Semiparametric modeling is a hybrid of the parametric and nonparametric approaches of statistical models. It may appear at first that semiparametric model include nonparametric model, however, semiparametric model is considered to be “smaller” than a completely nonparametric model because we are often interested only in the finite-dimensional component of $\boldsymbol\beta$. By contrast, in nonparametric models, the primary interest is in estimating the infinite-dimensional parameter. In result, the estimation is statistically harder in nonparametric models compared to semiparametric models.
While parametric models are being easy to understand and easy to work with, they fail to give a fair representation of what is happening in the real world. Semiparametric models allow you to have the best of both worlds: a model that is understandable and offering a fair representation of the messiness that is involved in real life. Semiparametric regression models take many different structures. One is a form of regression analysis in which a part of the predictors do not take predetermined forms and the other part takes known forms with the response. For example, in model (2), $f_1$ may be known (assume linear) and $f_2$ is unknown, it can be written as
$Y=\beta_0+\beta_1 x_1+f(x_2)+\epsilon$
In this setting, the relationship between $x_1$ and the response is linear but the relationship between the response and $x_2$ is unknown. Another form of semiparametric regression modeling which is a well-known example is the single index model (SIM) that is extensively studied and has many applications. In general, it takes the form $$Y=f(X\boldsymbol\beta)+\epsilon,$$ where $f$ is an unknown function, $X = (x_1, \ldots, x_k)$ is a $n \times k$ matrix of regressors values, $\boldsymbol\beta$ is a $k \times 1$ vector of parameters, and and $\epsilon$ is the error satisfying E$(\epsilon|X) = 0$. The term $X \boldsymbol\beta$ is called a “single index" because it is a scalar (a single index). The functional form of $f(\cdot)$ is unknown to the researcher. This model is semiparametric since the functional form of the linear index is specified, while $f(\cdot)$ is unspecified. SIM is extensively studied and applied in many different fields including biostatistics, medicine, economics, financial econometrics and epidemology (Ruppert et al. 2003; Mahmoud et. al 2016, 2019; Toma and Fulga 2018; Li, et al. 2017; Qin et al. 2018).
SIM is more flexible compared to parametric models and does not lack from curse of dimentionality problem compared to nonparametric models. It assumes the link between the mean response and the explanatory variables is unknown and estimates it nonparametrically. This gives the single index model two main advantages over parametric and nonparametric models: (1) It avoids mispecifying the link function and its misleading results (Horowitz and Hardle, 1996) and (2) the reduction of dimension which is achieved by assuming the link function to be a univariate function applied to the projection of explanatory covariate vector on to some direction. For estimation, the coefficient of one component of X is set to be equal to one and needs to be continuous to fix the identifiability problem (Ichimura 1993, Sherman 1994) or to set $\boldsymbol\beta$=1 (Lin and Kulasekera 2007, Xia et al. 2004).
Model (2) can be written in the form of single index model as $$Y=f(\beta_1 x_1+\beta_2 x_2)+\epsilon$$ Figure 1 shows different relationships between a response variable and an explanatory variable. For Figure 1(a) - 1(c), the relationship between the response and explanatory variable is not linear, so a researcher may use nonparamteric model to fit this data or try to find a polynomial regression model that can fit the data because there is no known model for these data sets. Figure 1(d) shows a linear relationship between the two variables.
Which type of modeling you should use to fit your data?
=======================================================
The first step in statistical analysis is summarizing the data numerically and graphically for the response (dependent) variable and the explanatory (independent) variables. The researcher should look at scatter plots, boxplots, histograms, numerical summery and others. That is to get an initial knowledge about the data and see whether the model assumptions are satisfied and whether there are outliers.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between age and log of wage is nonlinear. Figure 2 display the fitted lines of linear, quadratic, cubic and the 4th degree of polynomial along with the scatterplot.
{width="16.5cm" height="12cm"}
{width="15.5cm" height="10.3cm"} -5mm
{width="15.5cm" height="10.3cm"} -5mm
Assume that a researcher used the linear model to fit data. To check linearity, the researcher needs to look at residual plots. Figure 3 shows that linearity is not satisfied because fitted values versus residuals reveals nonlinearlty form and also Normality is not satisfied from Normal Q-Q plot. Compared the linear model to $4^{th}$ degree polynomial model, Figure 4 shows a better fitted versus residuals graph and normality of residual is much better. In addition, we need to look at p-value associated with the fitted model. For the linear model, p-value = 0.0008407 which is significant, however it is clear that linear model is not suitable to fit these data and R-squared = 0.05357 which is very small. For the 4th degree polynomial regression, p-value = 1.202e-15, R-squared = 0.315. Now we need to cover semi and nonparametric regression models.
Common estimation methods of semi and nonparamteric regression models
=====================================================================
Estimating the unknown function nonparametrically means the data itself is used to estimate the function, $f(\cdot)$, that describes the relationship between explanatory variables and a response. There are two commonly used approaches to nonparametric regression term:
1. [**Kernel Regression:**]{} estimates the conditional expectation of Y at given value $x$ using a weighted filter to the data.
2. [**Spline Smoothing:**]{} minimize the sum of squared residuals plus a term which penalizes the roughness of the fit.
Kernel Regression
-----------------
One of the most popular methods for nonparametric kernel regression was proposed by Nadaraya (1965) and Watson (1964) and is known as the Nadaraya-Watson estimator (also known as the local constant estimator), though the local polynomial estimator has emerged as a popular alternative. For more details in kernel smoothing, see Wand and Jones (1995).
The Kernel regression estimation is to estimate the mean function at a given value of $x$ with a polynomial with order $p$ using a kernel function that assign high weight to the point $x$ and proportional weight to the other values based on the distance. To estimate $\hat{f}(x)$ at a given value $x$ as a locally weighted average of all $y's$ associated to the values around $x$, the Nadaraya-Watson estimator is: $$\widehat{f}_h(x)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n K(\frac{x-x_i}{h}) y_i}{\sum_{i=1}^nK(\frac{x-x_i}{h})}$$ where K is a Kernel function (weight function) with a bandwidth $h$. $K$ function should give weights decline as one moves away from the target value. Local polynomial estimate, $\boldsymbol\beta^T=(\beta_0, \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_p)$, is obtained by minimizing the following quantity: $$\Sigma_{i=1}^{n}K_h(x_i-x)\{Y_i-[\beta_0+\beta_1(x_i-x)+\ldots, \frac{1}{j!} \beta_p(x_i-x)^p]\}^2,$$ where K is a kernel function and $h$ is a bandwidth controlling the degree of smoothing. When $p=0$, the local polynomial is a local constant. Loader (1999) explained cross validation (CV), $CV(h)=\sum_{i=1}^{n}[y_i-\hat{f_{h,-i}}(x_i)]^2$, and generalized cross-validation (GCV) are criteria for bandwidth selection in local polynomial. Also there is a rule of thumb in case Gaussian function is used then it can be shown that the optimal choice for $h$ is
$h = \left(\frac{4\hat{\sigma}^5}{3n}\right)^{\frac{1}{5}} \approx 1.06 \hat{\sigma} n^{-1/5}$,
where $\hat{\sigma}$ is the standard deviation of the samples and $n$ is the sample size. Below are some common kernel functions
- Epanechnikov: $K(\cdot)= \frac{3}{4}(1-d^2)$, $d^2 <$ 1, 0 otherwise,
- Minimum var: $K(\cdot)=\frac{3}{8}(1-5d^2)$, $d^2<$ 1, 0 otherwise,
- Gaussian density: $exp(-\frac{x-x_i}{h})$
- Tricube function: $W(z)=(1-|z|^3)^3$ for $|z|<1$ and 0 otherwise.
Bandwidth has an impact on the estimation of the nonparametric function. Figure 5(lest) shows the idea of bandwidth and Figure 5(right) show the effect of the bandwidth on the smoothness of the estimated function. Kernel smoothing of the unknown function and its derivative can be used to see if the curvature is significant or not. Figure 6 shows the smoothed estimated function and its derivative along with 95% confidence interval using the optimal value of bandwidth. The figure shows the function is increasing and at some point it is a constant.
Kernel smoothing does not work well at the boundaries especially if local constant smoothing is used, that is why confidence interval is wide at the boundaries.
Spline Smoothing
----------------
Spline is a piecewise polynomial. The polynomials of order $j$ are pieced together at a sequence of knots ($\theta_1 < \theta_2<..... < \theta_C$) such that spline and its first $j-1$ derivative of the spline are continuous at those knots. In spline estimate, the unknown function is approximated by a a power series of degree $p$, $f(x)=\beta_0+\beta_1x+\beta_2x^2+\beta_3x^3+ ....+\beta_px^p+\sum_{c=1}^C\beta_{1c}(x-\theta_c)_+^p,$\
where $(x-\theta_k)_+=x-\theta_c, x > \theta_c $ and 0 otherwise.
$\boldsymbol\beta$ is obtained by minimizing the following quantity which has a “roughness penalty”, $\lambda$: \_[i=1]{}\^[n]{}\[Y\_i-(x\_i)\]\^2+\^2dx, where $\lambda$ is a tunning parameter controls smoothness and $\hat{f^{''}}(x)$ is the second derivative estimate. There are many methods for choosing $\lambda$, such as CV and GCV (Wahba 1977). For more details in spline smoothing, see Wang (2011).
How many knots need to be used? and where those knots should be located? A possible solution is to consider fitting a spline with knots at every data point, so it could fit perfectly and estimate its parameters by minimizing the usual sum of squares plus a roughness penalty. The smoothing parameter $\lambda$ has the same effect on smoothing such as $h$ in kernel smoothing regression. When $\lambda$ is very big the smoothing ling would be similar to linear regression line and when it is small, the smoothing line would be wiggly. Figure 7(left) shows the smoothed estimated function using optimal $\lambda$ and Figure 7(right) show the effect of the smoothing parameter on the smoothness of the estimated function. Spline smoothing of the unknown function and its derivative can be used to see if the curvature is significant or not. Figure 8 shows the smoothed estimated function and its derivative along with 95% confidence interval using the optimal value of bandwidth.
There are many R functions that can be used to estimate semi/nonparametric regression models using kernel and smoothing splines techniques. Table 1 display R packages and functions to estimate the unknown function nonparametrically.
Package Function Smooth parameter
------------------ ------------ ---------------- ------------------
Local Polynomial locfit locfit GCV
Kernel smoothing KernSmooth locpoly —
lokern glkerns plug-in$$
lpridge lpridge —
np npreg
stats ksmooth
Spline pspline smooth.Pspline CV/GCV
sfsmisc D1D2 GCV
SemiPar spm RE(ML)
: Different R packages and functions for estimating the nonparametric function and its derivative
\[tab:tab1\]
Multiple Case
=============
These methods, kernel and spline smoothing, can be extended to any number of explanatory variables. Assume a researcher wanted to fit prestige as a response variable with education and income. Figure 1 shows that the relationship between education and prestige is linear and the relationship between income and prestige is nonlinear (unknown). So the following semiparametric model can be assumed $$Y=\beta_0+\beta_1education+f(income)+\epsilon,$$ where $f(\cdot)$ is a nonparametric function and needs to be estimated. Smoothing splines or kernel regression can be used to fit this the nonparametric term. Figure 9 shows the estimated two functions: a linear function of prestige and education and the nonparametric function of prestige and income. Also the two relationships can be assumed unknown and the following model can be assumed $$Y=f(education)+f(income)+\epsilon,$$ where $f_1(\cdot)$ and $f_1(\cdot)$ are nonparametric functions and need to be estimated.
Figure 10 reveals the estimated nonparametric functions assuming both relationships are unknown,
-1mm {width="16cm"}
-7mm
-5mm {width="16cm"}
-7mm
Another example for multiple case, an application from Wooldridge (2003, pg. 226) is considered. These data has quantitative and categorical variables and number of observation is 526. It is available in R in $"np"$ R package. The response variable is log(wage) and the explanatory variables are educ (years of education), exper (the number of years of experience), and tenure (the number of years of current employment), female (Female or Male), and married (Married or Notmarried). The scatterplots are shown in Figure 11 that shows the scatterplots of the explanatory variables with the response. A researcher can assume the relationships between the response and quantitative variables are unknown and estimate them nonparametrically and fit the following model
$Y=\beta_0+\beta_1 female+f_1(edu)+f_2(exper)+f_3(tenure)+\epsilon$,
where the categorical variable is considered as a factor and the the form of the other relationships, $f_1(\cdot)$, $f_2(\cdot)$, and $f_3(\cdot)$, are unknown.
{width="11cm"}
-6mm
The output are displayed below and the smoothed functions are showed in Figure 12.
{width="11cm"}
{width="12cm"}
-6mm
Another structure of semiparametric regression modeling, may assumed to this data set, is single index model which takes the following form
$Y=f(\beta_1tenure+\beta_2female+\beta_3edu+\beta_4exper)+\epsilon$,
where $f(\cdot)$ is unknown function, $\boldsymbol\beta=(\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_4)$ is the single index coefficient vector parameters, and $\epsilon$ is the random error term. The estimated index parameters, R-square, and optimal bandwidth are displayed below and the smoothed fitted function, $\hat{f}(\cdot)$, is showed in Figure 13.
{width="9cm"}
{width="13cm"}
-6mm
Robust Nonparametric Estimation
===============================
Outliers may affect kernel or spline nonparametric estimation. So robust estimation is needed in this case. In kernel smoothing, at a point $x$, the smoothing is obtained from fitting the $p$th-degree polynomial model using weighted least squares with kernel weights as described in equation (7). The kernel function $K$ is usually taken to be a symmetric positive function with $K(d)$ is decreasing as the absolute distance, $|d|$, increases. That is, this polynomial is locally fitted by minimizing the quantity in equation (8). To down weight the effect of unusual values, these weights need to be adjusted to be a function of residuals.
The robust weights are defined as $R_{j}(x)=w^k_j(x)*w^r_j$, $(j=1,2,\ldots,n)$, where $w^r_j$ will be explained below and is obtained from the derivative of some appropriately chosen smooth convex loss function such as Huber or bisquare function. $R_{j}(x)$ is expected to downweight the effect of unusual values on estimation.
How to obtain $w^r_j$? It is defined as a function of the rescaled residuals to have small weight value for outlying observations. It takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq7}
w_j^r=\frac{\phi^{'}\{[y_j-\hat{f}(x_j)]/\hat{s}\}}{[y_j-\hat{f}(x_j)]/\hat{s}}=\frac{\phi^{'}(r^s_j)}{r^s_ j},\,\, j=1,2,\ldots,n,\end{aligned}$$ where $y_j$ is the response value, $\hat{f}(x_j)$ is the estimated mean using locally weighted polynomial regression, $\hat{s}$ is the interquartile range of the residuals, and $r^s_ j=[y_j-\hat{f}(x_j)]/\hat{s}$ is the rescaled residual associated with the value $x_j$. When $x_j$ is an unusual value, $r^{s}_j$ is expected to be large, so the weight $w^{r}_j$ will be small.
To evaluate the performance of the robust weights compared to kernel weights, 100 observations are generated form $f(x)=\{1+e^{-20(x-0.5)}\} ^{(-1)}$ where $x$ is generated from Uniform(0, 1) and two outliers or unusual data points are added, (0.8, 0.6) and (0.75, 0.62), manually to the data. Figure 14 shows the estimated function with the outliers added to the data using kernel, spline and robust weights. Figure 14 shows that kernel and spline are not robust at the interval contain the outliers but the robust estimation does not get affected by these added outliers. They do not get affected only at these two points but also in an interval contain these outlying points.
{width="11cm"}
-6mm
Discussion and conclusion
=========================
In this article, three types of modeling are discussed by applications, parametric, semiparametric, nonparametric modeling. Nonparametric and semiparametric regression models are flexible compared to parametric models. Semiparametric is hybrid of both parametric and nonparametric which allow to have the best of both worlds: a model that is understandable and offering a fair representation of the data in the real life. However, semi/nonparametric regression requires larger sample sizes than regression based on parametric models because the data must supply the model structure as well as the model estimates. semi/nonparametric are flexible and avoid the misleading results when we use a wrong model. One of the well-known semiparametric models is single index model. It assumes the link between the mean response and the explanatory variables is unknown and estimates it nonparametrically. This gives the single index model two main advantages over parametric and nonparametric models: (1) it avoids mispecifying the link function and its misleading results and (2) the reduction of dimension which is achieved by assuming the link function to be a univariate function applied to the projection of explanatory covariate vector on to some direction. Semi/nonparametric is not resistant to outliers, a robust method is introduced. The R code for all the graphs and analyses presented here, in this article, is available in the Appendix.
Fan, J., and Yao, Q. (2003). [*Nonlinear time series: nonparametric and parametric methods*]{}. Springer: New York.
Dhekale, B. S., Sahu, P. K., Vishwajith, K. P., Mishra, P., and Narsimhaiah, L. (2017). Application of parametric and nonparametric regression models for area, production and productivity trends of tea (Camellia sinensis) in India. [*Indian Journal of Ecology*]{}, 44(2), 192-200.
Ichimura, H. (1993). Semiparametric least squares (SLS) and weighted SLS estimation of single-index models. [*Journal of Econometrics*]{}, 58, 71-120.
Jialiang Li, Chao Huang, Zhub Hongtu, for the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. (2017). A functional varying-coefficient single-index model for functional response data. [*Journal of the American Statistical Association*]{}, 112:519, 1169-1181
Lin, W., and Kulasekera, K. B. (2007). Identifiability of single index models and additive index models. [*Biometrika*]{}, 94, 496-501.
Loader, C. (1999). Bandwidth selection: classical or plug-in?. [*The Annals of Statistics*]{}, 27(2), 415-438.
Mahmoud, H. F. F., Kim, I., and Kim, H. (2016). Semiparametric single index multi change points model with an application of environmental health study on mortality and temperature. [*Environmetrics*]{}, 27(8), 494-506.
Mahmoud, H. F. F., and Kim, I. (2019). Semiparametric spatial mixed effects single index models. [*Computational Statistics & Data Analysis*]{}, 136, 108-112.
Nadaraya, E. A. (1964). On estimating regression. [*Theory of probability and its applications*]{}, 9, 141-142.
Qin. J., Yu, T, Li, P., Liu, H., and Chen, B. (2018). Using a monotone single index model to stabilize the propensity score in missing data problems and causal inference. [*Statistics in Medicine*]{}. 38(8) 1442-1458.
Rajarathinan, A. and Parmar, R. S. (2011). Application pf parametric and nonparametric regression models for area, production and productivity trends of castor corn. [*Asian Journal of Applied Sciences*]{}, 4(1), 42-52.
Ruppert, D., Wand, M. P., and Carrol, R. J. (2003). [*Semiparametric regression*]{}. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Y. (2011). [*Smoothing splines: methods and applications*]{}. FL: CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Wand, M. P., and Jones, M.C. (1995). [*Kernel smoothing*]{}. London; New York: Chapman and Hall.
Watson, G. S. (1964). Smooth regression analysis. [*Sankhya, Series A*]{}, 26, 359-372.
``` {.r language="R"}
library(SemiPar); library(np); library(car); library(stats)
library(graphics); data(fossil) # Load fossil data
attach(fossil)
fit = spm(strontium.ratio ~ f(age))
plot(fit)
points(age, strontium.ratio)
plot(age, strontium.ratio)
# ------------------------------------------------------------------
# Dataset cps71 from the np package, which consists of a random sample of
# wage data for 205 male individuals having common education (grade 13).
data(cps71)
attach(cps71)
str(cps71) # gives information about the variables
cps71 # print the data
plot(age, logwage)
# ------------------------------------------------------------------
# Prestige of Canadian Occupations data set. This data have 6 variables:
# education, income, women, prestige, census, and type. Source: Canada
# (1971) Census of Canada.
data(Prestige)
attach(Prestige)
Prestige
plot(Prestige)
plot(education, prestige, xlab="Education", ylab="Prestige")
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
# ---- Fixing nonlinearity by using polynomial regression
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
par(mfrow=c(2,2))
plot(age, logwage, xlab="Age", ylab="log(wage)", main="")
linear.model=lm(logwage~age)
lines(age,fitted(linear.model), lty=1, lwd=2, col=4)
plot(linear.model) # check the assumptions
summary(linear.model)
plot(age, logwage, xlab="Age", ylab="log(wage)", main="")
Quad.model <- lm(logwage ~ age + I(age^2))
lines(age,fitted(Quad.model), lty=1, lwd=2, col=4)
plot(Quad.model)
cubic.model <- lm(logwage ~ age + I(age^2)+ I(age^3))
plot(age, logwage, xlab="Age", ylab="log(wage)", main="")
lines(age,fitted(cubic.model), lty=1, lwd=2, col=4)
plot(cubic.model)
Quart.model <- lm(logwage ~ age + I(age^2)+ I(age^3)+ I(age^4))
plot(age, logwage, xlab="Age", ylab="log(wage)", main="")
lines(age,fitted(Quart.model), lty=1, lwd=2, col=7)
plot(Quart.model)
summary(Quart.model)
anova(linear.model, Quart.model)
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
# --------------- First method: Kernel regression
# -----------------------------------------------------------------
data(cps71)
attach(cps71)
Kernel.smooth <- npreg(logwage~age)
plot(Kernel.smooth, plot.errors.method="asymptotic",
plot.errors.style="band" ,ylim=c(11,15.2),
main="Estimated function and its 95% confidence band")
points(age,logwage)
summary(Kernel.smooth)
# -------------- Another R function can be used to estimate
# ------------- the unknown function using kernel regression
# -------------- Effect of bandwidth on smoothing
plot(age, logwage)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth =.5), col = 1, lwd=2)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth =1), col = 2, lwd=2)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth = 2), col = 3, lwd=2)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth = 5), col = 4, lwd=2)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth = 10), col = 5, lwd=2)
lines(ksmooth(age, logwage, "normal", bandwidth = 100),col = 6, lwd=2)
legend(20,15, c("h=0.5", "h=1"),lwd =2, col = 1:2, bty="n")
legend(28,12.5, c("h=2", "h=5", "h=10","h=100"),lwd =2, col = 3:6, bty="n")
# ------------ Smoothing splines
fit <- spm(logwage ~ f(age, degree=3), spar.method="ML")
plot(fit, col=1, shade=FALSE, ylab="logwage")
summary(fit)
plot(fit, se=FALSE)
plot(fit, drv=1, col=1, lwd=2, shade=FALSE, xlab="age", ylab="")
# ------------------------------------------------------------------
# ------------- Second method: Spline regression
# ------------------------------------------------------------------
# ------ Study the effect of lambda on smoothing
plot(smooth.spline(age, logwage, spar = .1), xlab="age", ylab="logwage",
type="l", xlim=c(20,70), ylim=c(11.5, 14.5), lwd=2)
points(age, logwage)
lines(smooth.spline(age, logwage, spar = .2), type="l", lwd=2, col=2)
lines(smooth.spline(age, logwage, spar = .5), type="l", lwd=2, col=3)
lines(smooth.spline(age, logwage, spar = 1), type="l", lwd=2, col=4)
lines(smooth.spline(age, logwage, spar = 2), type="l", lwd=2, col=5)
legend(20,14.7, c("lambda=0.1", "lambda=.2"),lwd =2, col = 1:2, bty="n")
legend(30,12.1, c("lambda=.5", "lambda=1"), lwd =2, col = 3:4, bty="n")
legend(50,12.1, c("lambda=2"), lwd =2, col = 5, bty="n")
# --------- Fit the function using the optimal soothing value
plot(age, logwage)
lines(smooth.spline(age, logwage), col=1, type="l", lwd=2)
spline=smooth.spline(age, logwage)
plot(spline, type="l", xlim=c(20,70), ylim=c(11, 15), lwd=2)
points(age, logwage)
spline
R2=cor(fitted(spline), logwage); print(R2)
#------------------------------------------------------------------
#--------- Multiple Case
#-------------------- Kernel Regression ------------------------
data(wage1); wage1
lwage=wage1$lwage; female=wage1$female; married=wage1$married; edu=wage1$edu
exper=wage1$exper; tenure=wage1$tenure
data=data.frame(lwage, female, married, edu, exper, tenure)
par(mfrow=c(2,2))
plot(female, lwage, type="p") ;plot(edu, lwage); plot(exper, lwage)
plot(tenure, lwage)
bw <- npregbw(lwage ~ factor(female) + educ +
exper + tenure, regtype = "ll", bwmethod = "cv.ls",
data = wage1, tol = 0.1, ftol = 0.1)
npplot(bw, plot.errors.method = "asymptotic", common.scale = FALSE)
summary(bw)
# --------------------- nonparamtric Smoothing Spline ----------
data(Prestige)
attach(Prestige)
library(mgcv)
plot(income, prestige)
plot(education, prestige)
mod.gam <- gam(prestige ~ s(income) + s(education))
mod.gam
plot(mod.gam)
# ----------------------- Single index model --------------------
bw <- npindexbw(formula=lwage ~ edu+ exper +tenure + factor(female)
, data=data)
model.index <- npindex(bws=bw, gradients=TRUE)
summary(model.index)
index=model.index$index; est=fitted(model.index)
plot(model.index)
plot(index,est)
fit=spm(est ~ f(index), spar.method="REML")
plot(fit)
# ---------------------------------------------------------------
data(Prestige)
attach(Prestige)
fit1=spm(prestige ~ education + f(income)) # using spline smoothing
fit1=spm(prestige ~ f(education) + f(income)) # using spline smoothing
plot(fit1)
par(mfrow=c(1,2))
plot(fit1, ylab="prestige")
fit2 = npindex(prestige ~ education + income, gradients=TRUE, data =Prestige)
plot(fit2, plot.errors.method="bootstrap",
plot.errors.center="bias-corrected",
plot.errors.type="quantiles")
# ---------------------------------------------------------
#------------- Robust Derivative Estimation technique
x=runif(100,0,1); y=(1+exp(-20*(x-0.5)))^-1 +rnorm(100,0,0.05)
ydash=-(1+exp(-20*(x-0.5)))^-2*(-20)*exp(-20*(x-0.5))
ss=data.frame(x, y, ydash)
newdata <- ss[order(ss[,1]),]
x=newdata[,1]; y=newdata[,2]; ydash=newdata[,3]
x[99]=0.8; y[99]=0.6 ; x[98]=0.75; y[98]=0.62
ss=data.frame(x, y)
newdata <- ss[order(ss[,1]),]
x=newdata[,1]; y=newdata[,2]
# ------------- Kernel smoothing get affected by outliers
Kernel.smooth <- npreg(y~x)
plot(Kernel.smooth, main="", ylim=c(-0.1,1.1))
points(x,y)
summary(Kernel.smooth)
# ------------- Spline soomth also get affected by outliers
cars.spl <- sm.spline(x, y)
lines(cars.spl, col = "red")
# -------------- Robust kernel estimation
n=length(y) #sample size
ch=1.345
band=.046
delta=rep(1,n)
whiillr=c(); seyhat=c(); yhat=c(); w=c()
for (ii in 1:8){
der=c(); est=c()
for (i in 1:length(x))
{
u=x-x[i]
h0j<-exp(-(u/band)^2)
sumh<-sum(h0j)
h0j<-h0j/sumh
w0j=h0j*delta
wxbar=sum(w0j*x)/sum(w0j)
wssx=sum(w0j*(x-wxbar)^2)
w0jllr=(w0j/sum(w0j)) + ((x[i]-wxbar)*w0j*(x-wxbar))/wssx
whiillr[i]=w0jllr[i]
seyhat[i]=sum(w0jllr^2)
w[i]=delta[i]
one=rep(1, length(x))
X=cbind(one,u)
W=diag(w0j)
beta=solve(t(X)\%*\%W\%*\%X)\%*\%t(X)\%*\%W\%*\%y
est[i]=beta[1]
der[i]=beta[2]
}
yhat=est
r=y-yhat
m=median(r)
mad=(median(abs(r-m)))/.6745 #mad is the mad estimate of scale
rs=r/mad #rs are the rescaled residuals
for (j in 1:n){
if (abs(rs[j]) <= ch){delta[j]=1} else {delta[j]=ch/abs(rs[j])}
}
all=cbind(x, y, yhat ,rs ,delta)
print(all[1:10,])
}
dferror=sum(w)-sum(whiillr) #error degrees of freedom
sigma2=sum(w*(y-yhat)^2)/dferror #estimate of sigma squared
tvalue=2 #invcdf .975 tvalue
seyhat=sqrt(sigma2*seyhat) #seyhat contains the se(yhat)
lclm=yhat-tvalue*seyhat
uclm=yhat+tvalue*seyhat
points(x, typ="l", yhat, col="blue", lwd=2)
#lines(x,lclm, col="blue", lwd=2)
#lines(x,uclm, col="blue", lwd=2)
```
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'V. Bourrier, D. Ehrenreich, M. Lendl, M. Cretignier, R. Allart, X. Dumusque, H.M Cegla, A. Suárez-Mascareño, A. Wyttenbach, H.J. Hoeijmakers, C. Melo, T. Kuntzer, N. Astudillo-Defru, H. Giles, K. Heng, D. Kitzmann, B. Lavie, C. Lovis, F. Murgas, V. Nascimbeni, F. Pepe, L. Pino, D. Segransan, S. Udry'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: |
Hot Exoplanet Atmospheres Resolved with Transit Spectroscopy (HEARTS)[^1]\
III. Atmospheric structure of the misaligned ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b
---
Introduction
============
Ultra-hot Jupiters allow us to advance our understanding of planetary migration and orbital stability (@Delrez2016), and they offer great prospects for atmospheric characterization (@Parmentier2018). Their high temperature (typically higher than about 2000K) simplifies the atmospheric chemistry by dissociating molecular species into their atomic constituents (@Lothringer2018). Multiple atoms and ions could thus be detected in the atmospheric limb of ultra-hot Jupiters using high-resolution transmission spectroscopy (e.g., @Hoeijmakers2018 [@Hoeijmakers2019] for the prototypical ultra-hot Jupiter KELT-9b). These planets are also interesting candidates for probing evaporation and the effect of photo-ionization on the upper atmospheric structure. Their extreme irradiation by the host star causes the hydrodynamical expansion of their upper atmosphere, allowing metals to escape and be detected in the near-ultraviolet after they are ionized in the exosphere (@Fossati2010, @Haswell2012, @Sing2019).
Interestingly, several ultra-hot Jupiters were found on highly misaligned orbits (e.g. WASP-12b, @Albrecht2012; WASP-33b, @Cameron2010; WASP-121b, @Delrez2016), suggesting dynamical migration processes induced by gravitational interactions with companions, rather than disk migration (e.g. @Nagasawa2008, @Fabrycky2007, @Guillochon2011). At such close distances to their stars, ultra-hot Jupiters are subjected to strong tidal interactions that determine their final orbital evolution. Precisely measuring the orbital architecture of ultra-hot Jupiters and monitoring its evolution is thus of particular importance to determine their migration history and their potential decay into the star. The occultation of a rotating star by a transiting planet removes the light of the hidden photosphere from the observed stellar lines (the so-called Rossiter-McLaughlin effect, or RM effect, @Holt1893; @Rossiter1924; @McLaughlin1924). Different techniques have been developed to analyze the radial velocity (RV) anomaly induced by the distortion of the stellar absorption lines (e.g., @ohta2005, @gimenez2006, @hirano2011b, @boue2013), to model their profile while accounting for the planet occultation (e.g., @Cameron2010, @Gandolfi2012, @Crouzet2017), or to isolate the local stellar lines from the planet-occulted regions (e.g., @Cegla2016, @Bourrier_2018_Nat). These techniques enable deducing the trajectory of the planet across the stellar disk, and thus inferring the projected or true 3D alignment between the spins of the planetary orbit and the stellar rotation.\
The ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b (@Delrez2016) is a good candidate for both atmospheric and orbital architecture studies (Table \[tab:sys\_prop\]). This super-inflated gas giant transits a bright F6-type star (V = 10.4), favoring optical transmission spectroscopy measurements. Its near-polar orbit at the edge of the Roche limit ($P$ = 1.27days) makes WASP-121b subject to strong tidal interactions with the star (@Delrez2016) and an intense atmospheric escape. The increase in transit depth of WASP-121b toward near-UV wavelengths (@Evans2018, @Salz2019_NUV_WASP121b) was recently shown to arise from iron and magnesium atoms that escape into the exosphere (@Sing2019), which confirms the hydrodynamical evaporation of WASP-121b and opens new avenues to link the structure and composition of the lower and upper atmosphere.
In the present study we investigate the atmosphere of WASP-121b, and refine the properties of its planetary system. In Sect. \[sec:RV\_fit\], we reanalyze long-term RV and activity indexes of the system. Sect. \[sec:reloaded RM\] exploits transit spectroscopy of WASP-121b obtained with the High Accuracy Radial velocity Planet Searcher (HARPS), combined with simultaneous EulerCam photometry, to analyze the orbital architecture of WASP-121b and its star. In Sect. \[sec:atmo\_struc\] we characterize the atmospheric structure of the planet at the limb, using a new method to isolate the signal of the planetary atmosphere from the occulted stellar lines. We conclude the study in Sect. \[sec:conclu\].
Radial velocity monitoring of WASP-121 {#sec:RV_fit}
======================================
Planet-induced motion
---------------------
We analyzed RV data points of WASP-121 obtained with the Coralie (@baranne1996, @Queloz2000) and HARPS (@Mayor2003) spectrographs to revise the semi-amplitude of the stellar reflex motion and the mass of WASP-121b (the complete RV dataset is shown in Fig. \[fig:RV\_ana\_appendix\_nobin\]). RV data were analyzed with the Data and Analysis Center for Exoplanets web platform (DACE[^2]). We excluded datapoints obtained during four planet transits (one observed with Coralie, the other three with HARPS) and binned the remaining data in time by 0.25 day separately for each instrument (to mitigate short-term stellar signals and to avoid favorring HARPS datapoints). The processed data (Fig. \[fig:RV\_fit\]) were fit with the Keplerian model described in @Delisle2016. It was combined with the activity detrending described in @Delisle2018, which adds a term that is linearly correlated with the bisector of the cross-correlation functions (CCFs). The model was fit to the data using a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithm (@Diaz2014 [@Diaz2016]) with Gaussian priors on the period, time of mid-transit, eccentricity, and periastron argument derived from photometry obtained with the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) by @Bourrier2019. Results are given in Table \[fig:RV\_ana\_appendix\]. The mass we derive for WASP-121b is consistent with that of @Delrez2016. We kept the values of the properties that have been derived from the TESS photometry as our final estimates for the revised planetary properties (Table \[tab:sys\_prop\]), because the fit to the RV data did not improve their precision, nor changed their values significantly.\
Stellar rotation {#sec:Prot}
----------------
After the contribution of WASP-121b was removed, the periodogram of the RV residuals reveals three significant signals at periods of 0.89, 1.13, and $\sim$8.4 days. These signals are also visible when periodograms of the bisector span (BIS SPAN) and the full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) time-series measured on the CCF are analyzed. They arise from magnetically active regions at the surface of fast-rotating WASP-121, and are all aliases of one another. We show in Sect. \[sec:results\_RM\] that the signal at $\sim$8.4 days must be an alias because of the high measured stellar projected rotational velocity. We then used the technique proposed by @Dawson2010 to determine whether the signals at 0.89 or 1.13 days directly trace the rotational modulation of WASP-121. To distinguish the real signal and aliases, @Dawson2010 proposed simulating data with the same time sampling and injecting the signals that are to be tested as being real or aliases. For each injected signal, a comparison of the period and phase of all the aliases created by the observational sampling is then performed between the simulated and real data set. Using this technique, @Dawson2010 were able to show that the period originally derived for planet 55Cnce (@McArthur2004, @Fischer2008) was an alias of the real signal.\
Here, we extend the approach of @Dawson2010 by performing 100 simulations for each injected signal, taking different configurations for the noise into account. We also analyze the rotational signal using the RVs, the BIS SPAN and the FWHM time-series. For each real or alias signal in the real or simulated data, we calculate the area below each peak and its phase (Fig.\[fig:1\]). The area is defined as the sum of the power for all frequencies that lie 5 bins away from the frequency corresponding to the maximum power of the peak. Finally, the sum of both the absolute phase and area differences are calculated for each of the 100 simulations on the RVs, the BIS SPAN and the FWHM. These sums are given in Table\[table:rotation\_period\]. Overall, we observe smaller differences between the real and simulated data when the 1.13-day signal is considered compared to the signal at 0.89 day. We therefore propose that the 1.13-day signal traces the rotational modulation of WASP-121.\
[cccc]{} & Period \[d\] & Area difference & Phase difference\
RV &
------
0.89
1.13
------
: \[table:rotation\_period\] Area and phase differences, in arbitrary units, for the 0.89- and 1.13-day signals seen in the RV, BIS SPAN, and FWHM time-series periodograms. Bold numbers highlight the lower difference values when the two signals are compared.
&
-------------
922
**[696]{}**
-------------
: \[table:rotation\_period\] Area and phase differences, in arbitrary units, for the 0.89- and 1.13-day signals seen in the RV, BIS SPAN, and FWHM time-series periodograms. Bold numbers highlight the lower difference values when the two signals are compared.
&
--------------
1629
**[1347]{}**
--------------
: \[table:rotation\_period\] Area and phase differences, in arbitrary units, for the 0.89- and 1.13-day signals seen in the RV, BIS SPAN, and FWHM time-series periodograms. Bold numbers highlight the lower difference values when the two signals are compared.
\
BIS SPAN &
------
0.89
1.13
------
: \[table:rotation\_period\] Area and phase differences, in arbitrary units, for the 0.89- and 1.13-day signals seen in the RV, BIS SPAN, and FWHM time-series periodograms. Bold numbers highlight the lower difference values when the two signals are compared.
&
-------------
1923
**[690]{}**
-------------
: \[table:rotation\_period\] Area and phase differences, in arbitrary units, for the 0.89- and 1.13-day signals seen in the RV, BIS SPAN, and FWHM time-series periodograms. Bold numbers highlight the lower difference values when the two signals are compared.
&
------------
**[447]{}\
647**
------------
: \[table:rotation\_period\] Area and phase differences, in arbitrary units, for the 0.89- and 1.13-day signals seen in the RV, BIS SPAN, and FWHM time-series periodograms. Bold numbers highlight the lower difference values when the two signals are compared.
\
FWHM &
------
0.89
1.13
------
: \[table:rotation\_period\] Area and phase differences, in arbitrary units, for the 0.89- and 1.13-day signals seen in the RV, BIS SPAN, and FWHM time-series periodograms. Bold numbers highlight the lower difference values when the two signals are compared.
&
--------------
1975
**[1202]{}**
--------------
: \[table:rotation\_period\] Area and phase differences, in arbitrary units, for the 0.89- and 1.13-day signals seen in the RV, BIS SPAN, and FWHM time-series periodograms. Bold numbers highlight the lower difference values when the two signals are compared.
&
-------------
**[2608]{}\
2820**
-------------
: \[table:rotation\_period\] Area and phase differences, in arbitrary units, for the 0.89- and 1.13-day signals seen in the RV, BIS SPAN, and FWHM time-series periodograms. Bold numbers highlight the lower difference values when the two signals are compared.
\
{width="16cm"}
We also ran a periodogram analysis on the residuals between the TESS photometry and the best-fit model derived by @Bourrier2019. The two strongest peaks are measured at periods of 1.16 and 1.37 days. The first signal corresponds well to the rotational modulation identified in the RV of WASP-121, and likely originates in the same active regions at the surface of the star. WASP-121 was observed over two TESS orbits. We cut each of them in half, and ran independent periodogram analyses on the four resulting segments. The stronger 1.37-day signal is only present in the second TESS orbit, with similar power in its two halves (Fig. \[fig:TESS:residualspg\]). Our best interpretation is that WASP-121 rotates differentially, with the 1.37-day signal arising from active regions located at higher latitudes (and thus rotating slower) than those responsible for the 1.13-day signal. These high-latitude regions would have developed rapidly around epoch $\sim 1502$ and lasted at least for the rest of the TESS observations. The possibility for differential rotation is investigated in more detail in Sect. \[sec:fit\_RM\].\
Parameter Symbol Value Unit Origin
----------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- -----------------------------
*Stellar properties*
Mass $M_{\star}$ 1.358$\stackrel{+0.075}{_{-0.084}}$ M$_{\odot}$ @Delrez2016
Radius $R_{\star}$ 1.458$\pm$0.030 R$_{\odot}$ @Delrez2016
Density $\rho_{\star}$ 0.434$\pm$0.038 $\rho_{\odot}$ @Delrez2016$^{\dagger}$
Limb-darkening coefficients $u_{1}$ 0.364$\stackrel{+0.034}{_{-0.030}}$ EulerCam
$u_{2}$ 0.146$\stackrel{+0.066}{_{-0.049}}$ EulerCam
Inclination $i_\mathrm{\star}^{\rm North}$ 8.1$\stackrel{+3.0}{_{-2.6}}$ deg RM
$i_\mathrm{\star}^{\rm South}$ 171.9$\stackrel{+2.5}{_{-3.4}}$ deg RM
Equatorial velocity $v_\mathrm{eq}$ \[65.28 - 120\] kms$^{-1}$ RM
*Planetary properties*
Transit epoch $T_{0}$ 2458119.72074$\pm$0.00017 BJD$_\mathrm{TDB}$ TESS
Orbital period $P$ 1.27492504$^{+1.5\times 10^{-7}}_{-1.4\times 10^{-7}}$ d (TESS+EulerCam)
Scaled semi-major axis $a_\mathrm{p}/R_{\star}$ 3.8131$^{+0.0075}_{-0.0060}$ (TESS+EulerCam)
Semi-major axis $a_\mathrm{p}$ 0.02596$^{+0.00043}_{-0.00063}$ au (TESS+EulerCam)$^{\dagger}$
Eccentricity $e$ \[0 - 0.0032\] TESS
Argument of periastron $\omega$ 10$\pm$10 deg TESS
Orbital inclination $i_\mathrm{p}$ 88.49$\pm$0.16 deg (TESS+RM)
Impact parameter $b$ 0.10$\pm$0.01 (TESS+RM)$^{\dagger}$
Transit durations $T_\mathrm{14}$ 2.9053$\stackrel{+0.0065}{_{-0.0059}}$ h TESS$^{\dagger}$
$T_\mathrm{23}$ 2.2605$\stackrel{+0.0055}{_{-0.0053}}$ h TESS$^{\dagger}$
Planet-to-star radius ratio $R^\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{p}/R_{\star}$ 0.12355$\stackrel{+0.00033}{_{-0.00029}}$ TESS
$R^\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{p}/R_{\star}$ 0.12534$\stackrel{+0.00043}{_{-0.00060}}$ EulerCam
Radius $R^\mathrm{T}_\mathrm{p}$ 1.753$\pm$0.036 $R_\mathrm{Jup}$ TESS$^{\dagger}$
$R^\mathrm{E}_\mathrm{p}$ 1.773$\stackrel{+0.041}{_{-0.033}}$ $R_\mathrm{Jup}$ EulerCam$^{\dagger}$
Stellar reflex velocity $K$ 177.0$\stackrel{+8.5}{_{-8.1}}$ ms$^{-1}$ RV
Mass $M_\mathrm{p}$ 1.157$\pm$0.070 $M_\mathrm{Jup}$ RV$^{\dagger}$
Density $\rho_\mathrm{p}$ 0.266$\stackrel{+0.024}{_{-0.022}}$ gcm$^{-3}$ (TESS+RV)$^{\dagger}$
Surface gravity $g_\mathrm{p}$ 9.33$\stackrel{+0.71}{_{-0.67}}$ ms$^{-2}$ (TESS+RV)$^{\dagger}$
Sky-projected obliquity $\lambda$ 87.20$\stackrel{+0.41}{_{-0.45}}$ deg RM
3D obliquity $\psi^{\rm North}$ 88.1$\pm$0.25 deg RM$^{\dagger}$
$\psi^{\rm South}$ 91.11$\pm$0.20 deg RM$^{\dagger}$
Notes: Values in square brackets indicate the 1$\sigma$ confidence intervals for the equatorial velocity and eccentricity, whose probability distributions peak at the lower boundary values for these parameters. The 3$\sigma$ confidence intervals for these parameters are \[65.28 - 295\]kms$^{-1}$ and \[0 - 0.0078\]. Properties with TESS origin are reported from @Bourrier2019, or revised when combined with other datasets. Coefficients $u_1$ and $u_2$ are associated with a quadratic limb-darkening law. The daggers indicate derived parameters. Planetary density and surface gravity were calculated using the lowest planet-to-star radius ratio (from TESS). There are two possible solutions for the stellar inclination and 3D obliquity of WASP-121b, marked as *North* or *South* depending on which pole of the star is visible.\
\[tab:sys\_prop\]
Reloaded Rossiter-McLaughlin analysis {#sec:reloaded RM}
=====================================
HARPS observations of WASP-121 {#sec:HARPS_data}
------------------------------
We studied the orbital architecture of WASP-121b and the properties of its host star by analyzing three transit observations obtained with the HARPS echelle spectrograph (HEARTS survey, ESO program 100.C-0750; PI: D. Ehrenreich). Three visits were scheduled on 31 December 2017 (Visit 1), 9 January 2018 (Visit 2), and 14 January 2018 (Visit 3). They lasted between 6.6 and 8.1h, covering the full duration of the transit ($\sim$2.9h) with sufficient baseline on each side to determine the unocculted stellar properties (Table \[tab:log\]).
Observations were reduced with the HARPS (version 3.8) Data Reduction Software, yielding spectra with resolving power 115,000 and covering the region 380-690 nm. The reduction includes a correction of the color effect due to variability of the extinction caused by Earth’s atmosphere during the transit (e.g., @bourrier2014b, @Bourrier_2018_Nat). The spectrum of a hot F-type star such as WASP-121 contains far fewer absorption lines than later-type stars. Including these absent lines into the mask would reduce the contrast of the CCF and the precision on their derived properties. Furthermore, the fast rotation of WASP-121 broadens the stellar lines, blending lines that are isolated in the spectrum of colder stars. A single mask line needs to be associated with unresolved stellar lines contributing to the same blended line to avoid introducing correlated information into the CCF. We thus computed CCFs for each spectral order using a custom mask specific to WASP-121 (this mask is available in electronic form at the CDS). All measured 1D spectra were averaged and smoothed with a 0.09Å moving average. The continuum was estimated by running a local maximum detection algorithm on the spectrum, using an alpha-shape algorithm to remove unreliable local maxima and applying a cubic interpolation on the remaining maxima to extrapolate the continuum on the full wavelength grid. The stellar lines to be included in our custom mask were then defined as a local minimum surrounded by two local maxima. A first estimate of the detectable lines and their position was made by running a local minimum detection algorithm on the stellar spectrum. Positions were then derived more accurately as the minimum of a parabola fit around the line minimum in a window of $\pm$3kms$^{-1}$. We discarded lines with windows smaller than 5 pixels, lines with derived centers farther away than 0.03Å from the local minimum, and shallow lines with relative flux difference between the local minimum and highest local maxima smaller than 0.05. Last, we generated a synthetic telluric spectrum with Molecfit [@Smette2015], and removed mask lines for which the core of a neighboring telluric line (with depth ratios with the mask line higher than 2%) entered the region defined by the two local maxima of the mask line for at least one Earth barycentric RV of the spectrum. The final mask is composed of 1828 lines. Their weights were set to the relative flux difference between the stellar lines local minimum and the average of their two local maxima (@pepe2002).
Because the CCFs generated with the HARPS DRS are oversampled with a step of 0.25kms$^{-1}$, and have a pixel width of about 0.8kms$^{-1}$, we kept one in four points in all CCFs prior to their analysis (@Cegla2017). Here we note that by construction, our custom mask lines are at rest in the stellar rest frame. The null velocity in the CCFs calculated with this mask thus directly corresponds to the stellar rest velocity.\
Visits 1 2 3
----------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Date (start) 31-12-17 09-01-18 14-01-18
Number of exposures 35 55 50
Exposure duration (s) 570-720 500-600 500-660
Exposure S/N (550nm) 26-61 21-43 32-49
: Log of WASP-121 b HARPS transit observations
Notes: The S/N is given per pixel.\
\[tab:log\]
Simultaneous EulerCam photometry {#sec:LC_fit}
--------------------------------
The reloaded RM technique requires knowledge of the transit light curve in the spectral band of the CCFs (@Cegla2016). Measuring the transit simultaneously in photometry and spectroscopy further allows us to determine occulted spots and plages along the chord that is transited by the planet. We therefore obtained simultaneous photometry throughout the transits in Visits 1 and 2 using EulerCam at the 1.2m Euler telescope at La Silla. Observations were carried out using an r’-Gunn filter to match the HARPS wavelength band as closely as possible, and we applied a slight defocus to the telescope to improve the target point spread function (PSF) sampling and the observation efficiency. After standard image correction procedures, we extracted relative aperture photometry, iteratively selecting a set of stable reference stars and testing a number of extraction apertures. For details on EulerCam and the relevant observation and data reduction procedures, see @Lendl2012. We combined the new broadband photometry with two archival EulerCam light curves observed in r’ band on 2014 January 19 and 23 (Fig. \[fig:EULER\_LC\_all\], @Delrez2016). The four light curves are shown in Fig. \[fig:EULER\_LC\_all\], and they are available in electronic form at the CDS.
The increased scatter during the transit on 2014 January 23 is caused by the passage of a cloud. The light curve obtained in Visit 1 shows a much shallower transit than the light curves that were obtained during the other epochs. We did not find any large variation (beyond the mmag level) in the overall stellar brightness between Visits 1 and 2, as are created, for example, by changing star spot coverage, which would translate into an offset in the measured transit depth. No variations in transit depth similar to that of Visit 1 are found in any of the 17 transits observed with TESS (@Bourrier2019). We lack a convincing physical explanation for this anomaly, and suggest that instrumental effects linked to image saturation are likely the origin of this variation. Indeed, the target saturated the detector near the transit center in Visit 1, and the data are therefore likely affected by detector nonlinearity at high flux levels. The light curve from Visit 1 was therefore excluded from further analyses.\
We made use of the MCMC code described in @Lendl2017 to fit the EulerCam data. We assumed a uniform prior distribution for the star-to-planet radius ratio (i.e., this parameter was fit without any a priori constraints), and placed normal prior distributions on the impact parameter, the transit duration, the mid-transit time, and the planetary period. These priors were centered on the values derived in @Bourrier2019, and their width corresponds to the respective 1$\sigma$ uncertainties. We used the routines of @Espinoza2015 to compute quadratic limb-darkening coefficients, using a wide ($\sigma_{prior}=0.1$) normal prior distribution centered on these values in our analysis. Our code allows for the use of parametric baseline models (see, e.g., @Gillon2010), and we find that the light curves of 2014 January 19 and 23, and 2018 January 14 are best fit by models of the form $p(t^2)+p(\mathit{xy}^1) + p(\mathit{FWHM}^1)$, $p(t^1)+ p(\mathit{FWHM}^2)$, and $p(t^2)+p(\mathit{xy}^1)+p(\mathit{FWHM}^2)$, respectively, where $p(\mathit{i}^n)$ refers to a polynomial of order $n$ in parameter $i$. The parameters are the time $t$, coordinate shifts $xy$, and stellar $\mathit{FWHM}$. System properties specific to the EulerCam passband are given in Table \[tab:sys\_prop\]. The baseline between the EulerCam observations is long, as transits are separated by several years, and therefore these transits improved the precision on the orbital period and semi-major axis compared to the TESS fit. We updated their values accordingly.\
We compared our measurement for R$_\mathrm{p}/$R$_{*}$ (0.1253$\stackrel{+0.0004}{_{-0.0006}}$ from EulerCam in 619-710Å) and that of @Bourrier2019 (0.1236$\pm{0.0003}$ from TESS in 600-1000Å) with those of @Evans2018 obtained with the G430 and G750 HST/WFC3 grisms, averaging their measurements within the EulerCam and TESS respective passbands. The @Evans2018 results yield R$_\mathrm{p}/$R$_{*}$ = 0.12238$\pm$0.00036 (EulerCam) and 0.12244$\pm$0.00021 (TESS), which is significantly lower than the EulerCam and TESS measurements by 0.003 (5.3$\sigma$) and 0.001 (2.7$\sigma$), respectively. @Evans2018 previously noted that their measurements were lower than values obtained using ground-based photometry in the $B$, $r'$, and $z'$ bandpass (@Delrez2016) and proposed that these discrepancies could arise from systematics in the latter measurements. Interestingly, our planet-to-star radius ratios are consistent with those obtained by @Delrez2016 in the bands that overlap with those of EulerCam (0.12521$\pm$0.0007 in 555-670Å) and TESS (0.12298$\pm$0.0012 in 836-943Å). The good agreement between ground- and space-based measurements might suggest that the reduction procedure or systematics specific to the HST data might have offset the transit depths derived by @Evans2018.\
Analysis of the local stellar CCFs {#sec:extra}
----------------------------------
The HARPS CCFs (heareafter CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$) originate from starlight integrated over the disk of WASP-121. We used the reloaded RM technique (@Cegla2016, see also @Bourrier2017_WASP8 [@Bourrier_2018_Nat]) to isolate the local CCF (hereafter CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$) from the regions of the photosphere that are occulted by WASP-121b. The CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ calculated in the stellar rest frame were first corrected for the stellar Keplerian motion induced by WASP-121b. We identified the CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ obtained outside of the transit, taking care to exclude those that even partially overlapped with the transit window, and coadded them to build a “master-out” CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ in each night, which corresponds to the unocculted star. The continua of the master-out and individual CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ outside of the transit were normalized to the same continuum at unity, while in-transit CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ were scaled to reflect the planetary disk absorption. This scaling was made using the theoretical transit light curve derived from the fit to the EulerCam data (Sect. \[sec:LC\_fit\]), whose spectral range is closer to that of HARPS than that of TESS.
The CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ associated with the planet-occulted regions were retrieved by subtracting the scaled in-transit CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ from the master-out in each night. The local stellar line profiles from the planet-occulted regions of the photosphere are clearly visible in Fig. \[fig:2D\_maps\]. They are always redshifted, and this redshift slightly increases along the transit chord. WASP-121b therefore always transits that hemisphere of the star that rotates away from us, with a transit chord farther from the projected stellar spin axis at egress than at ingress. This preliminary analysis implies that the sky-projected obliquity $\lambda$ must be slightly lower than 90$^{\circ}$, in contrast to the value of 102.2$\pm$5.5$^{\circ}$ (using the same convention as in the present study) derived by @Delrez2016 from a classical velocimetric analysis of the RM effect in CORALIE data.
![Maps of the residuals between the scaled CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ and their master-out in each visit. Residuals are colored as a function of their flux, and plotted as a function of RV in the stellar rest frame (in abscissa) and orbital phase (in ordinate). The vertical dashed black line indicates the stellar rest velocity. Horizontal dotted lines are the transit contacts. In-transit residuals correspond to the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$, and show the average local stellar line profile (recognizable by a lower flux in the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ cores) from the planet-occulted regions of the stellar disk. For comparison, the spectroscopic width of the disk-integrated stellar lines is about 14kms$^{-1}$. Black crosses with error bars indicate the centroids of the detected stellar line profile. The slanted dashed black line tracks the orbital trajectory of the planet.[]{data-label="fig:2D_maps"}](2D_maps_col){width="\columnwidth"}
The RV centroids of the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ can generally be derived from a simple Gaussian fit. The CCFs generated with our custom mask for WASP-121, however, show side lobes that would limit the precision of CCF properties derived with a Gaussian fit. Therefore, we used the double-Gaussian model introduced by @Bourrier_2018_Nat for the M dwarf GJ436, which consists of the sum of a Gaussian function representing the CCF continuum and side lobes, and an inverted Gaussian function representing the CCF core. As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:CCF\_DI\_fit\], the double-Gaussian model reproduces the entire CCF of WASP-121 well and thus exploits the full information contained in its profile.
We performed a preliminary fit to the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ using a double-Gaussian model where the FWHM ratio, contrast ratio, and centroid difference between the core and lobe components were set to the best-fit values for the nightly master-out CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ (as in @Bourrier_2018_Nat). The local average stellar line is considered detected if the amplitude of the model CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ (defined as the flux difference between the minimum of the model CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ and its continuum) is three times larger than the dispersion in the continuum of the observed CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$. This led us to discard a few CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ that were located very near the stellar limb, where the lower flux and partial occultation by the planet yield very low S/Ns ratios. The remaining CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ were shifted to the same rest velocity and averaged on each night to create a master local CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ (e.g., @Wyttenbach2017). The comparison with the master CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ (Fig. \[fig:Compa\_Models\_Out\_Loc\]) clearly shows the effect of rotational broadening; the local average stellar line is far narrower and deeper than the disk-integrated line. Both CCFs show sidelobes, which are well fit with a double-Gaussian model but with different properties. In the master CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ the lobe component is broader, and more redshifted relative to the core component, than in the master CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$. The final fit to the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ in individual exposures was performed with a double-Gaussian model where the core and lobe components were linked as in the nightly master CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$. Flux errors assigned to the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ were set to the standard deviation in their continuum flux, and the uncertainties on the derived parameters were set to the 1$\sigma$ statistical errors from a Levenberg-Marquardt least-squares minimisation. The local stellar surface RVs were defined as the derived centroids of the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ core component.\
![Typical CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ integrated over the disk of WASP-121 (blue points, obtained during one of the out-of-transit exposures in Visit 2). The solid black profile is the best-fit double-Gaussian model to the measured CCF. The dashed black profiles show the individual Gaussian components to this model, which yields a low dispersion on the fit residual (bottom panel). The blue shaded regions indicate the velocity ranges used to define the CCF continuum.[]{data-label="fig:CCF_DI_fit"}](CCF_DI_fit.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
![Master-out CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ (magenta) and master local CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ (blue), binned over the three visits and normalized to the same continuum. The dashed and dotted black profiles show the best-fit models to the master-out and master-local, respectively. They are based on the same double-Gaussian model, but with different correlations between the properties of the lobe and core Gaussian components.[]{data-label="fig:Compa_Models_Out_Loc"}](Compa_Models_Out_Loc.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Analysis of the stellar rotation and orbital architecture {#sec:fit_RM}
---------------------------------------------------------
### Model and prior constraints {#sec:priors_RM}
Despite some variability, the local RVs follow a similar trend in the three visits (Fig. \[fig:RV\_local\]). They become more redshifted along the transit chord and remain always positive, confirming the preliminary interpretation performed in Sect. \[sec:extra\] of a near-polar orbit only crossing the redshifted stellar hemisphere. The orbital architecture of the system and the properties of the velocity field of the stellar photosphere can be derived from the fit to the local RVs using the reloaded RM model (@Cegla2016; see their Figure 3 for the definitions of the coordinate system and angle conventions), which calculates brightness-weighted theoretical RVs averaged over each planet-occulted region. In previous reloaded RM studies (@Cegla2016, @Bourrier2017_WASP8 [@Bourrier_2018_Nat]) the model was fit to the data by varying the stellar projected rotational velocity $v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*}$ (and in some cases, the differential rotation or convective motions of the stellar photosphere) and the sky-projected obliquity $\lambda$. The latter parameter alone thus controlled the model planet trajectory, and the coordinates of the occulted regions. The near-polar orbit of WASP-121b, however, results in $v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*}$ being strongly degenerate with the planet impact parameter (see Appendix \[apn:polar\_orb\]), which remains poorly determined because of the uncertainty on the orbital inclination $i_\mathrm{p}$ (@Bourrier2019). Interestingly, an impact parameter close to zero would require that the planet cross the projected stellar spin axis (where local RVs are zero), which is incompatible with the transit of a single stellar hemisphere indicated by the positive local RVs series. This means that more stringent constraints can be derived on the orbital inclination from the fit to the local RVs, and we therefore modified the reloaded RM model to include $i_\mathrm{p}$ as a free parameter. The scaled semi-major axis of WASP-121b has less influence on the local RVs and is much better determined than $i_\mathrm{p}$. After checking that $a_\mathrm{p}/R_{*}$ could not be better constrained through the fit, we therefore fixed it to its nominal value. Similarly, the other orbital properties and the ephemeris of WASP-121b are known to a much higher precision through transit photometry and velocimetry than could be obtained via the fit to the local RVs, and they were accordingly fixed to their nominal values. The planet-to-star radius ratio and the stellar limb-darkening coefficients cannot be retrieved from the fit to the local RVs because absolute flux levels are lost in HARPS ground-based data. We note that the measured local RVs do not depend on our choice for $i_\mathrm{p}$ because the photometric scaling of the CCFs was performed directly with the transit light-curve model fit to the simultaneous EulerCam data (Sect. \[sec:extra\]).\
Additional constraints can be set from the independent measurements of stellar line broadening and the stellar rotational period. @Delrez2016 derived a spectroscopic value $v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*/\rm spec}$ = 13.56$\stackrel{+0.69}{_{-0.68}}$kms$^{-1}$ from the fit to stellar lines in CORALIE spectra. A similar estimate can be derived from the comparison between the HARPS master-out CCF$_\mathrm{DI}$ and master-local CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$. Under the assumption that CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ measured along the transit chord are representative of the entire stellar disk, the observed master-out was fit by tiling a model star with the master-local CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$, weighted by the limb-darkening law derived from the EulerCam photometry, and shifted in RV position by the solid rotation of the photosphere, which was let free to vary. We obtain a good fit for $v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*} \sim $13.9kms$^{-1}$ (Fig. \[fig:Fit\_Mout\_Mloc\]), suggesting that the local average stellar line profile does not change substantially across the stellar disk within the precision of HARPS, and that $v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*/\rm spec}$ can be used as a prior for the stellar projected rotational velocity.
Analysis of ground-based spectroscopy and TESS photometry of WASP-121 (Sect. \[sec:RV\_fit\]) revealed a persistent rotational modulation at 1.13 days, and a transient modulation at 1.37 days. We understand these results as an indication of differential rotation, with the equator of WASP-121 rotating at least as fast as the latitudes probed by the 1.13 days signal, and the transient signal arising from higher latitudes that rotate more slowly. This sets a prior on the stellar equatorial velocity $v_{\rm eq}\geqslant$ 65.28kms$^{-1}$.
The three local RV series were simultaneously fit with the updated RM model. We assumed a solar-like differential rotation law P$(\theta_\mathrm{lat})$ = P$_\mathrm{eq}/(1 - \alpha$sin$^{2}(\theta_\mathrm{lat}))$, where $\theta_\mathrm{lat}$ is the stellar latitude and $\alpha = 1 - $P$_\mathrm{eq}/$P$_\mathrm{pole}$ is the relative differential rotation rate (@Cegla2016). We accounted for the blur caused by the planetary motion during a HARPS exposure by oversampling the transit chord between the planetary position at the beginning and end of each exposure (@Bourrier2017_WASP8). We sampled the posterior distributions of the model parameters using *emcee* MCMC (Foreman2013), as in @Bourrier_2018_Nat. Jump parameters for the MCMC are the stellar equatorial velocity $v_{\rm eq}$, the cosine of the stellar inclination cos$(i_{*})$, the sky-projected obliquity $\lambda$, the orbital inclination $i_\mathrm{p}$, and the differential rotation rate $\alpha$. We set a uniform prior on $v_{\rm eq}$ and a Gaussian prior on $v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*/\rm spec}$, following the above discussion. The posterior distribution from the fit to TESS photometry was used as prior for $i_\mathrm{p}$ (@Bourrier2019). Uniform priors were set on the other parameters over their definition range: \[-1 ; 1\] for cos$(i_{*})$, \[-180 ; 180\]$^{\circ}$ for $\lambda$, and \[-1 ; 1\] for $\alpha$.\
### Results {#sec:results_RM}
Posterior probability distributions are shown in Figs. \[fig:PD\_lowi\] and \[fig:PD\_highi\]. Best-fit values for the model parameters were set to the median of their distributions, and are given in Table \[tab:sys\_prop\]. Some of the parameter distributions are asymmetrical, and we therefore chose to define their $1\sigma$ uncertainties using the highest density intervals, which contain 68.3% of the posterior distribution mass such that no point outside the interval has a higher density than any point within it. The probability distributions show unique solutions for all model parameters, except for the stellar inclination. While we find that WASP-121 is highly inclined, the data do not allow us to distinguish whether the south pole ($i_\mathrm{*}$ = 171.9$\stackrel{+2.5}{_{-3.4}}^{\circ}$) or the north pole ($i_\mathrm{*}$ = 8.1$\stackrel{+3.0}{_{-2.6}}^{\circ}$) is visible. Both scenarios yield similar $\chi^{2}$ of 111 for 43 degrees of freedom. The relatively high reduced $\chi^{2}$ (2.6) is caused by the dispersion of the local RV measurements between the three nights. Deviations from the nominal best-fit model beyond the photon noise are present in all nights and in all phases of the transit, suggesting that variability in the local photospheric properties of this active star could be the origin of these variations. The noise in individual CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ prevents us from searching for variations in their bisector span. No clear correlations were found between the local RVs and the FWHM or contrast of the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$, with the EulerCam photometry, or with the CaII$_\mathrm{HK}$, H$\alpha$, and Na activity indexes. We show the best-fit model for the local stellar RVs in Fig. \[fig:RV\_local\] and the orbital architecture corresponding to the visible north pole in Fig. \[fig:disque\].
The stellar equatorial rotation remains poorly constrained, with a highest density interval of \[65.28 - 120\]kms$^{-1}$ that corresponds to rotation periods between \[0.61 - 1.13\]days. The probability distribution for $v_\mathrm{eq}$ nonetheless favors low velocities, which suggests that the persistent 1.13-day signal measured in photometry and ground-based data arises from active regions close to the stellar equator. We cannot confirm the differential rotation of WASP-121, with $\alpha$ = 0.08$\stackrel{+0.11}{_{-0.13}}$, but this result excludes high differential rotation rates and is consistent within 1$\sigma$ with the observed rotational modulations. Indeed, the constraints $P_\mathrm{eq}\leqslant$ 1.13days and $P_\mathrm{pole}\geqslant$ 1.34days imply $\alpha\geqslant$ 0.16. These results are also consistent with measurements obtained for Kepler stars by @Balona2016, who showed that $|\alpha|$ ranges between 0 and 0.2 for stars with rotation periods on the order of 1 day (see their Figure 9). We note that even in the case of differential rotation, the signal measured at $\sim$8.4days (Sect. \[sec:Prot\]) cannot trace the rotational modulation of a high-latitude region because the lowest $\alpha$ required would be 0.87 at the stellar poles. Measurements of the local surface RVs at higher S/N, for instance, with the ESPRESSO spectrograph, will be crucial in assessing the differential rotation of WASP-121.\
The orbit of WASP-121b is almost but not exactly edge-on ($i_\mathrm{p}$ = 88.49$\pm$0.16$^{\circ}$) and polar ($\lambda$ = 87.20$\stackrel{+0.41}{_{-0.45}}^{\circ}$). We substantially improved the precision on these properties compared to previous studies, and find that $\lambda$ is 15$^{\circ}$ lower (3$\sigma$) than the value derived by @Delrez2016 (we converted their spin-orbit angle $\beta$ = 257.8$^{\circ}$ in the same frame as our study). We combined the probability distributions of $i_\mathrm{p}$, $\lambda$, and $i_{*}$ to derive the 3D obliquity of the system, $\psi$ = arccos(sin$i_{*}$ cos$\lambda$ sin$i_\mathrm{p}$ + cos$i_{*}$ cos$i_\mathrm{p}$), and measure $\psi^{\rm South}$ = 91.11$\pm$0.20$^{\circ}$ (stellar south pole visible) or $\psi^{\rm North}$ = 88.1$\pm$0.25$^{\circ}$ (north pole visible). We note that our result for the obliquity does not change the conclusion by @Delrez2016 that WASP-121b is on a highly misaligned orbit, and that it likely underwent strong dynamical interactions with a third companion, possibly an outer planet, during the life of the system (1.5$\pm$1.0Gyr). The dynamical evolution of WASP-121b is now controlled by tidal interactions with the star, leading to a gradual decrease in the obliquity and semi-major axis of the planet and to its eventual disruption (@Delrez2016). Even with a strong tidal dissipation, however, it would take millions of years to decrease the obliquity by one degree (@Delrez2016), and our value for the semi-major axis is not significantly lower than that of @Delrez2016. This mechanism therefore cannot explain the difference between our measurement for $\lambda$ and that of @Delrez2016, which could be due to a bias induced by their use of the classical RM technique (@Cegla2016a). An interesting alternative might be the nodal precession of the orbit, however, as is the case for the ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-33b (@Johnson_WASP33). The uncertainties on the orbital inclination and obliquity from @Delrez2016 prevent us from measuring a clear variation in the argument of the ascending node, with a decrease of -0.95$\pm$0.64$^{\circ}$ in about three years (from the end of 2014 to the end of 2017). Interestingly this decrease would correspond to a stellar gravitational quadrupole moment of 9.0$\times$10$^{-4}$ (for $\Psi_\mathrm{North}$) or -1.5$\times$10$^{-4}$ (for $\Psi_\mathrm{South}$), however, calculated with the equation in @Barnes2013. A negative moment is excluded by the expected oblateness of WASP-121, but the former solution is on the same order as moments estimated for the early-type fast-rotating star WASP-33 (@Johnson_WASP33 [@Johnson_WASP33_erratum], @Iorio2016).\
Distinguishing the planetary and stellar atmospheres {#sec:atmo_struc}
====================================================
Atmospheres of ultra-hot Jupiters were recently found to contain atomic metal species (e.g., @Hoeijmakers2018 [@Hoeijmakers2019]), which are prevented from condensing by the high temperatures (e.g., @Visscher2010, @Wakeford2017). As an ultra-hot Jupiter, WASP-121b receives extreme amounts of stellar radiation and likely undergoes atmospheric escape orders of magnitude larger than for hot Jupiters (@Salz2019_NUV_WASP121b). Magnesium and iron ions were recently detected in its exosphere through their near-UV absorption lines (@Sing2019), consistent with the marginally larger transit depth measured in broadband near-UV by @Salz2019_NUV_WASP121b. These metallic species likely become photoionized within the exosphere after being carried upward by the hydrodynamically expanding upper atmosphere. They could be present in their neutral form in the atmosphere of WASP-121b, and yield strong absorption in optical lines. The custom mask we built to define the CCFs of WASP-121 is based on the stellar spectral absorption lines (Sect. \[sec:HARPS\_data\]), most of which arise from iron in the stellar atmosphere. Indeed, cross-matching our mask with the VALD database (@Piskunov1995 [@Kupka2000; @Ryabchikova2015]) shows that of their 989 lines they have in common, more than half (570) arise from neutral iron. The second most frequent species is neutral nickel, with 67 lines. This means that if the atmospheric limb of WASP-121b contains atomic iron, we would expect its average signature to be superimposed on the stellar CCF measured during transit. We present here a summary of the technique that we devised to search for and extract the atmospheric absorption signal of an exoplanet, based on the reloaded RM approach. It will be fully described in a forthcoming paper.\
Method
------
The in-transit CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ extracted in Sect. \[sec:extra\] corresponds to the specific intensity spectrum of the occulted stellar region, multiplied by the wavelength-dependant occulting area of the planet. The intensity spectrum contains the cross-correlated absorption line from the stellar photosphere, centered at the RV of the occulted region. The occulting area is the sum of the continuum level set by the opaque planetary layers (here averaged over the HARPS band) and the equivalent surface of the atmospheric limb. If the planet contains species that absorb the CCF mask lines, this surface corresponds to the cross-correlated absorption line from the planetary atmosphere, centered at the orbital RV of the planet. When the stellar and planetary absorption lines follow sufficiently different tracks in RV-phase space, as is the case with WASP-121b (Fig. \[fig:2D\_maps\]), it is possible to distinguish their individual contributions from the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$.\
1. The first step consists of subtracting the stellar light that is occulted by the planetary continuum from the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$. To do this, we used the master CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$, assuming that it is representative of the individual CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ along the transit chord (see Sect. \[sec:extra\]). The master was rescaled to the correct photometric level using the best-fit EulerCam transit model (Sect. \[sec:LC\_fit\]), which accounts for the limb-darkening and planetary continuum associated with each exposure. The rescaled master was then shifted to the RV of the planet-occulted regions, calculated with the best-fit model for the local stellar surface RVs (Sect. \[sec:results\_RM\]). These operations yield the CCF of the product between the local stellar spectra and the transmission spectrum of the atmospheric limb in each exposure.
2. The second step consists of dividing these CCFs by the master CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$, rescaled and shifted as described in the first step, to isolate the cross-correlated absorption line of the atmospheric limb, or CCF$_\mathrm{atm}$. The scaling was made using the total surface of the star rather than the surface associated with the planetaty continuum, to obtain CCF$_\mathrm{atm}$ in classical units of absorption relative to the stellar surface. The RV-phase maps of the CCF$_\mathrm{atm}$ from WASP-121b reveal a bright streak aligned with the orbital trajectory of the planet, which is visible only during transit, and is therefore consistent with absorption by metals in the atmosphere of WASP-121b.
3. The third and last step consists of shifting all CCF$_\mathrm{atm}$ into the planet rest frame, and averaging them over exposures where the entire planet occults the star. We calculated the theoretical RV track of the planet in the stellar rest frame using the orbital properties of the planet listed in Table \[tab:sys\_prop\]. Ingress and egress are excluded because they probe a smaller fraction of the planetary atmosphere that varies in time. Observing WASP-121b with higher-sensitivity spectrographs such as ESPRESSO might allow studying the shape of the planetary signal during ingress/egress, and possibly resolving longitudinal variations in the planetary atmosphere. We note that we analyzed the three HARPS visits binned together, because of the small amplitude of the planetary signal, and so that the master CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ could be determined with a high SNR. The low dispersion of residuals outside of the planetary track in Fig. \[fig:2D\_atmo\_maps\] confirms that, within the precision of the HARPS data, the master CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ is representative of the stellar line along the transit chord.
The interest of this approach is that it allows us to directly use the local stellar lines that are measured along the transit chord to correct for the bias of the atmospheric signal induced by the RM effect (e.g., @Louden2015, @Casasayas2017 [@Casasayas2018; @Casasayas2019]). One caveat is that step 2 divides the CCF of the product between planetary and stellar lines by the CCF of the stellar lines. Unless all dominant planetary or stellar lines in the CCF mask keep the same profile, this division does not fully remove the contribution of the stellar lines in exposures where they overlap with the planetary lines. We will address this caveat in the forthcoming paper.\
We performed a preliminary analysis to identify the velocity range that is absorbed by the planetary atmosphere in each exposure. We then carried out the reloaded RM analysis again (Sect. \[sec:reloaded RM\]), excluding these planet-absorbed ranges from the fits to the CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$ and from the construction of the masters CCF$_\mathrm{out}$ and CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$. In four exposures (from phase -0.007 to 0.018) the RVs of the transit chord and planetary orbit are too close to fit the uncontaminated local stellar line and retrieve its centroid (see Fig. \[fig:2D\_maps\]). We fit the remaining RVs as in Sect. \[sec:fit\_RM\] and found no significant changes in the properties derived in Sect.\[sec:results\_RM\]. The contamination from the planet likely does not bias the local stellar RVs beyond the precision of the HARPS data, and the contaminated phase range likely has less influence on the RV model than if it were closer to ingress or egress. Future studies of WASP-121b and similar planets using higher-precision spectrographs should nonetheless take special care with planet-contaminated exposures. The final extraction of the planetary signal was performed using the local RV model derived in Sect.\[sec:results\_RM\] and the new uncontaminated master stellar CCF$_\mathrm{loc}$. Fig. \[fig:2D\_atmo\_maps\] shows the final RV-phase map of the CCF$_\mathrm{atm}$.
Results {#results}
-------
The master atmospheric signal, shown in Fig. \[fig:master\_atm\], is well fitt with a Gaussian profile. Errors on the master CCF$_\mathrm{atm}$ were set to the dispersion in its continuum. We measure a significant blueshift of -5.2$\pm$0.5kms$^{-1}$ in the planetary rest frame, and an FWHM of 14.5$\pm$1.2kms$^{-1}$. Correcting this width for the HARPS LSF broadening (2.61kms$^{-1}$) and for the blurr induced by the planet motion during an exposure[^3] yields a net FWHM of 12.9$\pm$1.2kms$^{-1}$ for the atmospheric signal. Thermal broadening contributes negligibly to the measured width (FWHM$_\mathrm{thermal}\sim$1.5kms$^{-1}$ at 2800K). If WASP-121b is tidally locked, then its atmosphere rotates in the stellar rest frame with the same angular velocity as the planet orbits the star (5.7$\times$10$^{-5}$rads$^{-1}$). Accounting for the orbital inclination (but assuming that the planet is not inclined with respect to its orbital plane), we obtain a projected rotational RV of 7.15kms$^{-1}$ for atmospheric layers close to the planet surface, corresponding to an FWHM of 11.9kms$^{-1}$. Planetary rotation (in the stellar rest frame) therefore likely accounts for most of the atmospheric broadening, especially if the measured signal arises from higher altitude where the planetary rotation induces a higher velocity.\
The measured blueshift could trace fast winds going from the dayside to the nightside along both terminators, as predicted for atmospheric circulation in the lower atmospheric layers of hot Jupiters (@Showman2013). In this scenario the hotspot is expected to be located at the substellar point, as is indeed measured in the TESS phase curve of WASP-121b (@Bourrier2019). However, it might then be expected that heat is efficiently restributed through the fast day- to nightside winds, whereas the phase curve revealed a strong temperature contrast. This might indicate that the iron signal arises from different layers than those probed by the TESS photometry. It has been proposed (@Beatty2019 [@Keating2019]) that the nightsides of most hot Jupiters are covered with clouds of similar composition, which would form at temperatures of about 1100K. With an irradiation temperature of $\sim$3310K, WASP-121b is in a regime where such clouds are not yet predicted to disperse (@Keating2019). The HARPS measurements might therefore probe absorption signals from layers at lower altitudes than are probed by TESS, where fast day- to nightside winds homogenize temperature longitudinally. Meanwhile, the TESS phase curve could trace emission from high-altitude clouds on the nightside (T$_\mathrm{night} <$ 2200K at 1$\sigma$), which would hide the emission from the deeper, hotter regions probed on the dayside (T$_\mathrm{day}$ = 2870K). Alternatively, the measured blueshift could trace an anisotropic expansion of the upper atmospheric layers, for example, due to the asymmetrical irradiation of the dayside atmosphere (@Guo2013) or its compression by stellar wind and radiation. Interestingly, a stronger but marginal blueshift was measured in the metal species escaping WASP-121b (@Sing2019), supporting the idea that the atmospheric layers are increasingly blueshifted as their altitude increases. We note that varying the stellar mass within its 3$\sigma$ uncertainties, thus affecting the planet orbital velocity track (e.g., @Hoeijmakers2019), does not change the measured blueshift within its uncertainty.
We do not have the precision required to study individual HARPS exposures, but we analyzed the shape and position of the planetary signal averaged over the first half, and then the second half, of the transit (ingress and egress excluded). We found that the absorption signal maintains the same FWHM (13.2$\pm$1.1kms$^{-1}$ and 13.2$\pm$2.0kms$^{-1}$, respectively) but becomes more blueshifted (from -3.82$\pm$0.48 to -6.63$\pm$0.86kms$^{-1}$). Interestingly, blueshifted absorption signals whose shift increases during transit have been observed in the near-IR helium lines of extended planetary atmospheres (@Allart2018, @Nortmann2018, @Salz2018). It is unclear whether these features trace material that escapes from WASP-121b and is blown away by the stellar wind or radiation pressure, as no absorption is observed before or after the transits and the absorption profile shows no strong asymmetries. The atmospheric circulation may show strong spatial asymmetries, and the atmospheric limb probes regions with different speeds as the tidally locked planet rotates during transit. Three-dimensional simulations of the planetary atmosphere and more precise observations are required to explore the origin of the measured blueshift.\
Conclusion {#sec:conclu}
==========
The ultra-hot Jupiter WASP-121b, transiting a bright F-type star on a near-polar orbit, offers great opportunities to investigate the dynamical and atmospheric properties of giant planets in extreme gravitational and energetic conditions.\
We combined RV measurements with EulerCam and published TESS photometry to revise the orbital and bulk properties of the planet. Three HARPS transit observations of WASP-121b were then used to refine the orbital architecture of the system. We applied the reloaded RM method to isolate the properties of the stellar photosphere along the transit chord, using a custom mask to compute the CCF of WASP-121, and simultaneous EulerCam photometry to rescale them to their absolute flux level. Analysis of the local RVs from the planet-occulted regions confirms the near-polar orbit of WASP-121b, which leads to a strong degeneracy between impact parameter and stellar rotational velocity. We thus improved the reloaded RM model to include the orbital inclination and semi-major axis in the fit to the local RVs. We further derived independent constraints on the stellar rotation period by analyzing the activity indexes of the star, and by comparing the shapes of the local and disk-integrated stellar lines. This allowed us to derive the stellar inclination, orbital inclination, and 3D obliquity to a high precision (Table \[tab:sys\_prop\]), and to exclude high differental rotation rates for WASP-121. These measurements will be helpful in constraining studies of WASP-121b past and future dynamical evolution. We encourage follow-up transit observations of the planet to monitor a possible evolution of the obliquity and impact parameter that would result from the nodal precession of the orbit.\
The custom mask used to calculate the CCFs of WASP-121 was built from the stellar lines, most of which arise from iron transitions. The presence of iron is also expected in the atmosphere of ultra-hot Jupiters because the high temperatures prevent it from condensing. As a result, we developed a new method for removing the contribution of the stellar lines from the local CCFs of the planet-occulted regions and isolating the contribution from the planetary atmosphere. This method is based on the possibility of directly deriving from the data the local stellar lines, uncontaminated by the planet, which is possible when the orbital trajectory of the planet and its transit chord across the stellar surface are sufficiently separated in RV-phase space. The application of this method to the HARPS observations of WASP-121b binned over three transits revealed the absorption CCF of iron in the planet atmospheric limb. The width of the signal is consistent with the rotation of WASP-121b, if it is tidally locked. The absorption signal is blueshifted in the planetary rest frame, increasing from -3.82$\pm$0.48 during the first half of the transit to -6.63$\pm$0.86kms$^{-1}$ in the second half. This is reminiscent of the effect seen for the ultra-hot gas giant WASP-76b (Ehrenreich et al. 2020). These features could arise from day- to nightside winds along both terminators or from the upward winds of an anisotropically expanding atmosphere, combined with the different regions probed by the atmospheric limb as the planet rotates during transit. Observations at higher spectral resolution and with a better sensitivity, for instance, with the ESPRESSO spectrograph, will enable refining the shape of the signal and its temporal evolution. Similar measurements at other wavelengths, searching for species located in different layers than iron, would furthermore allow us to map the full dynamical structure of the WASP-121b atmosphere.\
Like their colder relatives, ultra-hot Jupiters display a wide range of orbital architectures (from aligned, such as WASP-19b, @TregloanReed2013 to nearly polar, such as WASP-121b). Ground-based instruments with high resolving power (e.g., HARPS and ESPRESSO in the visible; CARMENES, SPIRou, and NIRPS in the infrared), will make it possible to investigate in details their dynamical properties and to carry out transmission and emission spectroscopy of their atmosphere, allowing us to identify precisely the signatures of their atomic and molecular components and characterize their 3D atmospheric flows.\
We thank the referee for their fair and useful review of our study. We thank J.B. Delisle for his advice in correcting for activity in the RV measurements and N. Hara for his help in statistical matters. V.B. and R.A acknowledge support by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) in the frame of the National Centre for Competence in Research “PlanetS”. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (project Four Aces, grant agreement No 724427; project Exo-Atmos, grant agreement no. 679633). This publication made use of the Data & Analysis Center for Exoplanets (DACE), which is a facility based at the University of Geneva (CH) dedicated to extrasolar planets data visualisation, exchange and analysis. DACE is a platform of the PlanetS NCCR, federating the Swiss expertise in Exoplanet research. The DACE platform is available at https://dace.unige.ch. N.A-D. acknowledges the support of FONDECYT project 3180063. This work has made use of the VALD database, operated at Uppsala University, the Institute of Astronomy RAS in Moscow, and the University of Vienna.
Fit to RV data {#apn:RV_fit}
==============
 \[fig:RV\_ana\_appendix\]
 \[fig:RV\_ana\_appendix\_nobin\]
Reloaded RM analysis {#apn:priors_TESS}
====================
Effect of a near-polar orbit on determining $v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*}$ {#apn:polar_orb}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
During the transit, when the orbital phase $\phi\sim$0, the local RVs of the stellar surface regions that are occulted by the planet approximate as (see Eq. 4 in @bourrier2015_koi12 or Eq. 8 in @Cegla2016) $$v_{\rm loc}(\phi)= v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*} \, \left( \frac{a_{p}}{R_{\star}} \, \cos(\lambda)\,2\,\pi\,\phi\,+\,b\,\sin(\lambda) \right).$$ For misaligned orbits when $\lambda$ is close to $\pm$90$^{\circ}$, the local RVs further approximate as $$v_{\rm loc}(\phi)= v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*} \, \frac{a_{p}}{R_{\star}} \, (\frac{\pi}{2} - \lambda) \,2\,\pi\,\phi\,+\,b\,v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*}.$$ The level of the local RV series is therefore controlled at first order by $v_{\rm loc}(0)= b\,v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*}$. For a planet on a near-polar orbit and with a low impact parameter such as WASP-121b, small variations in $b$ thus have a direct and strong effect on $v_{\rm eq}\sin i_{*}$. Conversely, the slope of the local RVs variation with phase can be expressed as $$\dot{v}_{\rm loc}= 2\,\pi\,v_{\rm loc}(0)\,\frac{(\frac{\pi}{2} - \lambda)}{\cos(i_{\rm p})} = 2\,\pi\,v_{\rm loc}(0) \, \frac{(\frac{\pi}{2} - \lambda)}{(\frac{\pi}{2} - i_{\rm p})}.$$ Here $i_{\rm p}$ is close to 90$^{\circ}$. Therefore, a variation in the orbital inclination directly translates into a variation of the sky-projected obliquity, with a factor $\dot{v}_{\rm loc}/2\,\pi\,v_{\rm loc}(0)$ that can be low for near-polar orbits. This is the case for WASP-121b, with $v_{\rm loc}(0)\sim$1.4kms$^{-1}$ and $\dot{v}_{\rm loc}\sim$18kms$^{-1}$ per phase unit, yielding a factor of about 2. A near-polar orbit is therefore an adverse case for the interpretation of the local RVs in terms of stellar rotational velocity, but may not prevent a precise derivation of the sky-projected obliquity.\
Posterior probability distributions {#apn:pdf_RM}
-----------------------------------
[^1]: Based on observations made at ESO 3.6 m telescope (La Silla, Chile) under ESO programme 100.C-0750. The custom CCF mask built for WASP-121, as well as the EulerCam lightcurves, are available at the CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/qcat?J/A+A/
[^2]: https://dace.unige.ch
[^3]: The blur does not quadratically broaden the Gaussian profile of the atmospheric signal. We therefore shifted Gaussian profiles at the rate of the planetary motion during a 690s long exposure and compared their average with the measured signal.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We study general quantum correlations of continuous variable Gaussian states and their interplay with entanglement. Specifically, we investigate the existence of a quantum protocol activating all nonclassical correlations between the subsystems of an input bipartite continuous variable system, into output entanglement between the system and a set of ancillae. For input Gaussian states, we prove that such an activation protocol cannot be accomplished with Gaussian operations, as the latter are unable to create any output entanglement from an initial separable yet nonclassical state in a worst-case scenario. We then construct a faithful non-Gaussian activation protocol, encompassing infinite-dimensional generalizations of controlled-NOT gates to generate entanglement between system and ancillae, in direct analogy with the finite-dimensional case. We finally calculate the negativity of quantumness, an operational measure of nonclassical correlations defined in terms of the performance of the activation protocol, for relevant classes of two-mode Gaussian states.'
author:
- 'Ladislav Mišta, Jr.'
- Daniel McNulty
- Gerardo Adesso
title: 'No-activation theorem for Gaussian nonclassical correlations by Gaussian operations'
---
Introduction
============
Quantum correlations in composite systems transcend entanglement [@modirev]. A bipartite quantum state $\rho_{AB}$ can be defined as nonclassical or nonclassically correlated if it cannot be expressed as a convex mixture of local basis states of subsystems $A$ and $B$ [@nolocal]. Consequently, all inseparable (entangled) states as well as the majority of separable states are nonclassical.
General nonclassical correlations, however, can be mapped to entanglement in a very precise sense, which provides an insightful framework for their characterization and operational interpretation. Specifically, it was proven in [@Piani_11; @streltsov; @PianiAdesso] and very recently experimentally observed in [@sciarrino] that all nonclassical states of a finite-dimensional system can be turned into states with distillable entanglement between the system and a set of ancillae by an [*activation protocol*]{}. Focusing on a bipartite setting, the protocol runs as follows. The subsystems $A$ and $B$ are first subject to arbitrary local unitary transformations $U_{A,B}$; then, each system $j=A,B$ interacts via a controlled-NOT (CNOT) operation $U_{jj'}^{CNOT}$ (i.e. a so-called premeasurement interaction) with an auxiliary system $j'$, $j=A,B$, initialized in a pure state $|0\rangle_{j'}$.The activation protocol then possesses two key properties: i) for all classical states $\rho_{AB}$ at the input of the protocol, there exist local unitaries $U_{A,B}$ for which the output state $\rho_{ABA'B'}$ is separable across the $AB|A'B'$ splitting, and ii) for all nonclassical states $\rho_{AB}$ and for all local unitaries, the output state is entangled across the $AB|A'B'$ splitting.
Let us stress that both criteria i) and ii) must be met by any scheme in order to be a valid activation protocol. In particular, they allow us to define faithful measures of nonclassical correlations for the input state $\rho_{AB}$ in terms of the output $AB|A'B'$ entanglement, minimized over $U_{A,B}$. One such measure, when the output entanglement is quantified by the negativity [@Vidal_02], has been termed negativity of quantumness [@Piani_11; @Takafumi_13], and has been experimentally investigated in [@isabela; @sciarrino]
In this paper we study activation of nonclassical correlations in multimode bipartite Gaussian states $\rho_{AB}$ of continuous variable systems [@ourreview]. Nonclassical correlations of Gaussian states have been studied extensively both theoretically and experimentally [@Adesso_10; @GiordaParis; @GAMID; @gdexp] but their interplay with entanglement has not been pinned down so far in terms of the activation framework. Attempts to devise activation-like protocols for Gaussian states have been explored [@maurosrep]. However, these differed significantly from the original prescription in that nonunitary operations were employed between system and ancillae, so that the entanglement generation was obtained as a dynamical feature, and conditions i) and ii) were not generally verified.
Here we consider a general Gaussian activation protocol in which $U_{A,B}$ are Gaussian unitaries and the CNOT gates are replaced with a global Gaussian unitary on subsystems $A,B,A', B'$. In Section \[sec\_1\] we then prove that any such protocol satisfying condition i) will unavoidably violate condition ii), which implies that activation of Gaussian nonclassical correlations by Gaussian operations is impossible. This fact establishes a new no-go theorem for Gaussian quantum information processing, which can be enlisted alongside other well known no-go results such as the the no-distillation theorem, according to which distilling entanglement from Gaussian states by using only Gaussian operations is impossible [@nogo]. We then show in Section \[sec\_2\] how, by using non-Gaussian operations which properly extend the CNOT to infinite dimensions, one can construct the continuous variable counterpart of the activation protocol of [@Piani_11], verifying criteria i) and ii). This allows us to define the negativity of quantumness for Gaussian states and to calculate it for relevant examples in Section \[sec\_3\]. This work provides an operational setting to understand and manipulate nonclassical correlations in paradigmatic infinite-dimensional systems. We draw our conclusions in Section \[sec\_4\], while some technical derivations (which can be of independent interest) are deferred to the Appendices.
Gaussian no-activation theorem {#sec_1}
==============================
Gaussian states are quantum states of systems with an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space (continuous variable systems), e.g. a collection of harmonic oscillators, which possess a Gaussian-shaped Wigner function in phase space [@ourreview]. $L$ modes are described by a vector ${\bf r}=\left(x_{1},p_{1},\ldots,x_{L},p_{L}\right)^{T}$ of quadrature operators $x_{j},p_{j}$ satisfying the canonical commutation rules expressible in terms of elements of the vector ${\bf r}$ as $[r_{j},r_{k}]=i\Omega_{jk}$, $j,k=1,\ldots,L$ with $\Omega=\oplus_{j=1}^{L}i\sigma_{y}$, where $\sigma_{y}$ is the Pauli $y$-matrix. An $L$-mode Gaussian state $\rho$ is fully characterized by a $2L\times 1$ vector $\langle {\bf r}\rangle$ of the first moments with elements $\langle
r_{i}\rangle=\mbox{Tr}(\rho r_{i})$ and by its $2L\times2L$ covariance matrix (CM) $\gamma$ with elements $\gamma_{ij}=\langle
\Delta r_{i}\Delta r_{j}+\Delta r_{j}\Delta r_{i}\rangle/2$, $i,j=1,\ldots,L$, where $\Delta r_{i}=r_{i}-\langle r_{i}\rangle$. Gaussian unitaries are generated by Hamiltonians that are quadratic in the quadrature operators and they preserve the Gaussian characteristic of quantum states. An $L$-mode Gaussian unitary $U(S)$ is represented in phase space by a $2L\times2L$ real symplectic transformation $S$ satisfying the condition $S\Omega
S^{T}=\Omega$, which transforms a CM $\gamma$ to $S\gamma S^{T}$.
Here we are interested in the question of whether an activation protocol exists satisfying conditions i) and ii) which would rely solely on Gaussian states and Gaussian unitaries. We therefore assume the state $\rho_{AB}$ to be a Gaussian state of $(N+M)$ modes with CM $\gamma_{AB}$ and the state $\rho_{A'B'}$ of the ancilla to be also a Gaussian state with CM $\gamma_{A'B'}$. The local unitaries $U_{A,B}$ of the original discrete protocol are replaced with local Gaussian unitaries $U_{A}(S_{A})$ and $U_{B}(S_{B})$ represented by the symplectic matrices $S_{A}$ and $S_{B}$, respectively. Likewise, the global operation $U_{AA'}^{CNOT}\otimes U_{BB'}^{CNOT}$ on the whole system $ABA'B'$ is replaced with one global Gaussian unitary $U(S)$ represented by a symplectic matrix $S$.
Let us recall the definition of a fully classical state [@nolocal; @Piani_11; @PianiAdesso]. Suppose $\rho_{AB}$ is a bipartite state containing two subsystems $A$ and $B$ with $N$ and $M$ modes respectively, and let $\mathcal{B}_j=\{{|{\mathcal{B}_j(\bf n }_{j})\rangle}\}$ be a basis of subsystem $j$, with ${\bf n}_A=(n_{A_1},\ldots,n_{A_N})$, ${\bf
n}_B=({n}_{B_1},\ldots,n_{B_M})$ and $n_{j_i}\in\mathbb{N}_0$. If there exists a basis $\mathcal{B}$ consisting of the tensor products of all elements of $\mathcal{B}_A$ with all elements of $\mathcal{B}_B$, then $\rho_{AB}$ is a classical state if it is diagonal with respect to $\mathcal{B}$. It has been shown in [@Adesso_10; @Rahimi-Keshari_13] that a two-mode Gaussian state is classical if and only if it is a product state, i.e., its CM is represented by a direct sum $\gamma_{A}\oplus\gamma_{B}$ of local CMs $\gamma_{A,B}$. One can prove that this statement remains valid for the generic case of bipartite $(N+M)$-mode Gaussian states (see Appendix \[secapp\_1\] for the proof). Therefore, all non-product bipartite Gaussian states (including separable ones) are nonclassical. According to condition i) in any Gaussian activation protocol with an input Gaussian product state there must exist local Gaussian unitaries $U_{A,B}$ for which one gets a separable state $\rho_{ABA'B'}$ across the $AB|A'B'$ splitting at the output of the protocol. We will show however, that this implies that for [*all*]{} separable Gaussian states including nonclassical ones, there exist local Gaussian unitaries $U_{A,B}$ for which the output state is separable. That is, condition ii) is not satisfied. Thus, any Gaussian activation protocol described above cannot meet simultaneously criteria i) and ii), and hence does not exist.
![(Color online) Pictorial representation of the no-activation theorem. $\rho_{AB}$ is a separable Gaussian state prepared from a Gaussian product state $\rho_{A}\otimes\rho_{B}$ by correlated displacements $D_{A}$ and $D_{B}$ distributed according to a Gaussian distribution with correlation matrix $P$, Eq. (\[P\]). $U_{A}(S_{A})$ and $U_{B}(S_{B})$ are local Gaussian unitaries which are adjusted such that without the displacements $D_{A}$ and $D_{B}$ the activation protocol produces from the product state $\rho_{A}\otimes\rho_{B}$ an output state which is separable across the $AB|A'B'$ splitting. As the unitaries $U_{A}(S_{A})$, $U_{B}(S_{B})$ and $U(S)$ induce a linear transformation of quadrature operators of the input modes, the displacements $D_{A}$ and $D_{B}$ can be relocated behind the global transformation $U(S)$ (dotted arrow). The new displacements $D_{A},D_{B}, D_{A'}$ and $D_{B'}$, Eq. (\[displacement\]), cannot turn a separable state into an entangled state and therefore the protocol transforms the separable state $\rho_{AB}$ into a state which is separable across the $AB|A'B'$ cut (thick dashed line). See text for details.[]{data-label="fig1"}](No-gofigurecolor.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
The proof of this no-go theorem is depicted in Fig. \[fig1\]. It follows from the decomposability of any Gaussian separable state into a product state and noise [@Werner_01], and the linearity of symplectic transformations. Namely, for any separable Gaussian state with CM $\gamma_{AB}$ there exist local CMs $\gamma_{A,B}$ such that $$\label{P}
P=\gamma_{AB}-\gamma_{A}\oplus\gamma_{B}\geq0.$$ In other words, any separable Gaussian state with CM $\gamma_{AB}$ can be prepared from a suitable product state with CM $\gamma_{A}\oplus\gamma_{B}$ by the addition of noise, represented by a positive-semidefinite matrix $P$, i.e., $\gamma_{AB}=\gamma_{A}\oplus\gamma_{B}+P$. The noise can be created by displacing the vector of quadratures ${\bf
r}=\left(x_{A_1},p_{A_1},\ldots,x_{A_N},p_{A_N},x_{B_1},p_{B_1},\ldots,x_{B_M},p_{B_M}\right)^{T}$ of the product state as ${\bf r}\rightarrow {\bf r}+{\cal V}{\bf
R}$. Here ${\cal V}$ is a $2(N+M)\times K$ matrix given by the first $K$ columns of the matrix $V$ bringing the matrix $P$ to the diagonal form $V^{T}PV=\mbox{diag}\left(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_K,0,0,\ldots,0\right)$, where $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_K$ denote $K\leq2(N+M)$ strictly positive eigenvalues of the matrix (\[P\]), and ${\bf
R}=\left(R_1,\ldots,R_K\right)^{T}$ is the vector of classical displacements uncorrelated with the vector of quadratures ${\bf
r}$ and distributed according to the Gaussian distribution with zero means and the diagonal correlation matrix $\mbox{diag}\left(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_K\right)$.
Let us now consider a separable state with CM $\gamma_{AB}$ at the input of a Gaussian activation protocol and let $\gamma_A\oplus\gamma_B$ be a CM of the product state from which the state can be prepared using the aforementioned algorithm. Assume that the local symplectic matrices $S_{A,B}$ are chosen such that the CM $\gamma_{ABA'B'}^{(0)}\equiv S\left(S_{A}\oplus
S_{B}\oplus\openone_{A'B'}\right)\gamma_A\oplus\gamma_B\oplus\gamma_{A'B'}\left(S_{A}^{T}\oplus
S_{B}^{T}\oplus\openone_{A'B'}\right)S^{T}$ of the output state, where $\gamma_{A'B'}$ is the CM of the state of the ancilla, is separable across the $AB|A'B'$ splitting. Hence, for the original separable state with CM $\gamma_{AB}$, the output of the activation protocol is obtained by displacing the vector of quadratures ${\bf r}^{(0)}$ for the state with CM $\gamma_{ABA'B'}^{(0)}$ by $$\label{displacement}
{\bf r}^{(0)}\rightarrow {\bf r}^{(0)}+S\left(\begin{array}{c}
\left(S_A\oplus
S_B\right){\cal V}{\bf R} \\
\mathbb{O} \\
\end{array}\right),$$ where $\mathbb{O}$ is a $2T\times 1$ zero vector with $T$ being the number of modes of the ancilla $A'B'$. However, for a separable state with CM $\gamma_{ABA'B'}^{(0)}$, where $AB$ is separable from $A'B'$, the local displacements (\[displacement\]) cannot create a state in which the system $AB$ is entangled with the system $A'B'$. Consequently, for any separable state (even nonclassical) it is always possible to find local Gaussian unitaries for which the output is separable, thus accomplishing the proof of the no-go theorem.
Therefore, Gaussian operations are unable to activate nonclassical correlations of Gaussian separable states into entanglement in the worst-case scenario: assuming condition i) holds, then for any Gaussian separable state there exist local Gaussian unitaries for which the output of the activation protocol remains a separable Gaussian state. This indicates that a non-Gaussian element, like a non-Gaussian global unitary $U$ or a non-Gaussian state of the ancilla, is necessary for faithful activation of nonclassical correlations in Gaussian states. In the following we design such an activation protocol involving a non-Gaussian CNOT gate in the Fock basis and an ancillary system in a Gaussian state.
Non-Gaussian activation protocol {#sec_2}
================================
The main benefit of the activation protocol is that it allows one to quantify the amount of nonclassical correlations in a given quantum state as the potential to create entanglement in the activation protocol [@Piani_11; @streltsov; @PianiAdesso]. More precisely, if $E_{AB|A'B'}(\rho_{ABA'B'})$ denotes an entanglement measure quantifying the amount of entanglement between systems $AB$ and $A'B'$ in a quantum state $\rho_{ABA'B'}$, then we can define a measure of nonclassical correlations on the input state $\rho_{AB}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{QE}
Q_{E}(\rho_{AB})=\mathop{\mbox{min}}_{U_{A},U_{B}}E_{AB|A'B'}(\rho_{ABA'B'}),\end{aligned}$$ where the minimization is carried out over all local unitaries $U_{A}$ and $U_{B}$ on subsystems $A$ and $B$. It has been proven in [@PianiAdesso] that $Q_E(\rho_{AB}) \geq E(\rho_{AB})$, with equality if $\rho_{AB}$ is pure.
From now on we assume that systems $A$ and $B$ each contain one mode. The non-Gaussian activation protocol is obtained as a direct generalization of the finite-dimensional protocol [@Piani_11]. At the input we allow for generally non-Gaussian states $\rho_{AB}$ of continuous variable systems, local unitaries $U_A$ and $U_B$, and the global Gaussian unitary $U(S)$ of the preceding protocol is replaced with the tensor product $V\equiv U_{AA'}^{CNOT}\otimes U_{BB'}^{CNOT}$ of the infinite-dimensional generalizations of CNOT gates in the Fock basis, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FockCNOT}
U_{jj'}^{CNOT}|m,n\rangle_{jj'}=|m,m+n\rangle_{jj'},\quad j=A,B,\end{aligned}$$ where ${|m,n\rangle}_{jj'}\equiv{|m\rangle}_{j}\otimes{|n\rangle}_{j'}$, $m,n=0,1,\ldots$, and ${|k\rangle}_l$ is the $k$th Fock state of mode $l$. We also assume the initial state $\rho_{A'B'}$ of the ancilla $A'B'$ to be the vacuum state ${|0\rangle}_{A'}{\langle0|}\otimes{|0\rangle}_{B'}{\langle0|}$. Hence, the final output state can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rhoout}
\rho_{ABA'B'}&=&V(\tilde{\rho}\otimes{|0\rangle}_{A'}{\langle0|}\otimes{|0\rangle}_{B'}{\langle0|})V^{\dagger},\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tilderho}
\tilde{\rho}&\equiv& (U_A\otimes
U_B)\rho_{AB}(U^{\dagger}_A\otimes U^{\dagger}_B).\end{aligned}$$ By following arguments similar to the finite-dimensional case [@Piani_11], one can show that the non-Gaussian activation protocol defined above satisfies both criteria i) and ii). For condition i) we assume that $\rho_{AB}$ is classically correlated and hence there exist local unitaries $U_A$ and $U_B$ such that the density matrix $\tilde{\rho}$, Eq. (\[tilderho\]), takes the form $\tilde{\rho}=\sum_{n,m=0}^{\infty}p_{n,m}{|n,m\rangle}_{AB}{\langlen,m|}$. Making use of Eqs. (\[FockCNOT\]) and (\[rhoout\]) it then follows that the output state of the protocol is the following convex mixture of product states, $
\rho_{ABA'B'}=\sum_{n,m=0}^{\infty}p_{n,m}{|n,m\rangle}_{AB}{\langlen,m|}\otimes{|n,m\rangle}_{A'B'}{\langlen,m|}
$, and is thus a separable state across the $AB|A'B'$ splitting as required.
For the proof of condition ii) we now suppose that the density matrix $\rho_{AB}$ is nonclassical and show that then the density matrix $\rho_{ABA'B'}$ given in Eq. (\[rhoout\]) is entangled across the $AB|A'B'$ cut for all local unitaries $U_A$ and $U_B$. To prove the presence of entanglement in $\rho_{ABA'B'}$ we will use the negativity $\mathcal{N}$ defined in [@Vidal_02] as $$\label{N1}
\mathcal{N}(\rho_{ABA'B'})=\frac{1}{2}(\|\rho^{T_{AB}}_{ABA'B'}\|_1-1).$$ Here $\|.\|_1$ denotes the trace norm, $\rho^{T_{AB}}_{ABA'B'}$ is the partial transpose [@Peres_96] of the state $\rho_{ABA'B'}$ with respect to subsystem $AB$, and a strictly positive value of negativity implies that the state $\rho_{ABA'B'}$ is (distillable) entangled with respect to the $AB|A'B'$ splitting. The specific feature of the present activation protocol is that the output state $\rho_{ABA'B'}$ is a so-called maximally correlated state and therefore, following results in [@Piani_11; @Takafumi_13], the output negativity can be expressed as $$\label{N2}
\mathcal{N}(\rho_{ABA'B'})=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\mathbf{m\neq
n}=\mathbf{0}}^{\infty}|\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}| = \frac{1}{2}\left(\sum_{\mathbf{m,n}=\mathbf{0}}^{\infty}|\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}|-1\right),$$ where $\mathbf{m}=(m_{1},m_{2})$, $\mathbf{n}=(n_{1},n_{2})$ and $\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}=_{AB}\langle m_{1}m_{2}|\tilde{\rho}|n_{1}n_{2}\rangle_{AB}$ are elements of the density matrix $\tilde{\rho}$, Eq. (\[tilderho\]), in the Fock basis.
Since our input state $\rho_{AB}$ is nonclassical, the state $\tilde{\rho}$ is also nonclassical for any choice of unitaries $U_A$ and $U_B$. Thus, there must be at least one non-zero off-diagonal element $\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}$ for every choice of $U_A$ and $U_B$. Hence, Eq. (\[N2\]) implies $\mathcal{N}(\rho_{ABA'B'})>0$ and the output state $\rho_{ABA'B'}$ is entangled for any nonclassical input state. This completes the proof of our non-Gaussian activation protocol.
Examples {#sec_3}
========
The optimization in Eq. (\[QE\]) is generally carried out over all local unitary operations $U_{A}$ and $U_{B}$, including non-Gaussian ones, which is not a tractable task. Here we consider input Gaussian states with CM in standard form [@Simon_00], and consider the non-optimized output entanglement $E_{AB|A'B'}(\rho_{ABA'B'})$ obtained when the local unitaries $U_{A,B}$ are selected to be identity matrices. Therefore, the state (\[tilderho\]) remains a Gaussian state in standard form with the following CM $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tildegamma}
\tilde{\gamma}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A & C \\
C^T & B\\
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $A=\mbox{diag}(a,a)$, $B=\mbox{diag}(b,b)$ and $C=\mbox{diag}(c_1,c_2)$ are diagonal matrices. In what follows we determine the non-optimized quantity for some classes of two-mode Gaussian states by considering the negativity (\[N1\]) as an entanglement measure $E$, and using Eq. (\[N2\]). The corresponding measure of nonclassical correlations $Q_{\mathcal{N}}(\rho_{AB})$ is called the negativity of quantumness [@Piani_11] accordingly. Although our choice of local unitaries $U_{A,B}$ gives in general an upper bound on $Q_{\mathcal{N}}$, we find that it coincides with the true measure on pure states, leading us to conjecture that our choice is optimal for calculating the negativity of quantumness of all two-mode Gaussian states in standard form. Verifying this conjecture numerically is beyond the scope of this work.
Pure states
-----------
A closed form of the output negativity can be found for pure two-mode Gaussian states. The density matrix $\tilde{\rho}$ amounts to that of the two-mode squeezed vacuum state, with $\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}=[1-\tanh^2(r)](\tanh r)^{m_1+n_1}\delta_{m_1,m_2}\delta_{n_1,n_2}$, where $r\geq0$ is the squeezing parameter. Hence, by a direct substitution into Eq. (\[N2\]) we get $$\label{Np}
\mathcal{N}_{\rm p}=\mbox{$\frac12(e^{2r}-1)$}.$$ Consequently, as the output negativity $\mathcal{N}(\rho_{ABA'B'})$ is equal to the negativity of the input state $\rho_{AB}$, it coincides with the true optimized negativity of quantumness $Q_{\mathcal{N}}(\rho_{AB})$ [@PianiAdesso], and our choice of local unitaries is thus optimal for pure states. The negativity (\[Np\]) is depicted by a solid red line in Fig. \[fig2\].
![(Color online) Negativity of quantumness $\mathcal{N}_{\rm p}$ \[Eq. (\[Np\])\] (solid red line) and its lower bound $\mathcal{L}_{\rm p}$ \[Eq. (\[Lp\])\] (dash-dotted brown line) for pure squeezed vacuum states, plotted as a function of the local mean number of thermal photons $\langle n\rangle=\sinh^2(r)$. Upper bound on the negativity of quantumness $\mathcal{N}_{\rm m}$ \[Eq. (\[Nm\])\] (dashed blue line) and its lower bound $\mathcal{L}_{\rm m}$ \[Eq. (\[Lm\])\] (dotted black line) for separable mixed states obtained as unbiased mixtures of coherent states, plotted as a function of the local mean number of thermal photons $\langle n\rangle=\sigma^2$. The inset shows a close-up for $\langle n \rangle \ll 1$, where the lower bounds become tight.[]{data-label="fig2"}](LboundsInsetnew.pdf){width="8.5cm"}
Unbiased mixtures of coherent states
------------------------------------
These Gaussian states are of the form $$\label{mixture}
\rho_{AB}=\int_{\mathbb{C}} P(\alpha)|\alpha\rangle_{A}\langle\alpha|\otimes|\alpha\rangle_{B}\langle\alpha|d^{2}\alpha,$$ and can be prepared by splitting a thermal state with mean number of thermal photons $2\sigma^2$ on a balanced beam splitter. Here $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$, $P(\alpha)=\mbox{exp}(-|\alpha|^2/\sigma^{2})/(\pi\sigma^2)$ and $d^{2}\alpha=d(\mbox{Re}\alpha)d(\mbox{Im}\alpha)$. The states are already in standard form with a CM (\[tildegamma\]) specified by $a=b=\sigma^2+1/2$ and $c_1=c_2=\sigma^2$. Making use of the components of a coherent state in Fock basis $\langle
m|\alpha\rangle=\mbox{exp}(-|\alpha|^2/2)\alpha^{m}/\sqrt{m!}$ we get the following matrix elements of the state (\[mixture\]), $$\label{mixtureFock}
\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}=\frac{(m_1+m_2)!}{\sqrt{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}\frac{\delta_{m_1+m_2,
n_1+n_2}}{s(m_1+m_2)},$$ where $s(j)=\sigma^2\left(1/\sigma^2+2\right)^{j+1}$. By substitution of the latter expression into Eq. (\[N2\]) we get after some algebra $$\label{Nm}
\mathcal{N}_{\rm m}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{\sum_{M=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{s(M)}\left[\sum_{J=0}^{M}\sqrt{{M \choose J}}\right]^2-1\right\}.$$ The negativity (\[Nm\]) is depicted by a dashed blue line in Fig. \[fig2\], and is generally smaller than the one of pure states calculated in (\[Np\]). Both classes of Gaussian states have a nonzero negativity of quantumness which increases with $\langle n \rangle >0$; this is in agreement with earlier studies of nonclassical correlations based on entropic measures of quantum discord [@Adesso_10; @GiordaParis].
Standard-form two-mode Gaussian states
--------------------------------------
In general we need the Fock basis elements $\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}$ for an arbitrary two-mode Gaussian state with zero first moments. Combining the results of Refs. [@Dodonov_84; @Dodonov_94; @Fiurasek_review01] we can express them as $$\label{rhoHermite}
\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}=\frac{H_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2}^{(R)}(0)}{\sqrt{\text{det}\left(\tilde{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)}\sqrt{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}},$$ where $\tilde{\gamma}$ is the CM of the state, $\openone$ is the $4\times 4$ identity matrix, and $H_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2}^{(R)}(0)$ is the four-dimensional Hermite polynomial [@Bateman_53] at the origin; see Appendix \[secapp\_2\] for a complete derivation of Eq. (\[rhoHermite\]). Here $$\label{RR}
R=WO\left[\left(\tilde{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)^{-1}-\openone\right]O^{\dagger}V$$ is the symmetric matrix defining the polynomial, where $$W=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right),\quad V=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right),$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{OO}
O=\bigoplus_{j=1}^{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i\\
1 & -i \end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ For the standard-form CM $\tilde{\gamma}$, Eq. (\[tildegamma\]), we get in particular $$\label{Rst}
R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
R_{1}-R_{2} & R_{1}+R_{2}-\openone_2 \\
R_{1}+R_{2}-\openone_2 & R_{1}-R_{2}\\
\end{array}\right)$$ with $\openone_2$ being the $2\times 2$ identity matrix, $$\label{Rj}
R_{j}=\displaystyle\frac{1}{2d_{j}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
b+\frac{1}{2} & -c_{j} \\
-c_{j} & a+\frac{1}{2}\\
\end{array}\right),$$ and $d_{j}=(a+1/2)(b+1/2)-c_{j}^2$ ($j=1,2$). One can then evaluate the negativity (\[N2\]) by performing a numerical summation of the absolute values of the elements (\[rhoHermite\]). The higher-order Hermite polynomials can be calculated from the lower-order ones by using e.g. the recurrence formula derived in Appendix \[secapp\_2\].
We remark that the compact expression in equation (\[rhoHermite\]) is of independent interest and can be useful for the characterization of hybrid information processing involving conversion between continuous and discrete variable entanglement [@hybridrev], or particularly for studies of Bell nonlocality of arbitrary two-mode Gaussian states by means of dichotomic pseudospin measurements [@chen], whose expectation value can be conveniently evaluated at the Fock space level.
In the context of the present paper, apart from the utility for numerical evaluation of the output negativity (\[N2\]), equation (\[rhoHermite\]) also enables us to derive a simple analytical lower bound on the output negativity. The bound results from the following chain of inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{inequalities}
\sum_{\mathbf{m,n}=\mathbf{0}}^{\infty}|\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}|&=&
\sum_{\mathbf{m,n}=\mathbf{0}}^{\infty}\frac{|H_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2}^{(R)}(0)|}
{\sqrt{\text{det}\left(\tilde{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)}\sqrt{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}\nonumber\\
&\geq&\sum_{\mathbf{m,n}=\mathbf{0}}^{\infty}\frac{|H_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2}^{(R)}(0)|}
{\sqrt{\text{det}\left(\tilde{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)}{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}\nonumber\\
&\geq&\vline\sum_{\mathbf{m,n}=\mathbf{0}}^{\infty}\frac{H_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2}^{(R)}(0)}
{\sqrt{\text{det}\left(\tilde{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)}{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}\vline\nonumber\\
&=&\frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{4}R_{ij}}}
{\sqrt{\mbox{det}\left(\tilde{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)}},\end{aligned}$$ where the first inequality follows from the inequality $1/\sqrt{n!}\geq1/{n!}$ which holds for any $n\geq0$, the second inequality is a consequence of the triangular inequality for absolute values, and the last equation follows from the expression for the generating function of the four-dimensional Hermite polynomials at the origin [@Bateman_53], $$\label{generatingfunction}
e^{-\frac{1}{2}h^T R h}=\sum_{\mathbf{m,n}=\mathbf{0}}^{\infty}{\frac{{\alpha_1^*}^{m_1}{\alpha_2^*}^{m_2}\alpha_1^{n_1}\alpha_2^{n_2}}{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}
H_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2}^{(R)}(0),$$ where $h=(\alpha_1^*,\alpha_2^*,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)^T$ and $R$ is the matrix (\[RR\]). A comparison between the right-hand side (RHS) of the previous equation and the expression of the Husimi $Q$-quasiprobability distribution $\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)={\langle\alpha_1\alpha_2|}\tilde{\rho}{|\alpha_1\alpha_2\rangle}/\pi^2$ in the Fock basis further yields $$\label{PhiAR}
\frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2}h^T R h}}{\sqrt{\mbox{det}\left(\tilde{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)}}=\pi^2e^{|\alpha_1|^2+|\alpha_{2}|^2}\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)$$ as can be easily seen from the results of Appendix \[secapp\_2\]. Therefore, the last expression in the chain of inequalities (\[inequalities\]) can be written in the following compact form $$\label{PhiA11}
\frac{e^{-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{4}R_{ij}}}
{\sqrt{\mbox{det}\left(\tilde{\gamma}+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)}}=\left(\pi e\right)^2\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}(1,1).$$ Now, making use of the inequalities (\[inequalities\]) and equality (\[PhiA11\]) one finds that the sum in (\[N2\]) is lower-bounded as $$\label{sumbound}
\sum_{\mathbf{m,n}=\mathbf{0}}^{\infty}|\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}|\geq\left(\pi e\right)^2\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}(1,1),$$ which finally gives the following bound on the output negativity (\[N2\]) $$\label{L}
\mathcal{N}(\rho_{ABA'B'})\geq\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\pi e\right)^2\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}(1,1)-1\right].$$ The bound (\[L\]) can be evaluated for any zero-mean two-mode Gaussian state with CM $\tilde{\gamma}$ by calculating the matrix (\[RR\]) and substituting it into the formula (\[PhiA11\]). To test the tightness of the bound we calculate it for the previous examples of pure states and mixtures of coherent states, and compare the obtained lower bounds with the exact values of the negativities (\[Np\]) and (\[Nm\]), respectively. The CM $\tilde{\gamma}$ is in the standard form (\[tildegamma\]) in both cases and therefore one can evaluate easily the matrix (\[RR\]) using Eqs. (\[Rst\]) and (\[Rj\]) which gives, after substitution into Eq. (\[PhiA11\]), $$\label{PhiA11p}
\left(\pi e\right)^2\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}^{\rm p}(1,1)=\frac{e^{2\tanh r}}
{\cosh^2(r)}$$ for pure states, and $$\label{PhiA11m}
\left(\pi e\right)^2\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}^{\rm m}(1,1)=\frac{e^{\frac{4\sigma^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}+1}}}{2\sigma^{2}+1}$$ for unbiased mixtures of coherent states. The corresponding negativities then satisfy $$\label{Lp}
\mathcal{N}_{\rm p}\geq\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{e^{2\tanh r}}
{\cosh^2(r)}-1\right]\equiv\mathcal{L}_{\rm p}$$ and $$\label{Lm}
\mathcal{N}_{\rm m}\geq\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{e^{\frac{4\sigma^{2}}{2\sigma^{2}+1}}}{2\sigma^{2}+1}-1\right)\equiv\mathcal{L}_{\rm m}.$$ The bounds $\mathcal{L}_{\rm p}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm m}$ as well as the negativities $\mathcal{N}_{\rm p}$, Eq. (\[Np\]), and $\mathcal{N}_{\rm m}$, Eq. (\[Nm\]), are depicted in Fig. \[fig2\]. The figure shows that both bounds are tight in the region of small $\langle n \rangle$ (see the inset), which also proves that Eq. (\[Nm\]) amounts to the exact value of the negativity of quantumness for mixtures of coherent states with small mean number of thermal photons in each mode. Both lower bounds are then shown to increase with increasing $\langle n\rangle$ and the gap between the bounds ${\cal L}_{\rm p, m}$ and the numerically evaluated values of the output negativities ${\cal N}_{\rm p, m}$ gets larger. Further analysis reveals however that the lower bounds $\mathcal{L}_{\rm p}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm m}$ are nonmonotonic for larger $\langle n \rangle$; they both attain a maximum at $\langle n\rangle \approx 0.62$ and $\langle n\rangle \approx 0.52$, respectively, and then both monotonically decrease for larger values of $\langle n\rangle$; eventually, both lower bounds become trivial as they enter the region of negative values, namely $\mathcal{L}_{\rm p}<0$ for $\langle n\rangle\gtrsim5.26$ and $\mathcal{L}_{\rm m}<0$ for $\langle n\rangle\gtrsim 1.97$.
As a final remark, note that the sum in negativity (\[N2\]) just amounts to the so-called $\ell_1$-norm of the density matrix $\tilde{\rho}$ [@Takafumi_13], i.e., $\sum_{\mathbf{m,n}=\mathbf{0}}^{\infty}|\tilde{\rho}_{\mathbf{m},\mathbf{n}}|=\|\tilde{\rho}\|_{\ell_1}$. The results of the present Section thus also describe how to calculate numerically the $\ell_1$-norm for an arbitrary two-mode Gaussian state with zero means and the inequality (\[sumbound\]) gives a simple analytical lower bound $\|\tilde{\rho}\|_{\ell_1}\geq\left(\pi e\right)^2\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}(1,1)$ on such a norm.
Conclusions {#sec_4}
===========
We have shown that a protocol capable of activating nonclassical correlations in bipartite Gaussian states based solely on Gaussian operations cannot exist. We have also constructed a non-Gaussian activation protocol and we have investigated quantitatively its performance using the negativity of quantumness as a figure of merit. Our analysis suggests that optimal performance of the protocol is achieved if the input Gaussian state is in the standard form. Restricting to the local Gaussian unitaries the conjecture can be proved or disproved with the help of Eq. (\[rhoHermite\]) by numerical minimization of the negativity (\[N2\]) with respect to the unitaries, which is left for further research.
We believe that our results will stimulate further exploration of the negativity of quantumness and its interplay with other nonclassicality indicators [@Adesso_10; @GAMID] in the context of Gaussian states.
L. M. acknowledges the Project No. P205/12/0694 of GAČR and the European Social Fund and MSMT under project No. EE2.3.20.0060. D. M. acknowledges the support of the Operational Program Education for Competitiveness Project No. CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0060 co-financed by the European Social Fund and Czech Ministry of Education. G. A. acknowledges the Brazilian agency CAPES \[Pesquisador Visitante Especial-Grant No. 108/2012\] and the Foundational Questions Institute \[Grant No. FQXi-RFP3-1317\]. G. A. would also like to thank M. Barbieri and M. Piani for discussions.
Classically correlated bipartite Gaussian states are product states {#secapp_1}
===================================================================
This section is dedicated to the proof that a bipartite Gaussian state $\rho_{AB}$ of an $N$-mode subsystem $A$ and an $M$-mode subsystem $B$ is classically correlated across the $A|B$ splitting if and only if it is a product state $\rho_{A}\otimes\rho_{B}$.
The proof of the “only if” part is trivial because any product state is diagonal in the product of eigenbases of local states.
The “if” part can be proved using the necessary and sufficient condition for zero quantum discord [@Rahimi-Keshari_13]. Quantum discord $D_{B}(\rho_{AB})$ of a quantum state $\rho_{AB}$ with a measurement on subsystem $B$ is zero if an only if the state can be expressed as [@Datta_08] $$\label{QCstate}
\rho_{AB}=\sum_{i}p_{i}\rho_{A}^{(i)}\otimes|i\rangle_{B}\langle
i|,\quad 0\leq p_{i}\leq 1,$$ where $\{|i\rangle_{B}\}$ is an orthonormal basis of subsystem $B$. The zero-discord criterion [@Rahimi-Keshari_13] then says that a quantum state $\rho_{AB}$ can be expressed in the form (\[QCstate\]) if and only if for an informationally complete positive operator valued measurement (IC-POVM) on subsystem $A$, the conditional states $\rho_{B|k}$ of subsystem $B$ corresponding to the measurement outcomes $k$, mutually commute, i.e., $$\label{criterion}
[\rho_{B|k},\rho_{B|k'}]=0,\quad \mbox{for all $k$ and $k'$}.$$ We consider a Gaussian state $\rho_{AB}$ with zero means and covariance matrix (CM) $\gamma_{AB}$. Modes $A_{1},A_{2},\ldots,A_{N}$ comprising the subsystem $A$ are subject to a Gaussian measurement characterized by a CM $\gamma_{\rm m}$ and a vector of measurement outcomes $k=(x_{A_{1}},p_{A_{1}},\ldots,x_{A_{N}},p_{A_{N}})^T\in\mathbb{R}_{2N}$. If a measurement outcome $k$ occurs then the state $\rho_{AB}$ collapses into the $M$-mode state $\rho_{B|k}$ of subsystem $B$ with CM $\sigma$ and vector of first moments $d_{k}$ of the form [@Giedke_02] $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma&=&B-C^{T}\frac{1}{A+\gamma_{\rm m}}C,\label{sigma}\\
d_{k}&=&C^{T}\frac{1}{A+\gamma_{\rm m}}k,\label{dk}\end{aligned}$$ where $A,B$ and $C$ are blocks of the CM $\gamma_{AB}$ expressed with respect to the $A|B$ splitting, $$\label{gammaABblock}
\gamma_{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A & C\\
C^T & B \end{array}\right).$$ As in Ref. [@Rahimi-Keshari_13] we will now express criterion (\[criterion\]) in terms of the characteristic function. For this purpose we will first use the fact that an $M$-mode quantum state $\rho_{j}$ can be expressed as [@Giedke_02] $$\label{rhoj}
\rho_{j}=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{M}}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{2M}}C_{j}(\xi)W^{\dag}(\xi)d\xi,$$ where $C_{j}(\xi)$ is the characteristic function of the state $\rho_{j}$ and $W(\xi)=\mbox{exp}(-i\xi^{T}\mathbf{r})$ is the displacement operator with $\xi=(\xi_{x_{1}},\xi_{p_{1}},\ldots,\xi_{x_{M}},\xi_{p_{M}})^{T}\in\mathbb{R}_{2M}$ and $\mathbf{r}=(x_{1},p_{1},\ldots,x_{M},p_{M})^{T}$ is the vector of quadratures. Due to the validity of the relation $\mbox{Tr}\left[W^{\dag}(\xi')W(\xi)\right]=(2\pi)^{M}\delta(\xi-\xi')$ we get from Eq. (\[rhoj\]) immediately the following expression for the characteristic function of the state $\rho_{j}$: $$\label{Cj}
C_{j}(\xi)=\mbox{Tr}\left[\rho_{j}W(\xi)\right].$$ Making use of Eq. (\[rhoj\]) we can express the commutator on the left-hand side (LHS) of Eq. (\[criterion\]) as
$$\label{commutator}
[\rho_{B|k},\rho_{B|k'}]=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{2M}}\int\int_{\mathbb{R}_{2M}}C_{k}(\xi)C_{k'}(\xi')
\left(e^{-\frac{i}{2}\xi^{T}\Omega\xi'}-e^{\frac{i}{2}\xi^{T}\Omega\xi'}\right)W^{\dag}(\xi+\xi')d\xi
d\xi',$$
where $C_{k}(\xi)$ and $C_{k'}(\xi')$ are the characteristic functions of the states $\rho_{B|k}$ and $\rho_{B|k'}$, respectively, and where we have used the relation $$\label{WdagW}
W^{\dag}(\xi')W(\xi)=e^{\frac{i}{2}\xi'^{T}\Omega\xi}W(\xi-\xi'),$$ with $$\label{Omega}
\Omega=\bigoplus_{i=1}^{M}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1\\
-1 & 0 \end{array}\right).$$ From Eqs. (\[sigma\]) and (\[dk\]) it follows that the Gaussian states $\rho_{B|k}$ and $\rho_{B|k'}$ possess the same CM $\sigma$ and first moments $d_{k}$ and $d_{k'}$, respectively, and therefore their characteristic functions read $$C_{k}(\xi)=e^{-\frac{1}{2}\xi^{T}\sigma\xi-i\xi^{T}d_{k}},\quad
C_{k'}(\xi')=e^{-\frac{1}{2}\xi'^{T}\sigma\xi'-i\xi'^{T}d_{k'}}.$$ Equation (\[commutator\]) allows us to calculate the characteristic function of the commutator $[\rho_{B|k},\rho_{B|k'}]$ given by $$\label{Ckkprimed}
C_{kk'}(\xi)=\mbox{Tr}\left\{[\rho_{B|k},\rho_{B|k'}]W(\xi)\right\}.$$ By inserting the RHS of the commutator from Eq. (\[commutator\]) into Eq. (\[Ckkprimed\]), using Eq. (\[WdagW\]) and carrying out the integration, we arrive at the characteristic function (\[Ckkprimed\]) in the form
$$\label{Ckkprimedfinal}
C_{kk'}(\xi)=2\frac{e^{-\frac{1}{4}\xi^{T}\left(\sigma+\frac{1}{4}\Omega^{T}\sigma^{-1}\Omega\right)\xi-\frac{1}{4}\left(d_{k}-d_{k'}\right)^{T}\sigma^{-1}\left(d_{k}-d_{k'}\right)
-\frac{i}{2}\xi^{T}(d_{k}+d_{k'})}}{2^{M}\sqrt{\mbox{det}\sigma}}\sinh\left[\frac{1}{4}\left(d_{k'}-d_{k}\right)^{T}\sigma^{-1}\Omega\xi\right].$$
From Eq. (\[Ckkprimed\]) and the formula $$\label{commutatorviaC}
[\rho_{B|k},\rho_{B|k'}]=\frac{1}{(2\pi)^{M}}\int_{\mathbb{R}_{2M}}C_{kk'}(\xi)W^{\dag}(\xi)d\xi$$ it follows that $[\rho_{B|k},\rho_{B|k'}]=0$ if and only if $C_{kk'}(\xi)=0$ for all $\xi$. Assuming that the CM $\sigma$ in Eq. (\[sigma\]) has finite second moments and the measurement outcomes $k$ and $k'$ and hence also the displacements $d_{k}$ and $d_{k'}$ defined by Eq. (\[dk\]) are finite, the condition $C_{kk'}(\xi)=0$ for all $\xi$ is equivalent to the condition $$\label{condition1}
\left(d_{k'}-d_{k}\right)^{T}\sigma^{-1}\Omega\xi=0,\quad \mbox{for all $\xi$},$$ which can be rewritten using Eq. (\[dk\]) as $$\label{condition2}
\left(k'-k\right)^{T}\frac{1}{A+\gamma_{\rm
m}}C\sigma^{-1}\Omega\xi=0.$$ Previous results allow us to rephrase the zero-discord criterion of Ref. [@Rahimi-Keshari_13] for bipartite Gaussian states and Gaussian IC-POVMs as follows. An $N+M$-mode Gaussian state $\rho_{AB}$ can be expressed in the form (\[QCstate\]) if and only if the condition (\[condition2\]) is satisfied for all $k,k'$, where $k$ and $k'$ are measurement outcomes of an Gaussian IC-POVM on subsystem $A$ characterized by the CM $\gamma_{\rm m}$. Condition (\[condition2\]) is satisfied for all $k,k'$ ($k\neq k'$) if and only if the matrix $$\label{condition3}
\frac{1}{A+\gamma_{\rm m}}C\sigma^{-1}\Omega=0.$$ Consider now the heterodyne measurement which is an example of a Gaussian IC-POVM [@D'Ariano_04]. Then $\gamma_{\rm
m}=(1/2)\openone$, the matrix $\frac{1}{A+\gamma_{\rm m}}$ is invertible and therefore condition (\[condition3\]) is equivalent with the equation $C\sigma^{-1}\Omega=0$. As both the matrices $\Omega$ and $\sigma^{-1}$ are also invertible the latter condition is equivalent with the condition $C=0$. For the heterodyne detection the condition (\[condition3\]) is thus equivalent with the vanishment of the off-diagonal block $C$ given in Eq. (\[gammaABblock\]), which carries intermodal correlations. This means in other words, that a bipartite $(N+M)$-mode Gaussian state can be expressed in the form (\[QCstate\]) if and only if it is a product state, i.e., $\rho_{AB}=\rho_{A}\otimes\rho_{B}$.
Let us now move to the necessary and sufficient condition for a bipartite $(N+M)$-mode Gaussian state to be a classically correlated state. A quantum state $\rho_{AB}$ is classically correlated if and only if $D_{A}(\rho_{AB})=D_{B}(\rho_{AB})=0$ [@Bylicka_10], where $D_{A}(\rho_{AB})$ is the discord of $\rho_{AB}$ for measurement on subsystem $A$. A quantum state $\rho_{AB}$ is therefore classically correlated if and only if it can be expressed simultaneously in the form (\[QCstate\]) and in the form $$\label{CQstate}
\rho_{AB}=\sum_{i}p_{i}|i\rangle_{A}\langle
i|\otimes\rho_{B}^{(i)}.$$ According to the criterion given in [@Rahimi-Keshari_13] a quantum state $\rho_{AB}$ can be expressed in the form (\[CQstate\]) if and only if for an IC-POVM on subsystem $B$ the conditional states $\rho_{A|k}$ of subsystem $A$ corresponding to the measurement outcomes $k$ mutually commute, i.e., $$\label{commutator2}
[\rho_{A|k},\rho_{A|k'}]=0,\quad \mbox{for all $k$ and $k'$}.$$ Like in the previous case we can express the latter condition in terms of a characteristic function. We can proceed exactly along the same lines as in the case of the commutator (\[commutator\]) with the only difference that now we consider measurement on the $M$-mode subsystem $B$. Consequently, the formulas which we get for the present case of the commutator (\[commutator2\]) are obtained from the formulas derived in the context of commutator (\[commutator\]) by the replacements $A\leftrightarrow B$, $C\leftrightarrow C^{T}$ of the blocks of the matrix $\gamma_{AB}$ and by the replacement $M\rightarrow N$. Thus we find that the commutator (\[commutator2\]) vanishes if and only if $C^{T}=0$. Therefore, the condition $C=0$ is necessary and sufficient for an $(N+M)$-mode Gaussian state to be classical, which concludes our proof.
Matrix elements of a Gaussian state in Fock basis in terms of Hermite polynomials {#secapp_2}
=================================================================================
Our aim is to express the elements of a density matrix of a Gaussian state $\rho$ of two modes $A$ and $B$ in the Fock basis. Here and in what follows we assume that the state has all first moments equal to zero. The present derivation combines the results obtained in Refs. [@Dodonov_84; @Dodonov_94; @Fiurasek_review01]. Firstly we express the elements of the density matrix in the basis of coherent states as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{cohelements}
&&e^{|\alpha_1|^2+|\alpha_2|^2}{\langle\alpha_1\alpha_2|}\rho{|\alpha_1\alpha_2\rangle} \\ && \quad =\sum_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2=0}^{\infty}
\frac{{\alpha_1^*}^{m_1}{\alpha_2^*}^{m_2}\alpha_1^{n_1}\alpha_2^{n_2}}{\sqrt{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}{\langlem_1m_2|}\rho{|n_1n_2\rangle}, \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the expression of the components of a coherent state $|\alpha\rangle$ in the Fock basis $$\label{alpham}
\langle
m|\alpha\rangle=e^{-\frac{|\alpha|^2}{2}}\frac{\alpha^{m}}{\sqrt{m!}}.$$ The matrix element on the LHS of Eq. (\[cohelements\]) can be further expressed as $$\label{LHS}
{\langle\alpha_1\alpha_2|}\rho{|\alpha_1\alpha_2\rangle}=\pi^2\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2),$$ where $$\label{PhiA}
\Phi_{\mathcal{A}}(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=\frac{1}{\pi^2\sqrt{\text{det}\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\alpha^{\dagger}\left[{\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}}^{(c)}\right]^{-1}\alpha}$$ is the Husimi $Q$-quasiprobability distribution of the Gaussian state $\rho$ [@Perina_91]. Here, $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_1^*,\alpha_2,\alpha_2^*)^T$ and $\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}$ is the complex CM corresponding to antinormal ordering of the canonical operators. Substituting now from Eq. (\[LHS\]) into the LHS of Eq. (\[cohelements\]) and making use of Eq. (\[PhiA\]) we arrive at the following equality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Focksum}
&&\frac{1}{\sqrt{\text{det}\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}\alpha^{\dagger}\left\{\left[\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}\right]^{-1}-\openone\right\}\alpha}\\
&& \quad =\sum_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2=0}^{\infty}\frac{{\alpha_1^*}^{m_1}{\alpha_2^*}^{m_2}\alpha_1^{n_1}\alpha_2^{n_2}}{\sqrt{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}{\langlem_1m_2|}\rho{|n_1n_2\rangle}. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ The LHS of the latter equation can be expressed in terms of the multi-dimensional Hermite polynomials [@Bateman_53]. Specifically, the generating function of the four-dimensional Hermite polynomials is $$\label{generatingfunction}
e^{-\frac{1}{2}h^T R
h+h^TRx}=\sum_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2=0}^{\infty}{\frac{{\alpha_1^*}^{m_1}{\alpha_2^*}^{m_2}\alpha_1^{n_1}\alpha_2^{n_2}}{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}
H_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2}^{(R)}(x),$$ where $h=(\alpha_1^*,\alpha_2^*,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)^T$, $x=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)^T$, and $R$ is a symmetric matrix of order four. The LHS of Eq. (\[Focksum\]) then can be rewritten in terms of the LHS of Eq. (\[generatingfunction\]) as follows. The complex CM $\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}$ can be expressed as $$\label{gammaAc}
\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}=O\left(\gamma+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)O^{\dagger},$$ where $\openone$ is the $4\times 4$ identity matrix, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{O}
O=\bigoplus_{j=1}^{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1 & i\\
1 & -i \end{array}\right)\end{aligned}$$ is a $4\times 4$ unitary matrix, and $\gamma$ is the standard real symmetrically ordered CM of the state $\rho$, with elements $\gamma_{ij}=\langle r_{i}r_{j}+r_{j}r_{i}\rangle/2$, $i,j=1,\ldots,4$, where $r_{i}$ is the $i$-th component of the vector of quadratures ${\bf
r}=\left(x_{A},p_{A},x_{B},p_{B}\right)^{T}$. Hence we get $$\label{gammaAc}
\left[\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}\right]^{-1}-\openone=O\left[\left(\gamma+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)^{-1}-\openone\right]O^{\dagger}.$$ Furthermore, we can write $$\label{alpha}
\alpha=Vh,\quad \alpha^{\dag}=h^{T}W,$$ where $$V=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\end{array}\right),\quad W=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1\end{array}\right).$$ Consequently, $$\alpha^{\dagger}\left\{\left[\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}\right]^{-1}-\openone\right\}\alpha=h^T
Rh,$$ where $$\label{R}
R=WO\left[\left(\gamma+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right)^{-1}-\openone\right]O^{\dagger}V.$$ As $(WO)^{T}=O^{\dag}V$ and the CM $\gamma$ is symmetric, one finds immediately that $R^{T}=R$ and therefore $R$ is symmetric as required. Making use of Eqs. (\[Focksum\]) and (\[generatingfunction\]) we get $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\text{det}\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}}}\sum_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2=0}^{\infty}\frac{{\alpha_1^*}^{m_1}{\alpha_2^*}^{m_2}\alpha_1^{n_1}\alpha_2^{n_2}}{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!} H_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2}^{(R)}(0)\\ && \quad =
\sum_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2=0}^{\infty}\frac{{\alpha_1^*}^{m_1}{\alpha_2^*}^{m_2}\alpha_1^{n_1}\alpha_2^{n_2}}{\sqrt{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}}{\langlem_1m_2|}\rho{|n_1n_2\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $R$ defining the Hermite polynomial $H_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2}^{(R)}$ is given in Eq. (\[R\]). By equating each term in the summation we are left with the elements of the density matrix $\rho$ in the Fock basis, $$\label{rhoFock}
{\langlem_1m_2|}\rho{|n_1n_2\rangle}=\frac{H_{m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2}^{(R)}(0)}{\sqrt{\text{det}\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}}\sqrt{m_1!m_2!n_1!n_2!}},$$ where $$\label{detgammaAc}
\mbox{det}\gamma_{\mathcal{A}}^{(c)}=\mbox{det}\left(\gamma+\frac{1}{2}\openone\right).$$ Equation (\[rhoFock\]) allows us to calculate any element of a density matrix in the Fock basis for an arbitrary two-mode Gaussian state with zero first moments.
To calculate matrix (\[R\]) it is convenient to express the CM $\gamma$ in the block form $$\label{gammablock}
\gamma=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A & C\\
C^T & B \end{array}\right).$$ This allows us to express the inverse matrix $(\gamma+\openone/2)^{-1}$, appearing in Eq. (\[R\]), in block form using the following blockwise inversion formula [@Horn_85], $$\begin{aligned}
\label{blockwise}
\!\!\!\!\!\! &\!\!\!\!\!\! &\!\!\!\!\!\!\left(\begin{array}{cc}
A & C\\
C^{T} & B\\
\end{array}\right)^{-1}
\\
\!\!\!\!\!\! &\!\!\!\!\!\! &\!\!\!\!\!\! \ =\left(\begin{array}{cc}
\left(A-CB^{-1}C^{T}\right)^{-1} & A^{-1}C\left(C^{T}A^{-1}C-B\right)^{-1}\\
\left(C^{T}A^{-1}C-B\right)^{-1}C^{T}A^{-1} & \left(B-C^{T}A^{-1}C\right)^{-1}\\
\end{array}\right). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Recurrence relations
--------------------
Higher-order Hermite polynomials can be calculated from lower-order polynomials using a recurrence relation. It is derived from the generating function (\[generatingfunction\]), where we set $x=0$. By deriving both sides of the equation (\[generatingfunction\]) with respect to the $i$-th element of the vector $h=(\alpha_1^*,\alpha_2^*,\alpha_1,\alpha_2)^T$, substituting the RHS of Eq. (\[generatingfunction\]) for the exponential function $\mbox{exp}\left(-h^T R h/2\right)$ appearing on the LHS of the obtained expression and equating each term in the summation, we arrive at the following recurrence relation $$H_{\mu+e_i}^{(R)}(0)=-\sum_{j=1}^4r_{ij}\mu_jH_{\mu-e_j}^{(R)}(0),$$ where $H_{\mu}^{(R)}(0)$ is the four-dimensional Hermite polynomial at the origin with multi-index $\mu=(m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2)$. The coefficients $r_{ij}$ correspond to the $(i,j)$-th element of the matrix $R$, Eq. (\[R\]), and $e_i$ is the $i$-th canonical basis vector with 1 in the $i$-th component and zeros everywhere else. Here, any Hermite polynomial with a negative index is zero, i.e. $H_{\mu}(0)=0$ for all $\mu$ with $\mu_i<0$ for some $i$. Every Hermite polynomial at the origin can be found from the latter recurrence formula and by using the first few cases, $$\begin{aligned}
H_{0,0,0,0}^{(R)}(0)&= 1,\\
H_{e_i}^{(R)}(0)&=0,\\
H_{e_i+e_j}^{(R)}(0)&=-r_{ij},\\
H_{e_i+e_j+e_k}^{(R)}(0)&=0,\\
H_{1,1,1,1}^{(R)}(0)&=r_{12}r_{34}+r_{23}r_{41}+r_{13}r_{24},\end{aligned}$$ with $i\neq j \neq k$. These can be derived by a direct calculation from the expression $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\mu}^{(R)}(x)&=&(-1)^{\sum_{i=1}^{2}
n_i+m_i}\exp\left(\frac{1}{2}x^TRx\right) \\
&\times& \frac{\partial^{\sum_{i=1}^2
n_i+m_i}}{\partial {x_1^{m_1}}\partial {x_2^{m_2}}\partial
{{x}_3^{n_1}}\partial
{{x}_4^{n_2}}}\exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}x^TRx\right),
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ found in [@Dodonov_84]. Note that it is sufficient to calculate only the polynomials where the parity of the multi-index $\mu$ is even. When the parity of the multi-index $\mu$ is odd, i.e. $P(\mu)=m_1+m_2+n_1+n_2=2\ell+1$, where $\ell \in \mathbb{N}_0$, then $H_{\mu}^{(R)}(0)=0$.
[99]{}
K. Modi, A. Brodutch, H. Cable, T. Paterek, and V. Vedral, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**84**]{}, 1655 (2012). M. Piani, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 090502 (2008).
M. Piani, S. Gharibian, G. Adesso, J. Calsamiglia, P. Horodecki, and A. Winter, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**106**]{}, 220403 (2011).
A. Streltsov, H. Kampermann, and D. Bruss, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**106**]{}, 160401 (2011). M. Piani and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. A [**85**]{}, 040301(R) (2012).
G. Adesso, V. D’Ambrosio, E. Nagali, M. Piani, and F. Sciarrino, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 140501 (2014). G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A [**65**]{}, 032314 (2002). T. Nakano, M. Piani, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{} 012117 (2013). I. A. Silva [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 140501 (2013); F. M. Paula [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 250401 (2013).
G. Adesso and F. Illuminati, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**40**]{} 7821, (2007); C. Weedbrook [*et al.*]{} Rev. Mod. Phys. **84**, 621 (2012); G. Adesso, S. Ragy, and A. R. Lee, Open Syst. Inf. Dyn. [**21**]{}, 1440001 (2014).
G. Adesso and A. Datta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 030501 (2010).
P. Giorda and M. G. A. Paris, Phys. Rev. Lett. **105**, 020503 (2010).
L. Mišta, Jr., R. Tatham, D. Girolami, N. Korolkova, and G. Adesso, Phys. Rev. A [**83**]{}, 042325 (2011).
L. S. Madsen, A. Berni, M. Lassen, and U. L. Andersen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 030402 (2012); R. Blandino [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 180402 (2012); M. Gu, [*et al.*]{}, [*Nature Phys.*]{} [**8**]{}, 671 (2012).
L. Mazzola and M. Paternostro, [Sci. Rep.]{} [**1**]{}, 199 (2011); A. Farace, F. Ciccarello, R. Fazio, and V. Giovannetti, Phys. Rev. A [**89**]{}, 022335 (2014).
J. Eisert, S. Scheel, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 137903 (2002); J. Fiurásek, Phys. Rev. Lett. **89**, 137904 (2002); G. Giedke and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A **66**, 032316 (2002).
S. Rahimi-Keshari, C. M. Caves, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 012119 (2013). R. F. Werner and M. M. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 3658 (2001). A. Peres, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 1413 (1996). R. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2726 (2000). V. V. Dodonov, V. I. Man’ko, and V. V. Semjonov, Nuovo Cimento B [**83**]{}, 145 (1984). V. V. Dodonov, O. V. Man’ko, and V. I. Man’ko, Phys. Rev. A [**50**]{}, 813 (1994). J. Fiurášek and J. Peřina, Quantum statistics of light propagating in nonlinear optical couplers. In J. Peřina, editor, [*Coherence and Statistics of Photons and Atoms*]{}, chapter 2, pages 65-110. J. Wiley, New York, 2001. , edited by A. Erdélyi (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953).
P. van Loock, [Laser & Phot. Rev.]{} [**5**]{}, 167 (2011).
Z. Chen, J. Pan, G. Hou and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 040406 (2002).
A. Datta, eprint-arXiv:0807.4490. G. Giedke and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A [**66**]{}, 032316 (2002). G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and M. F. Sacchi, J. Opt. B [**6**]{}, S487 (2004). B. Bylicka and D. Chruscściński, Phys. Rev. A [**81**]{}, 062102 (2010). J. Peřina, [*Quantum Statistics of Linear and Nonlinear Optical Phenomena*]{} (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1991). R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, [*Matrix Analysis*]{} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1985).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
[Optical Sciences Center, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721]{}\
()\
author:
- 'Han Pu, Weiping Zhang, and Pierre Meystre'
-
title: Ferromagnetism in a lattice of Bose condensates
---
The Heisenberg model of spin-spin interactions is considered as the starting point for understanding many complex magnetic structures in solids. In particular, it explains the existence of ferromagnetism and antiferromagnetism at temperatures below the Curie temperature. It is defined by the spin Hamiltonian [@huang] $$H_{{\rm spin}}=-\sum J_{ij}\, {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_j,$$ where ${\bf S}_i$ is the spin operator for $i$-th electron, and $J_{ij}$ are known as the exchange coupling constants. This Hamiltonian arises from the direct Coulomb interaction among electrons and the Pauli exclusion principle. In addition to the exchange interaction, there exists another important type of magnetic interaction, the magnetic dipole-dipole interaction. However, in solid materials the dipolar coupling is typically several orders of magnitude weaker than the exchange coupling, and would correspond to Curie temperatures much below the observed ones. Hence its contribution to the spin Hamiltonian can be neglected in practice.[^1] It follows from this argument that ferromagnetism is not generally expected to occur in bosonic lattices of neutral atoms, a result of the inapplicability of the Pauli principle, the absence of Coulomb interaction and small atomic magnetic dipole moments. However, we qualify this remark by noting that as a result of accurate recent measurements of the scattering length of spin-changing collisions, it is now established that the ground state of optically trapped $^{87}$Rb spinor Bose condensates is ferromagnetic, an important result that we use in the following [@heinzen; @green].
The goal of this paper is to show that this result, combined with the recent experimental realization of regular arrays of Bose-Einstein condensates in optical lattices, leads to a situation where it becomes possible to carry out detailed static and dynamic studies of magnetism on one to three-dimensional periodic lattices.
Quantum degenerate Bose gases on optical lattices were first used to demonstrate “mode-locked” atom lasers [@yale1]. It has also been theoretically demonstrated that they undergo a Mott insulator phase transition as the depth of the lattice wells is increased [@zoller]. Recently, they have become of interest in the study of quantum chaos [@raizen; @carretero]. Here, we show that spinor condensates, localized in optical lattices deep enough for the individual sites to be independent, can undergo a ferromagnetic-like phase transition that leads to a “macroscopic” magnetization of the condensate array.
We consider specifically the case of spinor $^{87}$Rb condensates [@mit], which are as we have mentioned individual ferromagnets of random directions in the absence of external fields and magnetic dipole-dipole interaction. We show that the magnetic dipole-dipole interaction between lattice sites can spontaneously align the magnetization of the individual sites. This is possible because of the Bose enhanced magnetic dipole moments of the condensate which in turn enhances the strength of the magnetic dipolar interaction.
Our starting point is the Hamiltonian $H$ describing an $F=1$ spinor condensate at zero temperature trapped in an optical lattice, subject to a magnetic dipole-dipole interaction $H_{dd}$ and is coupled to an external magnetic field via the magnetic dipole Hamiltonian $H_B$[@zhang; @ho2; @ohmi; @law], $$H = H_0 + H_{dd} + H_B.$$ Here $$\begin{aligned}
H_0& =& \int d^3r\, \psi_\alpha^{\dagger}({\bf r}) [-\hbar^2
\nabla^2 /2m + V_L({\bf r}) ]\psi_\alpha({\bf r})\\ &+&(
\lambda_s/2)\int d^3r\, \psi_\alpha^{\dagger}({\bf r})
\psi_\beta^{\dagger}({\bf r}) \psi_\beta ({\bf r})
\psi_\alpha({\bf r}) \\ &+& (\lambda_a/2)\int
d^3r\,\psi_\alpha^\dagger({\bf r}) \psi_\mu^\dagger({\bf r}) {\bf
F}_{\alpha \beta} \cdot {\bf F}_{\mu \nu} \psi_\nu({\bf
r})\psi_\beta ({\bf r})\end{aligned}$$ describes the interaction of the atoms with the lattice potential $V_L({\bf r})$ and ground state collisions. It includes an implicit sum over the indices {$\alpha,\beta,\mu,\nu$$\} = \{$0, $\pm 1$} that label the three Zeeman sublevels. The parameters $\lambda_s$ and $\lambda_a$ characterize the short-range spin-independent and spin-changing $s$-wave collisions, respectively. Specifically, $\lambda_a$ is proportional to the difference between the $s$-wave scattering lengths in the triplet and singlet channels[@ho2; @ohmi; @law]. It has recently been measured to be negative for $^{87}$Rb, accounting for its ferromagnetic ground state [@heinzen].
Our model includes the long-range magnetic dipole-dipole interaction between different lattice sites, but neglect it within each site, assuming that it is much weaker than the $s$-wave interaction described by $H_0$. We also assume that the optical lattice potential is deep enough that there is no spatial overlap between the condensates at different lattice sites. We can then expand the atomic field operator as $\psi({\bf r})=\sum_i
\sum_{\alpha=0, \pm 1} \hat{a}_\alpha(i) \phi_i({\bf r})$ where $i$ labels the lattice sites.
The Hartree wave function $\phi_i({\bf r})$, determined by minimizing the total energy, is the wave function of the condensate at the $i$-th site. It is assumed that all Zeeman components share the same spatial wave function. If the condensates at each lattice sites contain the same number $N$ of atoms, then the ground-state wave functions for different sites have the same form $\phi_i({\bf r}) =\phi({\bf r}-{\bf r_i})$. Under this condition, the dipolar interaction potential is $H_{dd} = \sum_{i,j \neq i}V_{dd}^{ij}$ with $$V_{dd}^{ij} =
\frac{\mu_0}{4\pi} \left[\frac{\vec{\mu}_i \cdot \vec{\mu}_j}{|{\bf
r}_{ij}|^3}-\frac{3(\vec{\mu}_i \cdot \hat{{\bf r}}_{ij}) ( \vec{\mu}_j \cdot
\hat{{\bf r}}_{ij})}{|{\bf r}_{ij}|^3} \right] ,$$ where $\mu_0$ is the vacuum permeability, ${\bf r}_{ij}={\bf
r}_i-{\bf r}_j$, $\hat{{\bf r}}_{ij} = {\bf r}_{ij}/ | {\bf
r}_{ij}|$, ${\bf r}_i$ is the coordinate of the $i$-th site, and $\vec{\mu}_{i}=\gamma {\bf S}_{i}$ is the magnetic dipole moment at site $i$, with ${\bf S}_{i}=\hat{a}^{\dagger}_{\alpha}(i) {\bf
F}_{\alpha \beta} \hat{a}_{\beta}(i)$ being the total angular momentum operator and $\gamma=g_F \mu_B$ the gyromagnetic ratio. Finally, the coupling of the atoms to the external magnetic field ${\bf B}_{\rm ext}$ is described by $$H_B = -\gamma \sum_i {\bf
S}_i \cdot {\bf B}_{\rm ext}.$$
In this letter we consider a one-dimensional optical lattice along the $z$-direction, which we also choose as the quantization axis. Hence $$V_{dd}^{ij}
= \frac{\mu_0}{4\pi |{\bf r}_{ij}|^3} \left[\vec{\mu}_i
\cdot \vec{\mu}_j-3{\mu}_i^z
{\mu}_j^z \right],$$ with $\mu_j^z$ being the $z$-component of $\vec{\mu}_j$. In the absence of long-range magnetic dipole-dipole interaction and of external magnetic fields, the individual condensates can therefore be considered as independent “magnets” whose pseudo-spin vectors point in random directions, with no spin correlations between sites. Our goal is to determine the spin structure of the system if the different sites are allowed to interact with each other through the magnetic dipole-dipole interaction.
In the absence of spatial overlap between individual condensates, and neglecting unimportant constants, the total Hamiltonian of the system takes the form [@law] $$\begin{aligned}
H=&&\sum_i \left[ \lambda_a' {\bf S}_i^2 + \gamma \sum_{j \neq i} \lambda_{ij}
{\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf S}_j \right. \nonumber \\
&& \left. - 3\gamma \sum_{j \neq i} \lambda_{ij} S_i^z
S_j^z - \gamma {\bf S}_i \cdot {\bf
B}_{\rm ext}\right], \label{h1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda_a'=(1/2)\lambda_a \int d^3r \, |\phi_i ({\bf
r})|^4$ and $
\lambda_{ij} = \gamma \mu_0/(4\pi|{\bf r}_{ij}|^3).
$
In general the external magnetic field consists of two contributions: a controlled, external applied field; and an effective “stray” field that accounts for all possible effects from the experimental environment and the system itself. A typical example is the environmental magnetic fluctuations. In the present case, we take the applied field along the quantization axis $z$. The effective environmental magnetic field, in contrast, can have any orientation. We choose it without loss of generality to be along the transverse direction, including any longitudinal component in the definition of the applied field. Hence the external field has the form $${\bf B}_{\rm ext}=B_z \hat{{\bf z}} + B_{\rho} \hat{{\bf \rho}},$$ where $\rho=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ is the radial coordinate.
If the optical lattice is sufficiently long, one can safely neglect the boundary effects and concentrate on a generic single site $i$ of spin ${\bf S}$. Its Hamiltonian reads $$\begin{aligned}
h=&& \lambda_a' {\bf S}^2 - \gamma {\bf S} \cdot \left[ \left(B_z+2 \sum_{j \neq
i} \lambda_{ij} S_j^z \right) \hat{\bf z} \right. \nonumber \\
&& + \left. \left(B_{\rho} -
\sum_{j \neq i} \lambda_{ij} S_j^{\rho} \right) \hat{\bf \rho}\right] .
\label{hi}\end{aligned}$$
We determine its ground state in the mean-field approximation (also known as the Weiss molecular potential approximation) [@solid]. It consists in replacing the operators $S_j^{\alpha}$, $\alpha =\rho, z$, by their ground-state expectation value $$\langle S_j^{\alpha} \rangle \rightarrow M_{\alpha} =N m_{\alpha}
,$$ which is assumed to be the same for different sites. We remark that $m_z$ is nothing but the difference in population of the Zeeman sublevels of magnetic quantum numbers $\pm 1$. This allows us to approximate the Hamiltonian (\[hi\]) by $$h_{\rm {mf}} = \lambda_a' {\bf S}^2- \gamma {\bf S} \cdot {\bf
B}_{{\rm eff}}, \label{heff}$$ where we have introduced the effective magnetic field $${\bf B}_{\rm {eff}} = (B_z+2\Lambda m_z) \hat{\bf z} + (B_x -
\Lambda m_{\rho}) \hat{\bf \rho}$$ and $ \Lambda = N \sum_{j\neq i} \lambda_{ij} $.
We mentioned that the individual spinor condensates at the lattice sites are ferromagnetic, $\lambda_a' <0$. In that case, the ground state of the mean-field Hamiltonian (\[heff\]) must correspond to a situation where the condensate at the site $i$ under consideration must be aligned along ${\bf B}_{{\rm eff}}$ and takes its maximum possible value $N$. That is, the ground state of the mean-field Hamiltonian (\[heff\]) is simply $$|GS \rangle = |N, N \rangle_{{\bf B}_{{\rm eff}}}, \label{gs}$$ where the first number denotes the total angular momentum and the second its component along the direction of ${\bf B}_{{\rm eff}}$. Note that $|GS \rangle$ represents a spin coherent state in the basis of $|S,S_z \rangle$. The fact that the ground state magnetic dipole moment of each lattice site is $N$ times that of an individual atom results in a significant magnetic dipole-dipole interaction even for lattice points separated by hundreds of nanometers. This feature, which can be interpreted as a signature of Bose enhancement, is in stark contrast with usual ferromagnetism, where the magnetic interaction is negligible compared to exchange and where the use of fermions is essential[@solid].
The mean-field ground state of Eq. (\[gs\]) allows us to calculate the magnetization components $m_z$ and $m_x$. One finds readily $$\label{mag}
m_\alpha = \frac{1}{N} \langle GS | S_i^\alpha |
GS \rangle = \cos \theta_\alpha ,$$ where $\theta_\alpha$ is the angle between ${\bf B}_{{\rm eff}}$ and the $\alpha$-axis.
For $B_z=0$, Eq. (\[mag\]) yields
\[mxz\] $$\begin{aligned}
m_z &=& \frac{2 \Lambda m_z}{\sqrt{(2 \Lambda m_z)^2+
(B_{\rho}- \Lambda m_{\rho})^2}},
\\
m_{\rho} &=& \frac{B_{\rho}-\Lambda m_{\rho}}{\sqrt{(2 \Lambda m_z)^2+(B_{\rho}-
\Lambda m_{\rho})^2}} .\end{aligned}$$
The solutions to Eqs. (\[mxz\]) can be divided into two cases:
1. For $B_{\rho} \ge 3\Lambda$, the only solutions are $m_z=0$ and $m_{\rho}=1$. That is, the lattice of condensates is magnetically polarized along the transverse magnetic field.
2. For $B_{\rho} < 3\Lambda$, there are two coexisting sets of solutions: (i) $m_z=0$ and $m_{\rho}=1$; and (ii) $m_z=\pm
\sqrt{1-(B_{\rho}/ 3\Lambda)^2}$ and $m_{\rho}=B_{\rho}/3\Lambda$. However, it is easily seen that the state associated with the latter solutions has the lower energy. Hence it corresponds to the true ground state, while solution i) represents an unstable equilibrium.
We have, then, the following situation: As the environmental effective magnetic field strength is reduced below a critical value $3 \Lambda$, the lattice ceases to be polarized along the direction of that field. A phase transition occurs, and a [*spontaneous magnetization*]{} along the $z$-direction appears, characterized by a finite $m_z$.
This phenomenon is reminiscent of conventional ferromagnetism. Indeed, our model is somewhat analogous to the Ising model[@huang], with the environmental transverse magnetic field $B_{\rho}$ playing the role of temperature. For $B_{\rho}=0$ — corresponding to zero temperature in Ising model — the spins at each lattice site ${\bf S}_i$ align themselves along the lattice direction, even in the absence of longitudinal field. This spontaneous spin magnetization diminishes as $B_{\rho}$ increases, and completely vanishes if $B_{\rho}$ exceeds the critical value $3\Lambda$ — the analog of the Curie temperature in the Ising model. We note however that the two cases exhibit important qualitative differences: For example, no spontaneous magnetization occurs in 1D Ising model, for any finite temperature[@huang].
Our analysis so far assumes an infinite one-dimensional lattice. This assumption is required for the validity of mean-field approximation. We note however that the appearance of a spontaneous magnetization does not rely on this condition being fulfilled. We demonstrate this point by considering just two lattice sites, that is, a double-well situation. In this case, we can numerically solve the Hamiltonian (\[h1\]), without invoking the mean-field approximation, by expanding the Hamiltonian matrix on the basis of $|S_1=N, S_1^z \rangle \otimes |S_2=N, S_2^z
\rangle$. Figure \[fig1\] shows the spontaneous magnetization $m_z$ as a function of the external field strength $B_{\rho}$. As the Hamiltonian matrix has a size of $(2N+1)^2 \times (2N+1)^2$, we cannot use a very large $N$. However, as we can see from the figure, as $N$ increases, $m_z$ rapidly approaches the mean-field results. Hence the mean-field treatment is in fact a surprisingly good approximation for our purpose.
To estimate the feasibility of an experimental detection of the spontaneous magnetization, we consider as an example the $F=1$ electronic ground state ($^3$S$_{1/2}$) of $^{87}$Rb, for which $\lambda_a' < 0$[@heinzen; @green]. The Landé factor for this state is $g_F=-1/2$. For an optical potential of period equal to 426 nm (nearest neighbor separation) we find $ \Lambda = N
\sum_{j \neq i} \lambda_{ij} \approx 1.6N \times 10^{-7} \;\;{\rm
G}$. If the particle number at each site is $N=2000$, this gives a critical value of the environmental magnetic field of $3\Lambda =
1$mG. These numbers indicate that the observation of spontaneous magnetization in a lattice of spinor condensates is well within experimental reach.
In a typical experimental situation, the environmental magnetic field is likely to exhibit temporal fluctuations. To account for them, we assume that this field has a uniform angular distribution and that the fluctuations in field strength have a width $\Delta_B$. The time-averaged environmental field is again assumed to be along the transverse direction, with strength $B_{\rho}$. Assuming the magnetization of the system follows the field fluctuations adiabatically, it is not difficult to include this effect into our mean-field treatment. The time-averaged spontaneous magnetization along $z$-axis under satisfies then the cubic equation $$(1-m_z^2)(9 \Lambda^2 m_z^2+ \Delta_B^2/2)=(B_{\rho}^2+\Delta_B^2) m_z^2.$$ Figure \[fig2\] illustrates $m_z$ as a function of $B_{\rho}$ for various $\Delta_B$. As we can see, the effect of the field fluctuation is to decrease the maximum spontaneous magnetization, and to increase the critical field strength at which the spontaneous magnetization vanishes. The maximun $m_z$ at $B_{\rho}=0$ decreases from 1 to 1/3 when $\Delta_B$ increases from 0 to infinity.
![Mean-field results of the time-averaged spontaneous magnetization as a function of environmental magnetic field strength, taking the magnetic field fluctuations into accout. Only the positive values are plotted.[]{data-label="fig2"}](delta.eps){width="0.72\columnwidth" height="0.5\columnwidth"}
Recently, condensates trapped in periodic optical potentials have attracted much attention. The phase coherence and atom statistics of the system have been studied experimentally[@yale1; @yale2; @hansch]. However their magnetic properties have not been fully explored. A few years ago, Meacher [*et al.*]{} observed experimentally the paramagnetic behavior of cold (but non-condensed) cesium atoms confined in an optical lattice[@meacher]. Here we have demonstrated that by replacing the cold atoms with a spinor condensate, ferromagnetism can be observed. This is made possible by the collectively enhanced magnetic moments of the condensate which in turn enhances magnetic dipole-dipole interaction between different lattice sites.
In future work it will be interesting to study the dynamical response of the system under the effect of an external time-dependent longitudinal magnetic field. The instantaneous magnetization in this case is likely to form hysteresis loops which might find applications e.g. in quantum information processing. Further studies should also include the properties of finite temperature excitations of the system, which correspond to spin waves. The extension of this work beyond one-dimensional lattices also shows much promise: Although it is predominantly ferromagnetic in 1D, the dipole-dipole interaction is anisotropic and contains both ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic terms. In higher-dimensional lattices, the ground-state spin structure will thus become much richer.
We conclude by remarking that in addition to this intrinsic interest, the study of the magnetic properties of spinor condensate lattices provide us with a highly controllable test system to study fundamental static and dynamical aspects of magnetism and lattice dynamics, including, e.g., the role of dimensionality in phase transitions and macroscopic quantum tunneling of the magnetic moments.
This work is supported in part by the US Office of Naval Research under Contract No. 14-91-J1205, by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY98-01099, by the US Army Research Office, by NASA, and by the Joint Services Optics Program.
See for example, Kerson Huang, [*Statistical Mechanics*]{} (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1987).
D. Heinzen, private communication (2001).
J. P. Burke, Jr. and J. L. Bohn, Phys. Rev. A [**59**]{}, 1303 (1999).
B. P. Anderson and M. A. Kasevich, Science [**281**]{}, 1686 (1998).
D. Jaksch [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 3108 (1998).
M. Raizen, private communication (2001)
R. Carretero-Gonzalez and K. Promislow, e-print cond-mat/0105600, (2001).
J. Stenger [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**396**]{}, 345 (1998).
W. Zhang and D. F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 1248 (1998).
T. -L. Ho, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 742 (1998).
T. Ohmi and K. Machida, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. [**67**]{}, 1882 (1998).
C. K. Law, H. Pu and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 5257 (1998).
N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, [*Solid State Physics*]{} (Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York, 1976).
C. Orzel [*et al.*]{}, Science, [**291**]{}, 2386 (2001).
M. Greiner [et al.]{}, e-preprint cond-mat/0105105.
D. R. Meacher [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 1958 (1995).
[^1]: We note however that the magnetic dipole-dipole interaction plays an important role in domain formation in macroscopic samples.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The axion is a hypothesized particle appearing in various theories beyond the Standard Model. It is a light spin-0 boson initially postulated to solve the strong CP problem and is also a strong candidate for dark matter. If the axion or an axion-like particle exists, it would mediate a P-odd and T-odd spin-dependent interaction. We describe two experiments under development at Indiana University-Bloomington to search for such an interaction.'
address: |
$^1$Department of Physics, Indiana University,\
Bloomington, IN 47405-7105, USA
author:
- 'I. Lee,$^1$ J. Shortino,$^1$ J. Biermen,$^1$ A. Din,$^1$ A. Grossman,$^1$ M. Gabel,$^1$ E. Guess,$^1$ C.-Y. Liu,$^1$ J.C. Long,$^1$ S. Reger,$^1$ A. Reid,$^1$ M. Severinov,$^1$ B. Short,$^1$ W.M. Snow,$^1$ E. Smith,$^1$ M. Zhang$^1$ and the ARIADNE Collaboration'
title: |
Exotic Spin-Dependent Interaction Searches\
at Indiana University
---
Introduction
============
The Standard Model possesses many unexplained features. Why QCD does not violate CP is one of them. Peccei and Quinn in 1977 proposed that CP conservation in the strong interactions can be explained by axions.[@pecceiandquinn] Axions appear in many other beyond Standard Model theories, including string theory,[@stringtheory] and it is also considered as a strong candidate for dark matter.[@darkmatter]
Axion exchange generates a P-odd and T-odd spin-dependent potential energy which can be sought in laboratory experiments.[@IU1; @IU2] Two new experiments with improved sensitivities are being developed. The PTB experiment exploits the world-renowned magnetically shielded room at Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Germany along with their high-developed SQUID magnetometry technology. The ARIADNE project is a collaboration among institutions in Korea, Canada, and the United States.
Theory
======
The axion would mediate a short-range monopole-dipole interaction with a potential of the form
$$U(r)=\frac{\hbar^2 g_s g_p}{8\pi m_{f}}\left(\frac{1}{r\lambda_a}+\frac{1}{r^2}\right) e^{-(r/\lambda_a)}(\hat{\sigma}\cdot \hat{r}),$$
where $g_s$ and $g_p$ are coupling constants, $m_{f}$ is fermion mass, $\hat{\sigma}$ is the Pauli spin matrix, $r$ is the distance between fermions, and $\lambda_a=h/m_a c$ is the axion Compton wavelength.[@moodyandwilczek] The interaction has Yukawa like potential so its strength drops quickly beyond the axion Compton wavelength. It affects the spin of dipole particles as magnetic field does, but since it is mediated by the axion, magnetic shielding has no effect on it.
PTB Experiment
==============
The PTB experiment features a rotating disk with segments of alternating materials having similar magnetic properties but different nucleon densities, hence providing a time-varying axion field. A cell with hyperpolarized $^{3}$He and $^{129}$Xe will be placed near the mass, positioned to experience the axion field from only one material at a time. The axion field perpendicular to the longitudinal polarization axis of the samples causes the precession.
The resonant amplification of the signal gained by matching the frequency of the time-varying axion potential to the precession frequency of the hyperpolarized nuclei can greatly improve the sensitivity compared to previous experiments. The 8-layered magnetically shielded room at PTB[@ptb] allows a long spin relaxation time of the polarized gas samples on the order of 10,000 seconds to accumulate the resonant amplification effect. The transverse magnetization of precessing samples will be measured by PTB’s highly sensitive superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID). The mixture of $^{3}$He and $^{129}$Xe can distinguish axion-mediated interaction from magnetic effects by treating one of the species as a comagnetometer. Nevertheless we suspect that magnetic impurities in the test masses will eventually pose a fundamental limitation on the sensitivity of this approach.
Axion Resonant InterAction DetectioN Experiment (ARIADNE)
=========================================================
The same experimental principles used in the PTB experiment are applied to the ARIADNE experiment. However, the ARIADNE experiment will be conducted at 4K in a liquid helium cryostat so that superconducting magnetic shielding can be employed to eliminate any test mass magnetic impurity systematics. The source mass is a rotating tungsten sprocket with 22 alternating segments. Three quartz blocks, each having a sample cell, bias coils, a SQUID loop, and niobium coating, will be placed next to the tungsten source mass. The blocks are thermally anchored to a 4K copper plate, turning its niobium coating into a superconducting shield against external magnetic backgrounds. The hyperpolarized $^3$He samples get cooled to 4K, increasing the density to improve the signal level. Such advantages of conducting the experiment at 4K add up to several orders of magnitude improvement in sensitivity.
ARIADNE at IU
=============
The $^3$He gas for ARIADNE is hyperpolarized by metastability exchange optical pumping (MEOP). Indiana University will provide the hyperpolarized $^3$He at 4K. A recycled liquid helium cryostat has been modified to house a Pyrex glass cell in which the entire process of polarizing and cooling $^3$He gas occurs. A complete MEOP system will be installed above the cryostat, and the polarized gas will diffuse down to the test cell into the 4K region. An NMR coil surrounding the test cell will be used to study the behavior of the polarized $^3$He samples at 4K.
An RF shielded room is under construction at IU on a vibrationally isolated floor in the subbasement of the physics building. The floor is covered by RF shielding ferrite tiles and fine copper mesh. A Faraday cage with copper mesh will surround the experimental apparatus. This could be a possible experimental site for the ARIADNE project.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge support from the U.S. National Science Foundation, award numbers NSF PHY-1509176, NSF PHY-1509805, NSF PHY-1806395, NSF PHY-1806671, NSF PHY-1806757.
[xx]{}
R.D. Peccei, and H.R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**38**]{}, 1440 (1977).
A. Arvanitaki , Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 123530 (2010).
G.R. Blumenthal , Nature [**311**]{}, 517–525 (1984).
M. Bulatowicz , Phys. Rev. Lett. [bf 111]{}, 102001 (2013).
P.H. Chu , Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 011105 (2013).
J.E. Moody, and F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. D [**30**]{}, 130–138 (1984).
J. Bork, H.D. Hahlbohm, R. Klein, and A. Schnabel, [*Biomag2000, Proc. of the 12th Int. Conf. on Biomagnetism*]{} 970–973., Espoo, Finland, 2001.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Multiclass processes,
dual points and $M/M/1$ queues
**Pablo A. Ferrari**
*Universidade de São Paulo*
**James B. Martin**
*CNRS and Université Paris 7*
1truecm[**Abstract:**]{} We consider the discrete Hammersley-Aldous-Diaconis process (HAD) and the totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP) in $\Z$. The basic coupling induces a *multiclass* process which is useful in discussing shock measures and other important properties of the processes. The invariant measures of the multiclass systems are the same for both processes, and can be constructed as the law of the output process of a system of multiclass queues in tandem; the arrival and service processes of the queueing system are a collection of independent Bernoulli product measures. The proof of invariance involves a new coupling between stationary versions of the processes called a *multi-line process*; this process has a collection of independent Bernoulli product measures as an invariant measure. Some of these results have appeared elsewhere and this paper is partly a review, with some proofs given only in outline. However we emphasize a new approach via *dual points*: when the *graphical construction* is used to construct a trajectory of the TASEP or HAD process as a function of a Poisson process in $\Z\times\R$, the dual points are those which govern the time-reversal of the trajectory. Each line of the multi-line process is governed by the dual points of the line below. We also mention some other processes whose multiclass versions have the same invariant measures, and we note an extension of Burke’s theorem to multiclass queues which follows from the results.
#### **MSC-class**
60K35 82C22 90B20 90B22
#### **Keywords**
totally asymmetric simple exclusion process, Hammerley Aldous Diaconis process, multitype processes, multiclass queueing system
Introduction
============
The macroscopic evolution of the *totally asymmetric simple exclusion process* (TASEP) [@Liggettbook; @Liggettbook2] and the *Hammersley-Aldous-Diaconis process* (HAD) [@H72; @AD95] can be described by the Burgers equation [@Rost; @Seppalainen96]. This equation admits shock solutions which have a microscopic counterpart. A crucial tool for the study of these shocks is Liggett’s *basic coupling* [@Liggettcoupling; @Liggettbook] of two or more copies of the process; see for example [@DJLStasep; @Fshock; @FKS; @Garcia; @Wick]. These coupled processes have a natural interpretation as a process with two or more classes of particle (which is also of interest from a combinatorial viewpoint [@Angeltasep; @DucSch]). Such *coupled* and *multiclass processes*, and their invariant distributions, are the subject of this paper.
Our basic objects are the TASEP and a discrete-space version of the HAD process [@Ftagged; @Guiol]. These are continuous-time Markov processes taking values in the state-space $\cX=\{0,1\}^\Z$; for a configuration $\eta\in\cX$, we say that $\eta$ has a particle at $x$ (or that $x$ is occupied) if $\eta(x)=1$, and that $\eta$ has a hole at $x$ (or that $x$ is empty) if $\eta(x)=0$. In the TASEP, each particle tries to jump one site to the left at rate 1, succeeding if the site to its left is empty. In the HAD process, each empty site summons at rate 1 the nearest particle to its left.
The *graphical construction* allows us to realize either the TASEP or the HAD process as a function of a rate 1 Poisson process on $\R\times\Z$ (the process of “marks” or “points” or “bells”) and the initial configuration. Under the basic coupling, processes started at different initial conditions $\eta^1,\eta^2,\dots,\eta^n$ are coupled by using the same realization of the Poisson points. Suppose the initial configurations are *ordered*, in that $\eta^1(x)\leq\eta^2(x)\dots\leq\eta^n(x)$ for all $x\in\Z$. Then this ordering is preserved by the dynamics of the coupling, and we obtain a *coupled process* taking values in the space $\Xnup$ of ordered configurations, defined by $$\label{Xnupdef}
\Xnup=\left\{
(\eta^1,\dots,\eta^n)\in\cX^n\,\,
:
\,\,\eta^1(x)\leq\dots\leq\eta^n(x)
\,\,
\text{ for all }
x\in\Z
\right\}.$$
We define a map $R:\Xnup\mapsto\cY_n=\{1,2,\dots,n+1\}^\Z$, taking an ordered configuration $\eta$ into a *multiclass configuration* $\xi=R\eta$, by $$\label{Rdef}
\xi(x) = n+1-\sum_{k=1}^n \eta^k(x).$$ The multiclass configuration $\xi$ labels each site $i$ with a class. The larger the number of $\eta$ particles at site $i$, the lower is its class. If a site is occupied in all $n$ marginals of $\eta$, then $\xi(x)=1$ and we say that $x$ contains a first-class particle. If $\eta^1(x)=0$ but $\eta^2(x)=1$ then $x$ contains a second-class particle ($\xi(x)=2$), and so on. When $x$ is empty in all the marginals of $\eta$, $\xi$ gives value $n+1$ at $i$. Conventionally, we regard such sites with value $n+1$ as holes (this is also how they are displayed in the figures in this paper), though they could equivalently be regarded as particles of class $n+1$. A coupled process $(\eta_t)$ taking values in $\Xnup$ induces a multiclass process $(\xi_t)=(R\eta_t)$; since $R$ is a bijection, the two are essentially equivalent. In the case of the TASEP, the dynamics of the multiclass process have a natural interpretation as a TASEP in which lower-numbered particles have priority over higher-number particles, and can jump from the right to displace them; these dynamics are related to various sorting algorithms.
The Bernoulli product measures $\nu^\rho$ on $\cX$ of density $\rho\in(0,1)$ are invariant for both the HAD process and the TASEP. We look for invariant measures for the corresponding coupled processes, whose $k$th marginal is $\nu^{\rho^k}$ for each $1,2,\dots,k$, for fixed densities $0<\rho^1<\dots<\rho^n<1$. The family of invariant measures $\pi=\pi^{(n)}_{\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n}$ obtained for the coupled process is the same for the TASEP and for the discrete HAD process, and also for various other particle systems with values in $\cX$. To each such $\pi$ corresponds a distribution $\mu$ on $\cY_n$, which is invariant for the multiclass process. The form of $\mu$ can be obtained as the stationary output process of a system of multiclass $./M/1$ queues in tandem. A striking property of these invariant measures is that a sample $\eta$ from $\pi$ can be obtained as a deterministic function $T$ of a configuration $\alpha\in\cX^n$ with distribution $\nu=\nu^{\rho^1}\times\dots\times\nu^{\rho^n}$, a product of Bernoulli product measures.
To show that $\pi$ and $\mu$ are invariant for the coupled and multiclass process respectively, one can perform a generator-like computation as [@Angeltasep; @DJLStasep; @FFKtasep; @Speertasep] did for the 2-class TASEP. We proceed otherwise, introducing a new process $\alpha_t=(\alpha^1_t,\dots,\alpha^n_t)$ on $\cX^n$ called a *multi-line process* and showing that (a) the product of product measures $\nu$ is invariant for the multi-line process and (b) the process $T\alpha_t$ is the coupled process. See [@FM-tasep] for the TASEP and [@FM-had] for an analogous construction for the continuous-space HAD process. We review the method in this paper, and describe an approach to the multi-line process via *dual points*, rather different to the approach of [@FM-tasep].
Stationary versions of the TASEP and the HAD process can be constructed as deterministic functions of the Poisson process $\omega$. For each density $\rho$ and almost all Poisson point configurations $\omega$, there exists a unique trajectory of the process $(\eta_t,\,t\in\R)$ with time-marginal distribution $\nu^\rho$ and governed by $\omega$. This was proved for the continuous-space HAD process in [@FM-had] and the proof extends to the cases discussed here. The $\omega$ points and the trajectory of the process induce new points $D_\rho(\omega)$, defined — roughly speaking — as the points governing the time-reversed trajectory. They are called *dual points* and, just as $\omega$ itself, form a Poisson process on $\R\times\Z$. In addition, the dual points with time coordinate less than $t$ are independent of the particle configuration at time $t$. These properties have been shown for the continuous-space version of the HAD by Cator and Groeneboom [@CG]; see also [@FM-had]. We show them here for both the TASEP and the discrete HAD process. The proof is a bit more complicated because a trajectory in the discrete-space case does not determine all the Poisson points governing it. To overcome this problem we augment the state-space and introduce spin-flip processes to mark the Poisson points missed by the trajectories. See Proposition \[dp\] for the HAD and Proposition \[c11\] for the TASEP. These are the main new results of this paper.
One way to construct a stationary trajectory $(\alpha_t,t\in\RR)$ of the multi-line process referred to above, whose marginal distribution at any fixed time $t$ is $\nu=\nu^{\rho^1}\times\dots\times\nu^{\rho^n}$, is as follows. The bottom line $(\alpha^n_t, t\in\RR)$ of the process is constructed as a the unique trajectory with marginal $\nu^{\rho^n}$ governed by the Poisson points $\omega$. The dual points $\omega^{n-1}$ of the bottom trajectory and the density $\rho^{n-1}$ are then used to construct the $(n-1)st$ line, and so on. Since $\alpha^k_t$, the $k$th marginal at time $t$, depends only on the Poisson points $\omega^k$ with time coordinate less than $t$, which are independent of $\alpha^{k-1}_t,\dots,\alpha^1_t$, the resulting distribution of $\alpha_t\in\cX^n$ is indeed the product distribution $\nu$. The process is time-invariant by construction.
In the case of the continuous-space HAD process, the multi-line process is closely related to the *polynuclear growth model* studied by Prähofer and Spohn [@PS00; @PS02]; see also [@Patrik04; @fp05]. In those papers the points in $\omega$ and the dual points are called *nucleation events* and *annihilating events* respectively; see in particular Figure 2 in [@Patrik04].
In Section \[sim\] we construct the coupled invariant measure $\pi$ and the multiclass invariant measure $\mu$ as functions of a product of Bernoulli product measures. In Section \[shad\] we review the proof of the invariance of $\pi$ (or $\mu$) for the coupled (respectively, multiclass) HAD process; at the end of this section we mention a case of the *long range exclusion process* which is equivalent to the HAD process. In Section \[stasep\] we review the proof for the case of the TASEP. In Section \[sdynamics\] we give some examples of other dynamics for which the associated multiclass processes have the family of measures $\mu$ as invariant distribution, including certain “sequential” TASEPs defined in discrete time. We also mention various related cases for which $\mu$ is *not* invariant. Finally, in Section \[sburke\], we note a multiclass generalization of *Burke’s theorem*. The measures $\mu$ constitute *fixed point arrival processes* for a multiclass priority $./M/1$ queue, in the sense that the law of the output process of the queue is the same as the law of the input. This property can be deduced from the invariance of $\mu$ and the tandem queue construction used in the proof (although more direct proofs are also available; see [@MarPra]).
In summary, our main aims in this paper are as follows: (i) to review the results of [@FM-tasep] and [@FM-had] describing invariant measures of multiclass processes; (ii) to illustrate the application of the results and methods to various different particle systems; (iii) to describe an approach via *dual points* which adapts well to various different processes and which differs, for example, from the more specific arguments used in [@FM-tasep] for the TASEP case, and (iv) to emphasize the correspondence between the multiclass process with values in $\cY_n$ and the coupled process with values in $\Xnup$.
Multiclass invariant measures {#sim}
=============================
In this section we will construct a family of measures on $\Xnup$, which we will later show to be invariant for the coupled HAD and TASEP processes. For given particle densities $0<\rho^1<\dots<\rho^n<1$, we will construct a measure $\pi=\pi^{(n)}_{\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n}$ on $\Xnup$ whose $k$th marginal will have distribution $\nu^{\rho^k}$, Bernoulli product measure of density $\rho^k$ (that is, the measure under which each site is occupied independently with probability $\rho^k$).
Let $\eta$ have distribution $\pi$, and write $\xi=R\eta\in\cY_n$ for the configuration obtained from the map defined at . Since $\pi$ is invariant for the coupled processes, the distribution $\mu=R\pi$ of $\xi$ will be invariant for the corresponding multiclass processes.
The invariant measure $\pi$ on $\Xnup$ is constructed starting from product measure $\nu=\nu^{\rho^1}\times\dots\times\nu^{\rho^n}$ on $\cX^n$. Let $\alpha=(\alpha^1,\dots,\alpha^n)\in\cX^n$ be distributed according to this product measure $\nu$. We will interpret the particles of $\alpha$ as events in a system of queues in tandem in discrete time; the sites of $\ZZ$ now correspond to times in the queueing system.
Construction of the coupled invariant measure $\pi$ {#two}
---------------------------------------------------
Consider a queueing server in discrete time, governed by $\alpha^1$ and $\alpha^2$ in the following way. The particles of $\alpha^1$ represent times at which a customer arrives at the queue, and the particles of $\alpha^2$ represent potential service times (that is, times at which a customer can depart from the system, if any are present). At time $i$, the queue length increases by 1 if $\alpha^1(i)=1$ and $\alpha^2(i)=0$; it stays the same if $\alpha^1(i)=\alpha^2(i)$; and it decreases by 1 if $\alpha^1(i)=0$ and $\alpha^2(i)=1$, unless it was already 0 in which case it remains 0. Then if $Z(j)$ is the queue length just after time $j$, one has $$\label{a20}
Z(j) = (Z(j-1) + \alpha^1(j) - \alpha^2(j))^+ \,,\quad j\in\Z.$$ Since $\alpha^1$ and $\alpha^2$ are distributed as independent Bernoulli product measures, with densities $\rho^1$ and $\rho^2$ respectively, and $\rho^1<\rho^2$, the queue-length process $Z$ is a positive recurrent Markov chain (in fact, its stationary distribution is geometric with parameter $\rho^1/\rho^2$), and there is an essentially unique way to construct a stationary process $Z$ as a function of the input $\alpha$, namely by $$\label{Zdef}
Z(j)=\sup_{r\leq j}
\left(
\sum_{i=r}^j
\left[\alpha^1(i)-\alpha^2(i)\right]
\right)_+ .$$ The evolution of $Z(j)$ is illustrated in Figure \[f5\].
It can be seen that if an arrival and a potential service occur at the same time, a customer may spend no time in the system; this is the case of the last customer to arrive. coupled configuration is
The configuration $D=D(\alpha^1,\alpha^2)$, representing the departure times from the queue, is then defined by $$\label{Ddef}
D(j)=
\begin{cases}
1&\text{if } \alpha^2(j)=1 \text{ and } Z(j-1)+\alpha^1(j)>0
\\
0&\text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}$$
The interpretation is that $D(j)=1$ if a customer departs from the queue at time $j$. Allowing the value $\infty$ in , this definition of the operator $D:\cX^2\mapsto\cX$ makes sense for any $\alpha^1$ and $\alpha^2$, but in fact we will only use it in cases where $\alpha^1$ and $\alpha^2$ have independent Bernoulli product measures of densities $\rho^1$ and $\rho^2$ with $\rho^1<\rho^2$. Then the queueing process is stable (since the rate of arrivals is lower than the rate of services). In queueing theory terminology the queue is called a *discrete-time $M/M/1$ queue* (where “1” indicates a single-server queue and “$M$” stands for *memoryless*, indicating that the arrival and service processes each have product measure).
We note the following useful properties of the operator $D$. The first two follow immediately from and , while the third is Burke’s Theorem for a discrete-time $M/M/1$ queue [@HsuBurke]:
\[Dthings\] $ $
- $D(\alpha^1,\alpha^2)\leq \alpha^2$.
- If $\tilde{\alpha}^1\leq \alpha^1$ then $D(\tilde{\alpha}^1,\alpha^2)\leq D(\alpha^1,\alpha^2)$.
- If $\alpha^1$ and $\alpha^2$ have independent Bernoulli product measures of densities $\rho^1$ and $\rho^2$ with $\rho^1<\rho^2$, then $D(\alpha^1,\alpha^2)$ also has Bernoulli product measure with density $\rho^1$.
We now define a sequence of operators $D^{(n)}:\cX^n\mapsto\cX$ as follows. Let $D^{(1)}(\alpha^1)=\alpha^1$, and then recursively for $n\geq2$, let $$\label{Dndef}
D^{(n)}(\alpha^1,\alpha^2,\dots,\alpha^n)=
D\left(
D^{(n-1)}(\alpha^1,\dots,\alpha^{n-1}),\alpha^n
\right).$$ The configuration $D^{(n)}(\alpha^1,\alpha^2,\dots,\alpha^n)$ represents the departure process from a system of $(n-1)$ queues in tandem. The arrival process to the first queue is $\alpha^1$. The service process of the $k$th queue is $\alpha^{k+1}$, for $k=1,\dots,n-1$. Finally, for $k=2,\dots,n-1$, the arrival process to the $k$th queue is given by the departure process of the $(k-1)$st queue. This is known as a system of $./M/1$ queues in tandem.
Note $D^{(2)}(\alpha^1,\alpha^2)=D(\alpha^1,\alpha^2)$. By applying Proposition \[Dthings\] repeatedly, we obtain the following properties of $D^{(n)}$:
\[Dnthings\] $ $
- $D^{(n)}(\alpha^1,\dots,\alpha^n)
\leq
D^{(n-1)}(\alpha^2,\dots,\alpha^n)
\leq
\dots
\leq
\alpha^n$.
- If $\alpha^1,\dots,\alpha^n$ have independent Bernoulli product measures of densities\
$\rho^1<\dots<\rho^n$, then $D^{(n)}(\alpha^1,\dots,\alpha^n)$ also has Bernoulli product measure with density $\rho^1$.
Now define the configuration $\eta=(\eta^1,\dots,\eta^n)$ by $$\label{Tdef}
\eta^k=D^{(n-k+1)}(\alpha^k,\alpha^{k+1},\dots,\alpha^n).$$ From Proposition \[Dnthings\] we have that
- $\eta\in\Xnup$ (that is, $\eta^k\leq\eta^{k+1}$ for all $k=1,\dots,n-1$);
- for each $k$, $\eta^k$ has marginal distribution $\nu^{\rho^k}$.
We then define the map $T:\cX^n\mapsto\Xnup$ by $T\alpha=\eta$. The desired distribution $\pi$ on $\Xnup$ is the induced distribution of $\eta$ (that is, $\pi=T\nu$).
Construction of the multiclass measure $\mu$
--------------------------------------------
Let $\eta$ have the distribution $\pi$ constructed above, which we will show to be invariant for the coupled HAD and TASEP processes. Let $\xi=R\eta$, where $R$ is the map defined at . Then $\mu=R\pi$, the distribution of $\xi$, will be invariant for the multiclass HAD and TASEP processes.
This multiclass invariant measure can also be described directly via a tandem queueing system with multiclass queues. (This direct construction described below is not necessary to understand the proofs of invariance in later sections, which are written in terms of the construction of $\pi$ given in the previous section).
As before, the system will now contain $n-1$ queues. The arrivals to the first queue are again the particles of $\alpha^1$. For $k=2,\dots,n-1$, the arrivals to the $k$th queue correspond to the services of the $(k-1)$st queue, and are given by the particles of $\alpha^k$. These are partitioned into $k-1$ different classes; these classes will be served by the $k$th queue according to a *priority policy*, under which lower-numbered classes are served ahead of higher-numbered classes. A class $r$ customer departing from queue $k-1$ becomes a class $r$ customer arriving at queue $k$; an unused service at queue $k-1$ becomes a class $k$ customer arriving at queue $k$. Finally, the services of the $(n-1)$st queue are given by the particles of $\alpha^n$, and will be assigned $n$ different classes; this will yield the $n$-type multiclass configuration desired, distributed according to $\mu$.
The partition of the particles of $\alpha^k$ into $k$ classes is written using configurations $\beta_1^k,\dots,\beta_k^k$ such that $\beta_1^k+\dots+\beta_k^k=\alpha^k$. The configuration $\beta_r^k$ represents the $\alpha^k$-particles of class $r$, for $r=1,2,\dots k$.
Of course $\beta^1_1=\alpha^1$. Then for $2\leq k\leq n$, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\beta_1^k&=D(\beta_1^{k-1}, \alpha^k);
\\
\beta_r^k&=D(\beta_r^{k-1}, \alpha^k-\beta_1^k-\dots-\beta_{r-1}^k)
\,\,\text{ for } 1<r<k;
\\
\beta_k^k&=\alpha^k-D(\alpha^{k-1}, \alpha^{k}).\end{aligned}$$
When a customer departs from queue $k$ (that is, when an $\alpha^k$-service occurs and there is at least one customer present), the customer which departs is the lowest-numbered one present (including one which may just have arrived). From the equations above for the $\beta_r^k$, this may be understood as follows: the $r$th-class customers arriving at queue $k$ experience a service process which corresponds to $\alpha^k$ but with the service times used by customers of classes $1,\dots,r-1$ removed.
Now the multiclass configuration $\xi$ is derived from the $n$th line in the natural way; for $k=1,2,\dots,n$, let $\xi(j)=k$ if $\beta_k^n(j)=1$; otherwise (i.e. if $\alpha^n(j)=0$) let $\xi(j)=n+1$. Call $$\xi=M\alpha \in\cY_n=\{1,\dots,n+1\}^\Z$$ the resulting multiclass configuration.
The construction is most easily understood from a picture; see Figure \[multiclass\] for an example with $n=3$.
The relations between the multiclass configuration $\xi$, the multi-line configuration $\alpha$ and the ordered (or coupled) configuration $\eta=T\alpha$ is given by $$\label{b2}
\xi=R\eta=R(T\alpha)=M\alpha.$$ This correspondence is illustrated in Figure \[order\]. To establish formally this equivalence between the construction of the function $M$ here and the construction of the function $T$ in the previous section, one can check by induction that for any $1\leq r\leq k\leq n$, $$\beta_1^k+\beta_2^k+\dots+\beta_r^k=
D^{(k-r+1)}(\alpha^r,\dots,\alpha^k).$$
Define $\mu=M\nu=RT\nu$. This is the distribution of $\xi=M\alpha$ when $\alpha$ consists of $n$ independent configurations with Bernoulli product distributions of parameters $0<\rho^1<\dots<\rho^n<1$.
The case $n=2$
--------------
We give a few words about the constructions above in the case $n=2$. We now have a single queue with arrival process $\alpha^1$ and service process $\alpha^2$ (that is, a single $M/M/1$ queue). The particles of $\eta^2$ are simply the particles of $\alpha^2$, that is, the potential service times. The particles of $\eta^1$ are the subset of those times where a departure actually occurs, namely the particles of $D(\alpha^1,\alpha^2)$. The *discrepancies* between the two configurations $\eta^1$ and $\eta^2$ correspond to second-class particles in the two-class interpretation; that is, to sites $j$ where $\xi(j)=2$. These correspond to *unused services* in the queue.
This construction was described by Angel [@Angeltasep] for the invariant measure of the two-class TASEP. The queueing interpretation can be found in Ferrari and Martin [@FM-tasep]. The measure so obtained has been first computed by Derrida, Janowsky, Lebowitz and Speer [@DJLStasep] and then described in other ways by [@FFKtasep; @Speertasep; @DucSch] for the two-class TASEP.
Discrete HAD {#shad}
============
The discrete-space Hammersley-Aldous-Diaconis process is a continuous-time Markov process taking values in a subset of $\cX$. At rate one each site $j$ calls the closest particle to the left of $j$ (including $j$) making it jump to $j$. The generator of the process is $$\label{a1}
L_Hf(\eta) = \sum_{j\in\Z} [f(A_j\eta) - f(\eta)]$$ where, writing $i= i(\eta,j)=\max\{k\le j:\, \eta(k) = 1\}$ for the closest occupied site of $\eta$ to the left of $j$, $$\label{a2}
A_j\eta(k) =
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\eta(k) &\hbox{ if } k\neq i,j %\hbox{ or } k=i=j
\\
1&\hbox{ if } k=j\\
0&\hbox{ if } k=i \text{ and } i<j
\end{array}\right.$$
#### **Harris graphical construction**
To construct the process we attach to each site an independent Poisson process of rate 1; these processes form a rate-1 Poisson process on $\R\times\Z$. Bells ring at the points (or space-time events) of this process, which are represented by \* in Figure \[f2\]. The space of point configurations is called $\Omega$ and single point configurations are called $\omega$. When a bell rings at $j$ (that is, at a time $s$ such that $(j,s)\in\omega$), the closest particle to the left jumps to $j$. A possible point configuration and the resulting trajectory are illustrated in Figure \[f2\].
Such a construction is easily seen to be well-defined for the corresponding process in a finite region (since there are finitely many points of $\omega$ in any finite time-interval). To define the process on all of $\ZZ$, we need to exclude the possibility of particles escaping immediately to $+\infty$, and should restrict to the state space $$\tcX=\left\{
\eta\in\cX:
\lim_{r\to\infty}
r^{-1/2}\sum_{j=1}^r\eta(j)=\infty
\right\}.$$ For details, see Seppäläinen [@Seppalainen96], where the analogous construction for the continuous-space HAD is carried out.
If one calls $\omega$ a realization of the points, then the configuration at time $t$ of the process is a function called $\phi$ of $\omega$ and the initial configuration $\eta_0$: $$\label{a4}
(t,\omega,\eta_0)\mapsto\phi(t,\omega,\eta_0)$$.
For given $\eta_0$ and $\omega$, the process $(\eta_t,t\geq0)$ defined by $\eta_t=\phi(t,\omega,\eta_0)$ is called the HAD process *governed by $\omega$ with initial condition $\eta_0$*. In fact one has $$\label{st}
\eta_t=\phi(t-s,\omega,\eta_s)$$ for all $0\leq s<t<\infty$.
The invariant measures of the HAD process are the Bernoulli product measures $\nu^\rho$ with density $\rho\in(0,1]$ (and mixtures of them).
Using the Kolmogorov extension theorem, we can dispense with the initial condition and construct jointly the Poisson points $\omega$ and an evolution $(\eta_t, t\in \RR)$ such that, for all $t$, the marginal distribution of $\eta_t$ is $\nu^\rho$, and which satisfies for all $-\infty<s<t<\infty$. We again say that $(\eta_t,t\in\RR)$ is governed by $\omega$. In fact, it turns out that the construction of such a bi-infinite trajectory is essentially unique, as soon as the particle density $\rho$ is fixed:
\[uniqpropos\] Let $\rho\in(0,1)$. Then there exists an essentially unique function $H_\rho$ mapping elements $\omega$ of $\Omega$ to trajectories $(\eta_t,t\in\R)$ such that:
- The induced law of $(\eta_t,t\in\R)=H_\rho(\omega)$ is stationary in time.
- The marginal law of $\eta_t$ for each $t$ is space-ergodic with particle density $\rho$.
- With probability 1, $(\eta_t,t\in\R)$ is a HAD evolution governed by $\omega$.
(Here “essentially unique” means that if $H'_\rho$ is another function satisfying the three conditions, then $H_\rho(\omega)=H'_\rho(\omega)$ with probability 1). Then in fact the marginal law of $\eta_t$ for each $t$ is $\nu^\rho$.
Proposition \[uniqpropos\] can be proved following the approach of Ekhaus and Gray [@eg94]; see Mountford and Prabhakar [@mp95] and our proof for the continuous-space HAD in [@FM-had]. One might conjecture that a stronger statement holds: for almost all $\omega$, there exists a unique HAD trajectory $(\eta_t,t\in\R)$ governed by $\omega$ such that, for all $t$, the configuration $\eta_t$ has particle density $\rho$.
#### **Coupling**
Different initial configurations $\eta^1_0,\dots,\eta^n_0$ with the same Poisson bells $\omega$ produce a joint process whose marginals are the HAD process with those initial configurations: $$\eta^k_t = \phi(t,\omega,\eta^k_0 )$$
Hence for an initial condition $\eta_0=(\eta^1_0,\dots,\eta^n_0)\in\tcX^n$, we can describe the coupled HAD process by $$\eta_t=\phi^{(n)}(t,\omega,\eta_0),$$ where the function $\phi^{(n)}:\RR\times\Omega\times\tcX^n\mapsto\tcX^n$ is defined by $$(\phi^{(n)}(t,\omega,\eta))^k=\phi(t,\omega,\eta^k).$$ The generator of the coupled process is given by $$\label{b6}
L_Cf(\eta) = \sum_{j\in\Z} [f(C_j\eta) - f(\eta)]$$ where $$\label{p98}
C_j\eta= (A_j\eta^1,\dots,A_j\eta^n).$$ for $A_j$ defined in .
If the initial configurations are ordered, that is, $\eta^k_0(i)\le
\eta^{k +1}_0(i)$, for all $i$, then $\eta^k_t\le\eta^{k+1}_t$ for all $t$. Put another way, we can regard the coupled process as a process taking values in the space $\Xnup$ of ordered configurations. In Figure \[f4\] we illustrate the jumps produced by a bell at site $j$ in such a case. The closest particle to the left of $j$ in each marginal jumps to $j$; the jumps are simultaneous.
#### **Multiclass process**
From now on we indeed regard the coupled process as a process taking values in the space $\Xnup$ of ordered configurations. Now we can regard as first-class particles the sites occupied in all marginals, second-class particles those occupied from the second marginal but not the first, and so on.
The *multiclass process* is defined in terms of the coupled process by $\xi_t:=R\eta_t$. Since $R$ is a bijection from $\Xnup$ to $\cY_n$. this is also a Markov process (whose behavior is not completely intuitive; compare for example with the more natural behavior of the multiclass TASEP process considered in Section \[stasep\]). The generator of the multiclass process can be written in terms of the generator of the coupled process by $L_{MC}=RL_CR^{-1}$, and the operator $R$ commutes with the dynamics of the coupled and multiclass processes. Figure \[f4\] illustrates the correspondence between the two processes.
Invariance of $\mu$
-------------------
\[t1\] Let $\alpha=(\alpha^1,\dots,\alpha^n)$ have law $\nu$, product of Bernoulli product measures with densities $\rho^1<\dots<\rho^n$. Then $\pi$, the law of $T\alpha$, is invariant for the coupled HAD process $(\eta_t)$ and $\mu$, the law of $M\alpha$, is invariant for the multiclass HAD process $(\xi_t)$.
#### **Sketch of proof**
From , the statements are equivalent. Hence it suffices to show that the law of $\eta=T\alpha$ is invariant for the coupled process. We do it in two steps. First introduce new dynamics $\alpha_t =
(\alpha^1_t,\dots,\alpha^n_t)$ called the *multi-line process*, and then show:
1\) The product measure $\nu$ is invariant for the multi-line process $\alpha_t$.
2\) $T\alpha_t$ is the coupled process $\eta_t$.
These statements are Propositions \[w2\] and \[w1\] below.
In fact one can go on to show that this family of measures $\mu$, indexed by the densities $\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n$, are the *only* extremal invariant measures for the multiclass process. The proof of such a result follows a coupling argument of Ekhaus and Gray [@eg94] as implemented by Mountford and Prabakhar [@mp95]. See [@FM-had] for the argument for the continuous-space HAD process.
Dual points
-----------
Given a particle density $\rho\in(0,1)$ and a realisation of the Poisson marks $\omega$, Proposition \[uniqpropos\] provides a stationary HAD trajectory $(\eta_t)=H_\rho(\omega)$ governed by $\omega$ with time-marginal $\nu^\rho$.
We define another set of marks $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$, called *dual points*. These are given by the positions of the particles just before jumps: $$\label{dp1}
\Delta_\rho(\omega) := \{(i(\eta_{t-},j),t):\, (j,t)\in\omega\}$$ where $i(\eta,j)$ is the position of the closest $\eta$ particle to the left of $j$, as defined after . This includes “jumps” of null size, when $i=j$.
The points $\omega$ and the dual points $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$ are illustrated in Figure \[ml1b\]. Since the dual points are located in the space-time positions just vacated by particles, they govern the time-reversal of the trajectory. More precisely: the time-reversed and space-reversed trajectory is a HAD trajectory governed by (the time- and space-reversal of) $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$. In visual terms: turning Figure \[ml1b\] upside-down exchanges the roles of the stars and the circles.
The law of the dual points $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$ is then also Poisson, just as the law of $\omega$ itself. This is the first part of the following result.
\[dp\] Let $\omega$ be a Poisson process in $\R\times\Z$, and let $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$ be the dual points for the HAD trajectory with particle density $\rho$ governed by $\omega$. Then $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$ is also a Poisson process in $\R\times\Z$. Furthermore $\{(x,s)\in \Delta_\rho(\omega):\, s<t\}$, the set of dual points earlier than $t$, is independent of the configuration $\eta_t$.
#### **Proof**
The proof is in the spirit of Reich’s [@Reich] proof of Burke’s theorem, used by Cator and Groeneboom [@CG] for the continuous space HAD. The idea is to consider the time-reversal of the process, and goes as follows. As commented above, the dual points govern the reverse process. By doing a generator calculation (or verifying an equivalent detailed-balance property) one obtains that the time-reversal of the equilibrium HAD process with density $\rho$ is again an equilibrium HAD process with density $\rho$, but now with jumps to the left. (Put another way, the time-reversal of the process has the same law as the space-reversal). Now we would like to conclude that that the dual points therefore must also be Poisson. However, in the discrete-space case, the problem is that the trajectory of the HAD process does not identify all the points which govern it; it is also necessary to keep track of the points producing null jumps, which are not visible from the trajectory alone. To overcome this, we will add an auxiliary spin-flip process.
Let $\gamma_t\in\cX$ be the process which behaves as follows: when a bell rings at $j$, if there is a $\eta$ particle at $j$, then $\gamma(j)$ flips to $1-\gamma(j)$. The process $(\eta_t,\gamma_t)$ is Markovian and has $\nu^\rho\times\nu^{1/2}$ as invariant measure. Again, the time-reversed process defined by $(\eta^*_t,\gamma^*_t)=(\eta_{-t-},\gamma_{-t-})$ has the same law as the space-reflection of $(\eta_t,\gamma_t)$: the jumps of $\eta^*_t$ go to the left and the law of the spin-flip $\gamma^*_t$ remains the same. On the other hand, given a trajectory of $((\eta_t,\gamma_t),\, t\ge 0)$ one can identify $\omega$ as the space-time points $(j,t)$ such that either an $\eta$ particle arrives at site $j$ at time $t$ or $\gamma$ flips at $j$ at time $t$. The points governing the reverse process are the time reflection of $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$. Since the reverse process has the same law as the space-reflected HAD+spin-flip process, the points governing it must be Poisson.
For any $t$, the dual points $\{(j,s)\in \Delta_\rho(\omega): s<t\}$ are the points governing the evolution of the reverse process on the time interval $(-t,\infty)$ starting at the configuration $(\eta^*_{-t}, \gamma^*_{-t})$, and are independent of this configuration. But this is just the configuration $(\eta_t, \gamma_t)$ so the independence holds as desired.
Multi-line HAD process {#sec:multilineHAD}
----------------------
We now define a *multi-line* process $\alpha_t=(\alpha^1_t,\dots,\alpha^n_t)$ taking values in $\cX^n$. It is again governed by a Poisson process $\omega$ on $\R\times\Z$.
Let $\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n\in(0,1)$. Let $\omega^n=\omega$, and, recursively for $k=n-1,\dots,1$, let $\omega^k=\Delta_{\rho^{k+1}}(\omega^{k+1})$. From Proposition \[dp\], each $\omega^k$ is a Poisson process of rate 1 on $\R\times\Z$.
Now let the “$k$th line” of the process, $(\alpha_t^k,t\in\RR)$, be $H_{\rho^k}(\omega^k)$, the HAD trajectory with density $\rho^k$ governed by the points $\omega^k$, as provided by Proposition \[uniqpropos\]. Thus each line of the process is a HAD trajectory governed by the dual points produced from the line below.
Note also that, directly from the definition, $(\alpha^1_t,\dots,\alpha^{n-1}_t)$ is a multi-line process with densities $\rho^1,\dots,\rho^{n-1}$ and governed by $\omega^{n-1}$.
\[w2\] The multi-line HAD process $(\alpha_t,t\in\RR)$ is stationary, and the distribution of $\alpha_t$ for each $t$ is the product measure $\nu=\nu^{\rho^1}\times\dots\times\nu^{\rho^n}$.
#### **Proof**
By construction, the process is stationary and the marginal distribution of $\alpha_t^k$ is $\nu^{\rho^k}$ for any $k$ and $t$. So we need to show that, for any fixed $t$, the configurations $\alpha_t^1,\alpha_t^2,\dots,\alpha_t^n$ are independent.
Let $2\leq k\leq n$. By Proposition \[dp\], the configuration $\alpha^k_t$ is independent of the set of dual points $(x,s)$ in $\Delta_{\rho^k}(\omega^k)$ such that $s<t$.
But the process $(\alpha^{k-1}_s, s\leq t)$ can be constructed as a function of precisely this set of dual points; and then, recursively, also the processes $(\alpha^{j}_s, s\leq t)$ for each $1\leq j\leq k$.
In particular, we can construct $\alpha^{k-1}_t, \alpha^{k-2}_t,
\dots, \alpha^{1}_t$ from the given set of dual points.
Thus for all $i$, the configuration $\alpha^k_t$ is independent of $\alpha^{k-1}_t, \alpha^{k-2}_t,
\dots, \alpha^{1}_t$. Hence all the $\alpha^k_t$ are independent as desired.
*Remark:* The dynamics of the multi-line process governed by $\omega$ can be explained in a more constructive (or “local”) way. Each bell $(j,s)\in\omega=\omega^n$ causes an $\alpha^n$ particle to jump to $j$, from $j^n$ say. This creates a bell $(j^{n},s)$ in $\omega^{n-1}$, which summons an $\alpha^{n-1}$ particle to $j^{n}$ from $j^{n-1}$, causing a bell $(j^{n-1},s)$ in $\omega^{n-2}$ and so on.
The time-reversal of this process, with respect to the equilibrium measure $\nu$, can be described in the same way but with left and right exchanged and also top and bottom exchanged. When a Poisson bell rings at site $i$, the closest $\alpha^1$ particle to the right of $i$ (including $i$) located at a site called $i^1$ jumps to $i$. Then a bell rings at site $i^1$ for $\alpha^2$, and so on. See Figure \[rmp1\].
An alternative proof to Proposition \[w2\] is to show directly that the process so defined is the reverse process with respect to the product measure. We followed such a strategy for the case of the TASEP in [@FM-tasep].
Note also that in the definition of the multi-line process, and in Proposition \[w2\], we don’t require the densities $\rho^k$ to be increasing.
Now we wish to show that the image of the multi-line process under the map $T$ is the coupled process.
\[w1\] Let $0<\rho^1<\dots<\rho^n<1$, and let $(\alpha_t,t\in\RR)$ be the multiline HAD trajectory governed by $\omega$ with densities $\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n$. Let $\eta_t=T\alpha_t\in\Xnup$. Then $(\eta^k_t, t\in\RR)$ is the HAD trajectory governed by $\omega$, with particle density $\rho^k$.
#### **Sketch of Proof of Proposition \[w1\]**
From the definition of $T$, we have $$\label{Tcorres}
\eta_t^k=D^{(n-k+1)}\left(\alpha^k_t,\dots,\alpha^n_t\right).$$ From Proposition \[Dnthings\], we know that $\eta_t^k$ has distribution $\nu^{\rho^k}$. So we simply need to show that the RHS of is a HAD trajectory governed by $\omega$.
Since $(\alpha^k,\dots,\alpha^n)$ is itself just a multi-line process (with $n-k+1$ lines) governed by $\omega$, it is enough to show that, for any $n$, $D^{(n)}(\alpha^1_t,\dots,\alpha^n_t)$ is a HAD trajectory governed by $\omega$.
We argue by induction. From the definitions of $D^{(n)}$ and of the multi-line process, the induction step is simple, using $$D^{(n)}(\alpha^1_t,\dots,\alpha^n_t)=
D^{(2)}\left(
D^{(n-1)}(\alpha^1_t,\dots,\alpha^{n-1}_t), \alpha^n_t
\right)$$ and the fact that $(\alpha_t^1,\dots,\alpha_t^{n-1})$ is an $(n-1)$-line multiline process governed by $\omega^{n-1}$, as observed just before Proposition \[w2\].
The base case $n=2$ remains. We use the local description of the multi-line (in fact, two-line) process. Let $(\alpha^1_t,\alpha^2_t)$ be the two-line process governed by $\omega$. Each mark $(x,s)$ in $\omega=\omega^2$ produces a jump in the process $\alpha^2$ at time $s$, and a corresponding dual point $(x',s)$ which becomes a mark in $\omega^1$. This mark in $\omega^1$ produces a jump in the process $\alpha^1$ at time $s$. One needs to verify that the combination of the two jumps, in $\alpha^1$ and $\alpha^2$, leads to a single HAD jump in the process $D(\alpha^1,\alpha^2)$, equivalent to a mark at $x$. In the language used at , we need to show $D(A_{j'}\alpha^1,A_j\alpha^2)=A_j D(\alpha^1,\alpha^2)$. This is not difficult to do by checking a small number of cases. Arguing jump by jump in this way, one obtains that $D(\alpha^1_t,\alpha^2_t)$ is a HAD process governed by $\omega$ as required. We give a proof along these lines for the continuous-space case in [@FM-had], and the same argument works here.
#### **The long range exclusion process**
The *long range exclusion process* (LREP) was introduced by Spitzer [@spitzer]. At rate one, a particle located at site $x$ jumps to the first empty site found by a Markov chain with transition jumps $p(.,.)$ starting at $x$. Consider empty sites of the HAD process as particles and particles as empty sites. The resulting process $\teta_t$ given by $\teta_t(x) = 1-\eta_t(x)$ is the LREP with transition matrix $p(x,x-1) =1$ (Guiol [@Guiol]). The effect of a bell at $j$ is represented by the map $\tA_j\teta(i) := 1-A_j\eta(i)$. In this simple case, the site is just the first empty place to the left. The multiclass LREP $(\txi_t)$ has the same distribution as the multiclass HAD process with classes reversed. The coupled LREP is defined by $\teta^k_t(x) = 1-\eta^{n+1-k}_t(x)$, where $\eta_t=(\eta^1_t,\dots,\eta^n_t)$ is the coupled HAD. The effect of the bell at $j$ in the coupled LREP is given by the map $\tC_j\teta=(\tA_j\teta^1,\dots,\tA_j\teta^n)$. The multiclass LREP is given by $R\teta = \txi$. In the multiclass LREP when a bell rings at $j$, the particle at $j$ jumps to the closest particle to the left of it with higher class or empty; simultaneously this particle jumps to the closest site to its left with higher class or empty, and so on. The jumps finish when a particle jumps to an empty site. See Figure \[lrep\].
TASEP {#stasep}
=====
The totally asymmetric simple exclusion process, or TASEP, is a continuous-time Markov process in $\cX$ with the following dynamics. At rate 1 if there is a particle at site $i$, it jumps one unit to the left (if the site to the left is empty). We use here the same notations as in the case of the HAD process to describe the analogous quantities for the TASEP.
The generator of the process is given by $$\label{a40}
Lf(\eta) = \sum_j [f(A_j\eta)-f(\eta)]$$ where here (differently from the HAD definition ) $$\label{a41}
(A_j\eta)(k) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\eta(k) &\hbox{ if } k\notin\{ j-1,j\} \\
\max\{\eta(j-1), \eta(j)\} &\hbox{ if } k=j-1\\
\min\{\eta(j-1), \eta(j)\} &\hbox{ if } k=j.\\
\end{array}\right.$$ For the graphical construction of the process we will use a system of Poisson points or marks, this time on $\omega$ on $\R\times(\Z+\frac12 )$ (so that the bells now ring *between* sites). When a bell rings at site $x$, and there is a particle at $x+\frac12 $ and a hole at $x-\frac12 $, the contents at sites $x+\frac12 $ and $x-\frac12 $ are “interchanged”.
The construction induces again a function $\phi$ of $\omega$ and the initial configuration $\eta_0$: $$\label{aa4}
(t,\omega,\eta)\mapsto\phi(t,\omega,\eta_0)$$ and $\eta_t = \phi(t,\cdot,\eta_0)$ is the TASEP with initial configuration $\eta_0$. We say that the points $\omega$ *govern* the process $\eta_t$. As at one has $$\label{st2}
\eta_t=\phi(t-s,\omega,\eta_s)$$ for all $0\leq s<t<\infty$.
The Bernoulli product measures $\nu^\rho$ (and mixtures of them) are again invariant for the TASEP. (In addition, certain *blocking measures* are also invariant; these measures are concentrated on a single configuration with only particles to the left of some site and only holes to its right).
If a trajectory $(\eta_t,t\in\RR)$ satisfies for all $-\infty<s<t<\infty$ then we again say that it is governed by $\omega$. The following result is analogous to Proposition \[uniqpropos\]:
\[TASEPuniqpropos\] Let $\rho\in(0,1)$. Then there exists an essentially unique function $H_\rho$ mapping elements $\omega$ of $\Omega$ to trajectories $(\eta_t,t\in\R)$ such that:
- The induced law of $(\eta_t,t\in\R)=H_\rho(\omega)$ is stationary in time.
- The marginal law of $\eta_t$ for each $t$ is space-ergodic with particle density $\rho$.
- With probability 1, $(\eta_t,t\in\R)$ is a TASEP evolution governed by $\omega$.
Then in fact the marginal law of $\eta_t$ for each $t$ is $\nu^\rho$.
Coupled and multiclass TASEP
----------------------------
The basic coupling between $n$ TASEPs with initial configurations $\eta=\eta^1_0,\dots,\eta^n_0$ is given by $\eta_t=(\eta^1_t,\dots,\eta^n_t)=\phi^{(n)}(t,\omega,\eta_0)$, where $\phi^{(n)}(t,\omega,\eta_0)^k=\phi(t,\omega,\eta^k_0)$. See figure \[tasep-coupling\], where the effects of three possible Poisson bells are indicated. If $\eta_0^1\leq\dots\leq\eta_0^n$, then this ordering is preserved by the coupling. Thus we obtain a coupled process $(\eta_t)$, governed by $\omega$, taking values in $\Xnup$.
The equivalent multiclass process $(\xi_t)$ with values in $\cY_n$ is then obtained by putting $\xi_t=R\eta_t$. The evolution of this multiclass TASEP is more intuitive than in the case of the HAD process. At the ring of the bell at $x$, particles of lower class at site $x+\frac12 $ jump over particles of higher class at $x-\frac12 $, exchanging places. See four examples of jumps in Figure \[mct\].
\[t2\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[t1\], $\pi$, the distribution of $\eta=T\alpha$ is invariant for the coupled TASEP $(\eta_t)$, and $\mu$, the law of $M\alpha$, is invariant for the multiclass TASEP $(\xi_t)$.
The strategy to prove this theorem is the same as for Theorem \[t1\]. The differences come in the definitions of dual points and of the multi-line process. The key steps are given by Proposition \[ww2\] and Proposition \[ww1\], which play the roles played by Propositions \[w2\] and \[w1\] in the case of the HAD process.
Dual points in TASEP
--------------------
We now define the *dual points* for the case of TASEP. Let the density $\rho$ be fixed and let $\omega$ be a Poisson process on $\R\times(\Z+\frac12 )$. Let $(\eta_t,t\in\RR)$ be the TASEP trajectory $H_\rho(\omega)$ governed by $\omega$, as provided by Proposition \[TASEPuniqpropos\]. Now define the dual points $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$ by $$\label{c10}
\Delta_\rho(\omega)=
\{
(x,t)\in\omega:\,\eta_{t-}(x+\tfrac12 )=1\}
\cup
\{(x+1,t):\,(x,t)\in\omega \hbox{ and } \eta_{t-}(x+\tfrac12 )=0\}.$$ See Figure \[dpt\].
\[c11\] Let $\omega$ be a Poisson process in $\R\times\Z$, and let $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$ be the dual points for the TASEP trajectory with particle density $\rho$ governed by $\omega$. Then $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$ is also a Poisson process in $\R\times\Z$. Furthermore $\{(x,s)\in \Delta_\rho(\omega):\, s<t\}$, the set of dual points earlier than $t$, is independent of the configuration $\eta_t$.
#### **Proof**
This is a kind of Burke’s theorem like Proposition \[dp\]. Again the TASEP trajectory does not determine the points of $\omega$, so we introduce spin-flip processes to mark the missed points. There are two types of points missed by the trajectory: those space-time points $(x,t)$ such that $\eta_{t-}(x+\frac12 )=0$ and those space-time points $(x,t)$ such that $\eta_{t-}(x+\frac12 )=\eta_{t-}(x-\frac12)=1$. We mark these two types with different spin-flip process. Let $\gamma_t$ be a process taking values in $\cX=\{0,1\}^\Z$ which behaves as follows: when there is an $\omega$ point at $(x,t)$, if there is no $\eta_{t-}$ particle at $x+\frac12 $, then the value of $\gamma$ at $(x+\frac12 ,t)$ flips so that $\gamma_{t}(x+\frac12 )=1-\gamma_{t-}(x+\frac12 )$. Let $\zeta_t$ be a spin-flip process taking values in $\{0,1\}^{\Z+\frac12}$ with the following behavior: when there is an $\omega$ point at $(x,t)$, if both $x-\frac12 $ and $x+\frac12 $ are occupied by $\eta_{t-}$ particles, then the value of $\zeta$ at $(x,t)$ flips so that $\zeta_{t}(x)=1-\zeta_{t-}(x)$. Given the evolution $( (\eta_t,\gamma_t,\zeta_t),\, t\in \R)$, the points $\omega$ can be recovered by $$\label{c15}
\omega = \{(x,t):\, (\eta_{t-}(x+\tfrac12 ),\gamma_{t-}(x+\tfrac12 ),
\zeta_{t-}(x))
\neq (\eta_{t}(x+\tfrac12 )\eta_{t-}(x+\tfrac12 ),\gamma_{t}(x+\tfrac12 ),
\zeta_{t}(x))\}$$ We now proceed as in the proof of Proposition \[dp\]. The process $( (\eta_t,\gamma_t,\zeta_t),\, t\in \R)$ is stationary with time-marginal product measure $\nu^\rho\times\nu^{1/2}\times\nu^{1/2}$. The reverse process with respect to this measure is defined by $(\eta^*_t,\gamma^*_t,\zeta^*_t) =
(\eta_{-t-},\gamma_{-t-},\zeta_{-t-})$. Then the law of this time-reversal is the same as the law of the space-reversal. (In particular, the first coordinate of the reverse process performs a TASEP with jumps to the *right*, while the other two coordinates have the same spin flip distribution as the forward process). The points governing the reverse process are the time-reflection of $\Delta_\rho(\omega)$, which is therefore also a Poisson process on $\R\times(\Z+\frac12 )$. Independence is shown as in Proposition \[dp\].
Multi-line TASEP
----------------
We now define a multi-line TASEP $\alpha_t=(\alpha_t^1,\dots,\alpha_t^n)$ taking values in $\cX^n$ and governed by Poisson points $\omega$ on $\R\times(\Z+\frac12)$. The definition is analogous to that of the multi-line HAD in Section \[sec:multilineHAD\].
Let $\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n\in(0,1)$. Let $\omega^n=\omega$, and, recursively for $k=n-1,\dots,1$, let $\omega^k=\Delta_{\rho^{k+1}}(\omega^{k+1})$. Now let the $k$th line of the process, $(\alpha_t^k,t\in\RR)$, be $H_{\rho^k}(\omega^k)$, the TASEP trajectory with density $\rho^k$ governed by the points $\omega^k$, as provided by Proposition \[TASEPuniqpropos\].
Using Proposition \[c11\], an argument analogous to the proof of Proposition \[w2\] now gives the following result:
\[ww2\] The multi-line TASEP $(\alpha_t,t\in\RR)$ is stationary, and the distribution of $\alpha_t$ for each $t$ is the product measure $\nu=\nu^{\rho^1},\dots,\nu^{\rho^n}$.
The proof of Theorem \[t2\] is completed by the following result, analogous to Proposition \[w1\]:
\[ww1\] Let $0<\rho^1<\dots<\rho^n<1$, and let $(\alpha_t,t\in\RR)$ be the multiline TASEP trajectory governed by $\omega$ with densities $\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n$. Let $\eta_t=T\alpha_t\in\Xnup$. Then $(\eta^k_t, t\in\RR)$ is the TASEP trajectory governed by $\omega$, with particle density $\rho^k$.
#### **About the proof of Proposition \[ww1\]**
The induction argument is the same as for Proposition \[w1\]. The case-by-case checking for $n=2$ must now be done for the TASEP dynamics. We have done this in [@FM-tasep].
Other dynamics {#sdynamics}
==============
There are other examples of dynamics on $\cX$ for which the associated multiclass processes also have the family of measures $\mu$ as invariant distributions.
For example, consider the *sequential TASEP*. This is a discrete-time Markov chain with values in $\ZZ$. At each time step, each particle tries to jump left with probability $p$, succeeding if the site to its left is empty. Updates are carried out sequentially from left to right (so for example a particle may jump into a space which is only vacated at the same time-step). Now the governing points $\omega$ have Bernoulli product measure on $\Z\times\Z$ (and the same is true of the dual points, appropriately defined). An analogous method of proof via a multi-line process shows that $\mu$ is invariant for the multiclass process.
The same is true for a form of sequential TASEP with updates from right to left. Now a particle may not jump immediately into a vacated space, but the same particle may jump several times at the same time-step (because of several neighbouring points $(x,t)$, $(x-1,t), \dots$ in the governing configuration $\omega$). In fact this process is dual to the one in the previous paragraph, under exchange of hole and particle and of left and right. The measure $\mu$ is invariant for the multiclass version, and similarly in the case of various discrete-time versions of the HAD process.
However, consider instead the *parallel TASEP*, again in discrete time. All sites are updated simultaneously; now jumps are only allowed at sites containing a particle with a hole to its left before any other update occurred. In particular, jumps at two neighbouring sites cannot occur at the same time-step. In this case, the basic coupling does not even preserve ordering of configurations, so that the multiclass process cannot be defined in the same way. Note also that product measure $\nu^\rho$ is no longer invariant for the parallel TASEP.
Consider also the asymmetric simple exclusion process (ASEP) in continuous time, in which each particle tries to jump left at rate $p$ and right at rate $1-p$. Product measure $\nu^\rho$ is invariant for the process; however, unless $p=1$, the measure $\mu$ is no longer invariant for the multiclass process. A very interesting question is whether the invariant multiclass measures of these more general ASEPs could be constructed using an approach related to the one described here for the TASEP.
Multiclass Burke’s Theorem {#sburke}
==========================
For each $n$ and densities $0<\rho^1<\dots<\rho^n<1$, we have constructed a measure $\mu=\mu^{(n)}_{\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n}$ on $\cY_n=\{1,2,\dots,n+1)^\Z$ which is invariant for the multiclass HAD process and the multiclass TASEP. A configuration from $\mu^{(n)}_{\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n}$ has density $\rho^1$ of first-class particles and density $\rho^k-\rho^{k-1}$ of $k$th class particles, for $k=2,\dots,n$.
Fix $n$ and $\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n$, and let $m<n$. Let $\xi^{(n)}$ be distributed according to $\mu^{(n)}_{\rho^1,\dots,\rho^n}$, and $\xi^{(m)}$ according to $\mu^{(m)}_{\rho^1,\dots,\rho^m}$. Then a nice property of this family of distributions is that $$\label{b1}
\hbox{$\xi^{(m)}$ has the same distribution as $[\xi^{(n)}]^m$},$$ where $[\xi^{(n)}]^m$ is the truncated configuration defined by $$% \label{a21}
[\xi^{(n)}]^m(i) =
\min\left\{
\xi^{(n)}(i),m+1
\right\}.$$ Putting $n=m+1$, we obtain the following statement in the context of the tandem queueing system described in Section \[sim\]: the $m$-class input process to queue $m$ has the same law as the $m$-class departure process from the same queue. Thus the measure $\mu^{(m)}_{\rho^1,\dots,\rho^m}$ is a *fixed point* for a discrete-time $./M/1$ priority queue with $m$ classes (here $./M/1$ denotes a queue whose sequence of potential service times is a Bernoulli process).
This may be called a *multiclass Burke’s theorem*. The original form of Burke’s theorem, in this discrete-time setting, states that a Bernoulli process is a fixed point for a (one-class) $./M/1$ queue; this is the statement specialized to the case $n=2$ and $m=1$ (see e.g. [@Reich], and [@HsuBurke] for the discrete-time case). Property is easy to deduce from results above, using the uniqueness of the invariant measure for the coupled process with given particle densities (see [@FM-had] for the equivalent argument in continuous time). A more direct proof can be found in [@MarPra], using properties of invariance of the law of the departure process from a tandem queueing system under interchange of the order of the queues.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
Thanks to Eric Cator, Sheldon Goldstein and Herbert Spohn for enjoyable discussions.
This paper is partially supported by the Brazil-France Agreement, FAPESP, CNPq and PRONEX. PAF thanks hospitality and support from IHES and Laboratoire de Probabilités of Université de Paris 7. JBM thanks IME-USP and the FAPESP.
[10]{}
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Aldous, D. and Diaconis, P.</span>, (1995) Hammersley’s interacting particle process and longest increasing subsequences. *Probab. Theory Related Fields* **103**, 199–213.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Angel, O.</span>, (2005) The stationary measure of a 2-type totally asymmetric exclusion process. Preprint `math.PR/0501005`.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cator, E. and Groeneboom, P.</span>, (2005) Hammersley’s process with sources and sinks. *Ann. Probab.* **33**, 879–903.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Derrida, B., Janowsky, S. A., Lebowitz, J. L. and Speer, E. R.</span>, (1993) Exact solution of the totally asymmetric simple exclusion process: shock profiles. *J. Statist. Phys.* **73**, 813–842.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Duchi, E. and Schaeffer, G.</span>, (2005) A combinatorial approach to jumping particles. *J. Combin. Theory Ser. A* **110**, 1–29.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ekhaus, M. and Gray, L.</span>, (1994) Convergence to equilibrium and a strong law for the motion of restricted interfaces. Unpublished manuscript.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ferrari, P. A.</span>, (1992) Shock fluctuations in asymmetric simple exclusion. *Probab. Theory Related Fields* **91**, 81–101.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ferrari, P. A.</span>, (1996) Limit theorems for tagged particles. *Markov Process. Related Fields* **2**, 17–40. Disordered systems and statistical physics: rigorous results (Budapest, 1995).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ferrari, P. A., Fontes, L. R. G. and Kohayakawa, Y.</span>, (1994) Invariant measures for a two-species asymmetric process. *J. Statist. Phys.* **76**, 1153–1177.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ferrari, P. A., Kipnis, C. and Saada, E.</span>, (1991) Microscopic structure of travelling waves in the asymmetric simple exclusion process. *Ann. Probab.* **19**, 226–244.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ferrari, P. A. and Martin, J. B.</span>, (2005). The multiclass [H]{}ammersley-[A]{}ldous-[D]{}iaconis process and multiclass queues. In preparation.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ferrari, P. A. and Martin, J. B.</span>, (2005). Stationary distributions of multi-type totally asymmetric exclusion processes. Preprint `math.PR/0501291`. To appear in *Ann. Probab.*
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ferrari, P. L.</span>, (2004) Polynuclear growth on a flat substrate and edge scaling of [GOE]{} eigenvalues. *Comm. Math. Phys.* **252**, 77–109.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Ferrari, P. L. and Pr[ä]{}hofer, M.</span>, (2005). One-dimensional stochastic growth and Gaussian ensembles of random matrices. Preprint `math.PH/0505038`.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Garcia, J. E.</span> Processo de Hammersley. PhD thesis (Portuguese). University of São Paulo. `http://www.ime.usp.br/\tilde{\,\,\,\,}pablo/students/jesus/garcia-tese.pdf`.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Guiol, H.</span>, (2004) About the long range exclusion process. *Markov Process. Related Fields* **10**, 457–476.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hammersley, J. M.</span>, (1972) A few seedlings of research. In *Proceedings of the Sixth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (Univ. California, Berkeley, Calif., 1970/1971), Vol. I: Theory of statistics*, pages 345–394. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, Calif.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Hsu, J. and Burke, P. J.</span>, (1976) Behavior of tandem buffers with geometric input and [M]{}arkovian output. *IEEE Trans. Comm.* **COM-24**, 358–361.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Liggett, T. M.</span>, (1976) Coupling the simple exclusion process. *Ann. Probability* **4**, 339–356.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Liggett, T. M.</span>, (1985) *Interacting Particle Systems*. Springer-Verlag, New York.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Liggett, T. M.</span>, (1999) *Stochastic interacting systems: contact, voter and exclusion processes*, vol. 324 of *Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften \[Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences\]*. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Martin, J. B. and Prabhakar, B.</span>, (2005). Fixed points for multiclass queues via interchangeability. In preparation.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Mountford, T. and Prabhakar, B.</span>, (1995) On the weak convergence of departures from an infinite series of [$\cdot/M/1$]{} queues. *Ann. Appl. Probab.* **5**, 121–127.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pr[ä]{}hofer, M. and Spohn, H.</span>, (2000) Universal distributions for growth processes in $1 + 1$ dimensions and random matrices. *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **84**, 4882–4885.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Pr[ä]{}hofer, M. and Spohn, H.</span>, (2002) Scale invariance of the [PNG]{} droplet and the [A]{}iry process. *J. Statist. Phys.* **108**, 1071–1106.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Reich, E.</span>, (1957) Waiting times when queues are in tandem. *Ann. Math. Statist.* **28**, 768–773.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rost, H.</span>, (1981) Nonequilibrium behaviour of a many particle process: density profile and local equilibria. *Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete* **58**, 41–53.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Sepp[ä]{}l[ä]{}inen, T.</span>, (1996) A microscopic model for the [B]{}urgers equation and longest increasing subsequences. *Electron. J. Probab.* **1**, no. 5, approx. 51 pp. (electronic).
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Speer, E. R.</span>, (1994) The two species asymmetric simple exclusion process. In C. M. M. Fannes and A. Verbeure, eds., *On three levels: micro, meso and macroscopic approaches in physics*, pages 91–102. Plenum, New York.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Spitzer, F.</span>, (1970) Interaction of Markov Processes. *Adv. in Math.* **5**, 246–290.
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Wick, W. D.</span>, (1985) A dynamical phase transition in an infinite particle system. *J. Statist. Phys.* **38**, 1015–1025.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The Photonic Force Microscope (PFM) is an opto-mechanical technique based on an optical trap that can be assumed to probe forces in microscopic systems. This technique has been used to measure forces in the range of pico- and femto-Newton, assessing the mechanical properties of biomolecules as well as of other microscopic systems. For a correct use of the PFM, the force field to measure has to be invariable (homogeneous) on the scale of the Brownian motion of the trapped probe. This condition implicates that the force field must be conservative, excluding the possibility of a rotational component. However, there are cases where these assumptions are not fulfilled Here, we show how to improve the PFM technique in order to be able to deal with these cases. We introduce the theory of this enhanced PFM and we propose a concrete analysis workflow to reconstruct the force field from the experimental time-series of the probe position. Furthermore, we experimentally verify some particularly important cases, namely the case of a conservative or rotational force-field.'
author:
- Giorgio Volpe
- Giovanni Volpe
- Dmitri Petrov
title: 'Brownian motion in a non-homogeneous force field and photonic force microscope'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
A focused optical beam - an optical tweezers - permits one to manipulate a wide range of particles - including atoms, molecules, DNA fragments, living biological cells, and organelles within them - with applications to many areas - such as molecular biophysics, genetic manipulation, micro-assembly, and micro-machines [@Ashkin1970; @Ashkin1986; @Neuman2004]. One of the most exciting applications has been the possibility to investigate and engineer the mechanical properties of microscopic systems - using, for example, optical traps as force transducers for mechanical measurements in biological systems [@Ashkin1990; @Block1990; @Svoboda1993; @Kuo1993; @Finer1994].
In the early 90s various kinds of scanning probe microscopy were already established. The Scanning Tunneling Microscope (STM) [@Binnig1982] permits one to resolve at the atomic level crystallographic structures [@Binnig1983] and organic molecules [@Smith1990]. The Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) [@Binnig1986] has been successfully employed to study biological and nano-fabricated structures, overcoming the diffraction limit of optical microscopes. Furthermore, they developed from pure imaging tools into more general manipulation and measuring tools on the level of single atoms or molecules. However, all these techniques required a macroscopic mechanical device to guide the probe.
A new kind of scanning force microscope using an optically trapped dielectric microsphere as a probe was proposed in [@Ghislain1993; @Ghislain1994]. This technique was later called Photonic Force Microscope (PFM) [@Florin1997]. In a typical setup, the probe is held in an optical trap, where it performs random movements due to its thermal energy. The analysis of this thermal motion provides information about the local forces acting on the probe. The three-dimensional probe position can be recorded through different techniques which detect its forward or backward scattered light. The most commonly used are a quadrant photodiode, a position sensing detector, or a high-speed video-camera [@Neuman2004]. The PFM provides the capability of measuring forces in the range from femto- to pico-Newton. These values are well below those achieved with techniques based on micro-fabricated mechanical cantilevers, such as AFM [@Weisenhorn1989].
For small displacements of the probe from the center of an optical trap, the restoring force is proportional to the displacement. Hence, an optical trap acts on the probe like a Hookeian spring with a fixed stiffness, which can be characterized with various methods [@Visscher1996; @Neuman2004]. The *correlation or power spectrum method*, in particular, is considered the most reliable [@Visscher1996], allowing one to determine the trap stiffness by applying Boltzmann statistics to the position fluctuations of the probe, relying only on the knowledge of the temperature and the viscosity of the surrounding medium [@Ghislain1993; @Ghislain1994; @Florin1997; @Rohrbach2002a; @Berg-sorensen2004].
Assuming a very low Reynolds number regime [@Purcell1977; @HappelBrenner], the Brownian motion of the probe in the optical trap is described by a set of Langevin equations: $$\label{eqn:ClassicalPFM} \gamma \mathbf{\dot{r}}(t) + \mathbf{K}
\mathbf{r}(t) = \sqrt{2D} \gamma \mathbf{h}(t),$$ where $\mathbf{r}(t) = [x(t),y(t),z(t)]$ is the probe position, $\gamma = 6\pi R \eta$ is its friction coefficient, $R$ is the probe radius, $\eta$ is the medium viscosity, $\mathbf{K}$ is the restoring force matrix, $\sqrt{2 D} \gamma \mathbf{h}(t) = \sqrt{2 D} \gamma [h_x(t),h_y(t),h_z(t)]$ is a vector of independent white Gaussian random processes describing the Brownian forces, $D = k_B T / \gamma$ is the diffusion coefficient, $T$ is the absolute temperature, and $k_{B}$ is the Boltzmann constant. The orientation of the coordinate system can be chosen in such a way that the restoring force is independent in the three directions, i.e. $\mathbf{K} =
\mathrm{diag}(k_x,k_y,k_x)$. In this reference frame the stochastic differential equations (\[eqn:ClassicalPFM\]) are separated and without loss of generality the treatment can be restricted to the $x$-projection of the system.
The autocorrelation function (ACF) of the solution to equations (\[eqn:ClassicalPFM\]) in each direction reads $$\label{eqn:ClassicalACF}
<x(t)x(t+\Delta t)> = D \frac{\gamma}{k_x} e^{-k_x |\Delta t|/\gamma},$$ where $k_x$ is the trap stiffness. Experimentally the trap stiffness is found by fitting the theoretical ACF (\[eqn:ClassicalACF\]) to the one obtained from the measurements. Using the Wiener-Khintchine theorem, the power spectral density (PSD) can now be calculated as the Fourier transform of the ACF: $$\label{eqn:ClassicalPSD} P_x(f)
=\frac{D}{2\pi^2 \left(f^2+f_c^2\right)},$$ where $f_{c}=k_x /2\pi \gamma $ is the corner frequency.
A constant and homogeneous external force $f_{ext,x}$ acting on the probe produces a shift in its equilibrium position in the trap. The value of the force can be obtained as: $$\label{eqn:ClassicalFx}
f_{ext,x} = k_x <x(t)>,$$ where $<x(t)>$ is the probe mean displacement from the previous equilibrium position.
The PFM has been applied to measure forces in the range of femto- to pico-Newton in many different fields with exciting applications, for example, in biophysics, thermodynamics of small systems, and colloidal physics [@Ashkin1990; @Block1990; @Svoboda1993; @Kuo1993; @Finer1994; @Pralle1998; @Menta1999; @Pralle2000; @Smith2001; @Lang2002; @Smith2003; @Rohrbach2005a; @Volpe2006c; @Volpe2006a]
For a correct use of the PFM, the force field to measure has to be invariable (homogeneous) on the scale of the Brownian motion of the trapped probe, i.e. in a range of $10$s to $100$s of nanometers depending on the trapping stiffness. This condition implicates that the force field must be conservative, excluding the possibility of a rotational component. However, there are cases where these assumptions are not fulfilled as it is illustrated in Fig. \[f:examples\]. The field can vary in the nanometer scale, for example, in the presence of a radiation force field produced by a surface plasmon polariton [@Volpe2006a]. It can also be non-conservative in the presence of a rotational force (torque). These effects appear, for example, considering the radiation forces exerted on a dielectric particle by a patterned optical near-field landscape at an interface decorated with resonant gold nanostructures [@Quidant2005] (Fig. \[f:examples\](a)); the nanoscale trapping that can be achieved near a laser-illuminated tip [@Novotny1997] (Fig. \[f:examples\](b)); the optical forces produced by a beam which carries orbital angular momentum [@Volpe2006b] (Fig. \[f:examples\](c)); or in the presence of fluid flows [@Giorgio2007].
In this article, we show how to improve the PFM technique in order to be able to deal with these cases. We introduce the theory of this enhanced PFM (section \[sec:theory\]). Based on this theoretical understanding, in section \[sec:experiments\] we propose a concrete analysis workflow to reconstruct the force field from the experimental time-series of the probe position. Finally, in section \[sec:cases\] we present experimental results for some particularly important cases, namely the case of a conservative or rotational force-field.
Theory {#sec:theory}
======
In the presence of an external force field $\mathbf{f_{ext}}(\mathbf{r}(t))$, equation (\[eqn:ClassicalPFM\]) can be written in the form: $$\label{e:ForceFieldBM} \gamma \mathbf{\dot{r}}(t) =
\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{r}(t)) + \sqrt{2 D} \gamma \mathbf{h}(t),$$ where the total force acting on the probe $\mathbf{f}\left(\mathbf{r}(t)\right) =
\mathbf{f_{ext}}(\mathbf{r}(t)) - \mathbf{K}\mathbf{r}(t) =
\left[f_x(\mathbf{r}(t)),f_y(\mathbf{r}(t))\right]$ depends on the position of the probe itself, but does not vary over time. We reduce our analysis to a bidimensional system, because it is the most interesting from the applied point of view. However, our approach can be generalized to the tridimensional case.
The force $\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{r}(t))$ can be expanded in Taylor series up to the first order around an arbitrary point $\mathbf{\tilde{r}}$: $$\label{e:Taylor}
\mathbf{f}(\mathbf{r}(t)) =
\underbrace{
\left[\begin{array}{c}
f_{x}(\mathbf{\tilde{r}}) \\
f_{y}(\mathbf{\tilde{r}}) \\
\end{array}\right]
}_{\mathbf{f_{\tilde{r}}}}
+
\underbrace{
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
\partial_x f_x(\mathbf{\tilde{r}}) & \partial_y f_x(\mathbf{\tilde{r}}) \\
\partial_x f_y(\mathbf{\tilde{r}}) & \partial_y f_y(\mathbf{\tilde{r}}) \\
\end{array}\right]
}_{\mathbf{J_{\tilde{r}}}}
\left( \mathbf{r}(t) - \mathbf{\tilde{r}} \right) + o\left( || \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{\tilde{r}}|| \right),$$ where $\mathbf{f_{\tilde{r}}}$ and $\mathbf{J_{\tilde{r}}}$ are the zeroth-order expansion, i.e. the force field value at the point $\mathbf{\tilde{r}}$, and the Jacobian of the force field calculated in $\mathbf{\tilde{r}}$, respectively.
In a PFM the probe particle is optically trapped and, therefore, it diffuses due to Brownian motion in the total force field (the sum of the optical one and the one under investigation). If $\mathbf{f_{\tilde{r}}} \neq \mathbf{0}$, the probe experiences a shift in the direction of the force. After a time has elapsed, therefore, the particle settles down in a new equilibrium position of the total force field, such that $\mathbf{f_{\tilde{r}}} = \mathbf{0}$. As seen in the introduction, the measurement of this shift allows one to evaluate the homogeneous force acting on the probe in the standard PFM. Assuming, without loss of generality, $\mathbf{\tilde{r}}=\mathbf{0}$, the statistics of the Brownian motion in the surroundings of the equilibrium point can be analyzed in order to reconstruct the force field up to its first-order approximation.
Brownian motion near an equilibrium position
--------------------------------------------
The first order approximation to equation (\[e:ForceFieldBM\]) near a stable force field equilibrium point, $\mathbf{\tilde{r}} =
\mathbf{0}$, is: $$\label{e:MotionNearEquilibrium} \mathbf{\dot{r}}(t) = \gamma^{-1} \mathbf{J_0} \mathbf{r}(t) +
\sqrt{2 D} \mathbf{h}(t),$$ where $\mathbf{r}(t) = \left[x(t), y(t) \right]$, $\mathbf{h}(t) = \left[h_x(t), h_y(t)\right]$, and $\mathbf{J_0}$ is the Jacobian calculated in the equilibrium point. According to the Helmholtz theorem, under reasonable regularity conditions any force field can be separated into its conservative (i.e. irrotational) and non-conservative (i.e. rotational or solenoidal) components. The two components can be immediately identified if the coordinate system is chosen such that $\partial_y f_x(\mathbf{0}) = - \partial_x f_y(\mathbf{0})$. In this case, the Jacobian $\mathbf{J_0}$ normalized by the friction coefficient $\gamma$ reads: $$\label{e:J0}
\gamma^{-1}\mathbf{J_0} =
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
-\phi_x & \Omega \\
-\Omega & -\phi_y \\
\end{array}\right],$$ where $\phi_x = k_x/\gamma$ and $\phi_y = k_y/\gamma$, $k_x
= -\partial_x f_x(\mathbf{\tilde{r}})$ and $k_y = -\partial_y
f_y(\mathbf{\tilde{r}})$, and $\Omega = \gamma^{-1} \partial_y
f_x(\mathbf{\tilde{r}}) = -\gamma^{-1} \partial_x
f_y(\mathbf{\tilde{r}})$. In (\[e:J0\]) the rotational component, which is invariant under a coordinate rotation, is represented by the non-diagonal terms of the matrix: $\Omega$ is the value of the constant angular velocity of the probe rotation around the $z$ axis due to the presence of the rotational force field [@Volpe2006b]. The conservative component, instead, is represented by the diagonal terms of the Jacobian and is centrally symmetric with respect to the origin. Without loss of generality, we impose that $k_x>k_y$, i.e. $\phi_x>\phi_y$. This means that the stiffness of the trapping potential is higher along the $x$-axis.
The equilibrium point is stable if: $$\label{e:Stability} \left\{
\begin{array}{*{20}l}
\mathrm{Det}\left(\mathbf{J_0}\right) = \phi^2 - \Delta\phi^2 + \Omega^2 \ge 0 \\
\mathrm{Tr}\left(\mathbf{J_0}\right) = -2 \phi \le 0 \\
\end{array}
\right. ,$$ where $\phi = (\phi_x + \phi_y)/2$ and $\Delta\phi =
(\phi_x - \phi_y)/2$. The fundamental condition required to achieve stability is $\phi > 0$. Assuming that this condition is satisfied, the behavior of the optically trapped probe can be explored as a function of the parameters $\Omega/\phi$ and $\Delta\phi/\phi$. The stability diagram is shown in Fig. \[f:stability\]. The standard PFM corresponds to $\Delta\phi = 0$ and $\Omega = 0$. When a rotational term is added, i.e. $\Omega \neq 0$ and $\Delta\phi = 0$, the system remains stable [@Volpe2006b]. When there are no rotational contributions to the force field ($\Omega = 0$) the equilibrium point becomes unstable as soon as $\Delta\phi \ge
\phi$. This implicates that $\phi_y < 0$, and therefore the probe is not confined in the $y$-direction any more. In the presence of a rotational component ($\Omega \neq 0$) the stability region becomes larger; the equilibrium point now becomes unstable only for $\Delta\phi \ge \sqrt{\phi^2-\Omega^2}$.
Some examples of possible force fields are presented in Fig. \[f:force-fields\].
When $\Omega = 0$ the probe movement can be separated along two orthogonal directions. As the value of $\Delta\phi$ increases the probability density function (PDF) of the probe position becomes more and more elliptical, until for $\Delta\phi \ge \phi$ the particle is confined only along the $x$-direction and the confinement along the $y$-direction is lost.
If $\Delta\phi = 0$, the increase in $\Omega$ induces a bending of the force field lines and the probe movement along the $x$- and $y$-directions are not independent any more. For values of $\Omega \ge \phi$, the rotational component of the force field becomes dominant over the conservative one. This is particularly clear when $\Delta\phi \neq 0$: the presence of a rotational component covers the asymmetry in the conservative one, since the probability density distribution assumes a more rotationally-symmetric shape.
Enhanced Photonic Force Microscope
----------------------------------
As we already mentioned in the introduction, the most powerful analysis method is based on the study of the correlation functions - or, equivalently, the power spectral density - of the probe position time-series. In this subsection, we derive the correlation matrix first in the coordinate system considered in the previous subsection, where the conservative and rotational components are separated. We, then, derive the same matrix in a generic coordinate system and identify some functions that are independent on the choice of the coordinate system. For completeness, we will also present the power spectral density matrix.
### Correlation Matrix
The correlation matrix of the probe motion near an equilibrium position can be calculated from the solutions of (\[e:MotionNearEquilibrium\]), whose eigenvalues are $\lambda_{1,2} =
-\phi \pm \sqrt{\Delta\phi^2 - \Omega^2}$ and whose eigenvectors are $\mathbf{v_{1,2}} = \left[\Omega, \Delta\phi
\pm \sqrt{\Delta\phi^2 - \Omega^2}\right]^T$.
Treating $\mathbf{h}(t)$ as a driving function, the solution of (\[e:MotionNearEquilibrium\]) is given by: $$\label{} \mathbf{r}(t) = \sqrt{2 D} \int_{-\infty}^{t}
\mathbf{W}(t) \mathbf{W}^{-1}(s) \mathbf{h}(s) ds,$$ where $$\label{} \mathbf{W}(t) = \left[\begin{array}{cc}
\Omega & \Omega \\
\Delta\phi + \sqrt{\Delta\phi^2 - \Omega^2} & \Delta\phi - \sqrt{\Delta\phi^2 - \Omega^2} \\
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{cc}
e^{\lambda_{1} t} & 0 \\
0 & e^{\lambda_{2} t} \\
\end{array}\right]$$ is the Wronskian of the system.
Since we are assuming $\mathbf{r}(t)$ to be a stationary stochastic process, the correlation matrix $\left<\mathbf{r}(t+ \Delta
t)\mathbf{r^*}\left(t \right)\right>$ can be obtained by taking the ensemble average $\left<\mathbf{r}(\Delta
t)\mathbf{r^*}\left( 0 \right)\right>$: $$\label{} \left<\mathbf{r}(\Delta t)\mathbf{r^h}\left(
0\right)\right> = \left< 2 D \int_{-\infty}^{\Delta t}
\mathbf{W}(\Delta t) \mathbf{W}^{-1}(t') \mathbf{h}(t') dt'
\int_{-\infty}^{0} \mathbf{h^h}(t'')
\mathbf{W}^{-1\mathbf{h}}(t'') \mathbf{W^h}(0) dt'' \right>,$$ where the superscript $h$ indicates the hermitian. Solving this system, we have $$\begin{aligned}
r_{xx} (\Delta t)
& = &
D \frac{e^{-\phi \left|\Delta t\right|}}{\phi}
\left[
\left(
\frac{
\Omega^2
-
\alpha^2 \Delta\phi^2
}
{\Omega^2-\Delta\phi^2}
-\alpha^2 \frac{\Delta\phi}{\phi}
\right)
\mathcal{C}(\Delta t)
-
\alpha^2 \frac{\Delta\phi}{\phi}
\left(1 - \frac{\Delta\phi}{\phi} \right)
\mathcal{S} (|\Delta t|)
\right] ,
\label{e:rxx}
\\
r_{yy} (\Delta t)
& = &
D \frac{e^{-\phi \left|\Delta t\right|}}{\phi}
\left[
\left(
\frac{
\Omega^2
-
\alpha^2 \Delta\phi^2
}
{\Omega^2-\Delta\phi^2}
+\alpha^2 \frac{\Delta\phi}{\phi}
\right)
\mathcal{C}(\Delta t)
+
\alpha^2 \frac{\Delta\phi}{\phi}
\left(1 + \frac{\Delta\phi}{\phi} \right)
\mathcal{S} (|\Delta t|)
\right] ,
\label{e:ryy}
\\
r_{xy} (\Delta t)
& = &
D \frac{e^{-\phi \left|\Delta t\right|}}{\phi}
\frac{\Omega}{\phi}
\left[
+\mathcal{S} (\Delta t)
+
\alpha^2 \frac{\Delta\phi}{\phi}
\left( \mathcal{C} (\Delta t) + \mathcal{S} (|\Delta t|) \right)
\right] ,
\label{e:rxy}
\\
r_{yx} (\Delta t)
& = &
D \frac{e^{-\phi \left|\Delta t\right|}}{\phi}
\frac{\Omega}{\phi}
\left[
-\mathcal{S} (\Delta t)
+
\alpha^2 \frac{\Delta\phi}{\phi}
\left( \mathcal{C} (\Delta t) + \mathcal{S} (|\Delta t|) \right)
\right] ,
\label{e:ryx}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\alpha^2 = \frac{\phi^2}{\phi^2 + \left(\Omega^2 - \Delta\phi^2 \right)}$$ is a dimensionless positive parameter, $$\label{}
\mathcal{C}(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\cos \left( \sqrt{|\Delta\phi^2 - \Omega^2|} t \right) & \Omega^2 > \Delta\phi^2 \\
1 & \Omega^2 = \Delta\phi^2 \\
\mathrm{cosh} \left( \sqrt{|\Delta\phi^2 - \Omega^2|} t \right) & \Omega^2 < \Delta\phi^2 \\
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $$\label{}
\mathcal{S}(t) = \left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
\phi \frac{\sin \left( \sqrt{|\Delta\phi^2 - \Omega^2|} t \right)}{\sqrt{|\Delta\phi^2 - \Omega^2|}} & \Omega^2 > \Delta\phi^2 \\
\phi t & \Omega^2 = \Delta\phi^2 \\
\phi \frac{\mathrm{sinh} \left( \sqrt{|\Delta\phi^2 - \Omega^2|} t \right)}{\sqrt{|\Delta\phi^2 - \Omega^2|}} & \Omega^2 < \Delta\phi^2 \\
\end{array}
\right. .$$
In Fig. \[f:correlations\] these functions are plotted for different ratios of the force field conservative and rotational components. Some cases have already been studied experimentally. For the case $\Delta\phi = 0$ [@Volpe2006b], the ACFs and cross-correlation functions (CCFs) are $r_{xx} (\Delta t) = r_{yy} (\Delta t) = D e^{-\phi |\Delta
t|} \cos(\Omega \Delta t)/ \phi$ and $r_{xy} (\Delta t) = -
r_{yx} (\Delta t)= D e^{-\phi |\Delta t|} \sin(\Omega \Delta
t)/\phi$, respectively. As the rotational component becomes greater than the conservative one ($\Omega > \phi$), a first zero appears in the ACFs and CCFs and, as $\Omega$ increases even further, the number of oscillation grows. Eventually, for $\Omega \gg \phi$ the sinusoidal component becomes dominant. The conservative component manifests itself as an exponential decay of the magnitude of the ACFs and CCFs.
When $\Omega = 0$, the movement of the probe along the $x$- and $y$-directions becomes independent. The ACFs behave as $r_{xx} (\Delta t) = D e^{-\phi_x |\Delta t|}/\phi_x$ and $r_{yy} (\Delta t) = D e^{-\phi_y |\Delta t|}/\phi_y$, while the CCFs are null, $r_{xy} (\Delta t) = r_{yx} (\Delta t) = 0$. In Fig. \[f:stability\] this case is represented by the line $\Omega = 0$.
When both $\Omega$ and $\Delta\phi$ are zero, the ACFs are $r_{xx} (\Delta t) = r_{yy} (\Delta t)= D e^{-\phi |\Delta
t|}/\phi$, and the CCFs are null, $r_{xy} (\Delta t) = r_{yx}
(\Delta t) = 0$. The corresponding force field vectors point towards the center and are rotationally symmetric.
It is also interesting to consider the intermediate cases. In these cases the effective angular frequency that enter the expression is given by $\sqrt{|\Delta\phi|^2- \Omega^2}$. This shows that the difference in the stiffness coefficients along the $x$- and $y$-axes effectively influences the rotational term, if this is present. A limiting case is when $|\Omega|=\Delta\phi$. This case presents a kind of resonance between the rotational term and the stiffness difference. However, it is not a dramatic resonance, as it is shown by the corresponding force field (Fig. \[f:force-fields\]).
### Correlation matrix in a generic coordinate system
The expression for the ACFs and CCFs (\[e:rxx\]) to (\[e:ryx\]) were obtained in a specific coordinate system, where the conservative and rotational component of the force field can be easily identified. However, typically the experimentally acquired time-series of the probe position required for the calculation of the ACFs and CCFs are given in a different coordinate system, rotated with respect to the one considered above. If a rotated coordinate system is introduced, such that: $$\label{e:rotation}
\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{x'} \\
{y'} \\
\end{array}} \right] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{\cos \theta } & { - \sin \theta } \\
{\sin \theta } & {\cos \theta } \\
\end{array}} \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
x \\
y \\
\end{array}} \right] ,$$ the correlation functions in the new system are obtained as linear combinations of (\[e:rxx\])-(\[e:ryx\]): $$\begin{aligned}
r_{x'x'} (\Delta t) &=& \left(\cos{\theta}\right)^2 r_{xx} (\Delta t) - \cos{\theta} \sin{\theta} r_{xy} (\Delta t) - \sin{\theta} \cos{\theta} r_{yx} (\Delta t) + \left(\sin{\theta}\right)^2 r_{yy} (\Delta t) ,
\label{e:rxxp}
\\
r_{y'y'} (\Delta t) &=& \left(\sin{\theta}\right)^2 r_{xx} (\Delta t) + \sin{\theta} \cos{\theta} r_{xy} (\Delta t) + \cos{\theta} \sin{\theta} r_{yx} (\Delta t) + \left(\cos{\theta}\right)^2 r_{yy} (\Delta t) ,
\label{e:ryyp}
\\
r_{x'y'} (\Delta t) &=& \cos{\theta} \sin{\theta} r_{xx} (\Delta t) + \left(\cos{\theta}\right)^2 r_{xy} (\Delta t) - \left(\sin{\theta}\right)^2 r_{yx} (\Delta t) - \sin{\theta} \cos{\theta} r_{yy} (\Delta t) ,
\label{e:rxyp}
\\
r_{y'x'} (\Delta t) &=& \sin{\theta} \cos{\theta} r_{xx} (\Delta t) - \left(\sin{\theta}\right)^2 r_{xy} (\Delta t) + \left(\cos{\theta}\right)^2 r_{yx} (\Delta t) - \cos{\theta} \sin{\theta} r_{yy} (\Delta t) ,
\label{e:ryxp}\end{aligned}$$ which in general depend on $\theta$. However, it is remarkable that the difference of the two CCFs and the sum of the ACFs are invariant: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:rxyp-ryxp}
r_{x'y'} (\Delta t) - r_{y'x'} (\Delta t)
& = &
2D \frac{e^{-\phi \left|\Delta t\right|}}{\phi}
\frac{\Omega}{\phi} \mathcal{S} (\Delta t)
, \\
\label{e:rxxp+ryyp}
r_{x'x'} (\Delta t) + r_{y'y'} (\Delta t)
& = &
2D \frac{e^{-\phi \left|\Delta t\right|}}{\phi}
\left[
\left(
\frac{ \Omega^2 - \alpha^2 \Delta\phi^2 }
{\Omega^2-\Delta\phi^2}
\right) \mathcal{C}(\Delta t)
+
\alpha^2
\frac{\Delta\phi^2}{\phi^2} \mathcal{S} (|\Delta t|)
\right]
.\end{aligned}$$ These functions are presented in Fig. \[f:invariant\]. These functions are very similar to the ones presented in Fig. \[f:correlations\]; however, the latter depend on the coordinate system choice.
Other two combinations of (\[e:rxxp\])-(\[e:ryxp\]), which are also useful for the analysis of the experimental data, namely the sum of the CCFs and the difference of the ACFs, depend on the choice of the reference frame: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{e:rxyp+ryxp}
r_{x'y'} (\Delta t) + r_{y'x'} (\Delta t)
& = &
2D \frac{e^{-\phi \left|\Delta t\right|}}{\phi} \alpha^2
\frac{\Delta \phi}{\phi}
\left( \mathcal{C} (\Delta t) + \mathcal{S} (|\Delta t|) \right)
\left( \frac{\Omega}{\phi} \cos{(2\theta)} - \sin{(2\theta)} \right)
, \\
\label{e:rxxp-ryyp}
r_{x'x'} (\Delta t) - r_{y'y'} (\Delta t) & = & -2D
\frac{e^{-\phi \left|\Delta t\right|}}{\phi} \alpha^2
\frac{\Delta \phi}{\phi} \left( \mathcal{C} (\Delta t) +
\mathcal{S} (|\Delta t|) \right) \left( \frac{\Omega}{\phi}
\sin{(2\theta)} + \cos{(2\theta)} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Their plots are shown in Fig. \[f:variant\]. In particular, when they are evaluated for $\Delta t = 0$, they deliver information on the orientation of the coordinate system.
### Power Spectral Density Matrix
In the frequency domain the equation (\[e:ForceFieldBM\]) is given by: $$\label{} i 2 \pi f\mathbf{R}(f) = \mathbf{J_0} \mathbf{R}(f) +
\sqrt{2 D} \mathbf{H}(f),$$ and its solution is $\mathbf{R}(f) = \sqrt{2D} \left(i 2 \pi f
\mathbf{I_2} - \mathbf{J_0}\right)^{-1} \mathbf{H}(f)$, where $\mathbf{I_2}$ is the 2D unit matrix, and the corresponding PSD matrix: $$\label{} \mathbf{P}(f) = \mathbf{R}\cdot\mathbf{R^h} =
\frac{2D}{|\left(\phi_x + i 2 \pi f\right)\left(\phi_y + i 2
\pi f\right)+\psi^2|^2} \left[\begin{array}{cc} \phi_y^2 + 4
\pi^2 f^2 + \psi^2 & \psi \left[ \phi_x - \phi_y - i 4 \pi f
\right]
\\
\psi \left[ \phi_x - \phi_y + i 4 \pi f \right] &
\phi_x^2 + 4 \pi^2 f^2 + \psi^2
\\
\end{array}\right]$$ where the property $\mathbf{H}(f) \cdot \mathbf{H^h}(f) = \mathbf{I_2}$ has been used. We notice that the PSD matrix could have been obtained as Fourier-transfor of the correlation matrix (Wiener-Khintchine theorem).
Experimental Considerations {#sec:experiments}
===========================
In this section we propose a concrete analysis workflow to reconstruct the force field from the experimental time-series of the probe position.
Experimentally the probe position time-series is the only available information to reconstruct the force field. Typically these data are obtained in an arbitrary coordinate system. These time-series need to be statistically analyzed in order to reconstruct all the parameters of the force field, i.e. $\phi$, $\Delta\phi$, and $\Omega$, and the orientation of the coordinate system. The detailed procedure to retrieve all this information from the experimental data is presented in this section.
Let us suppose to have the probe position time-series in a generic coordinate system $\mathbf{r'}(t) = \left[ x'(t), y'(t) \right]$, First, we evaluate the parameters $\phi$, $\Delta\phi$, and $\Omega$. Then, we transform the coordinate system to the one presented in the section \[sec:theory\], where the conservative and rotational components are separated. Finally, we reconstruct the total force field. Eventually, the trapping force field may be subtracted to retrieve the external force field under investigation.
In order to illustrate this method we proceed to analyze some numerically simulated data. The main steps of this analysis are presented in Fig. \[f:simulations\]. In Fig. \[f:simulations\](a) the PDF is shown for the case of a probe in a force field with the following parameters: $\phi = 37.1\, s^{-1}$, $\Delta\phi =
9.3\, s^{-1}$ (corresponding to $k_x = 43.25\,pN/\mu m$ and $k_y = 26.25\,pN/\mu m$), $\Omega = 0$, and $\theta = 30^{\circ}$. The PDF is ellipsoidal due to the difference of the stiffness along two orthogonal directions. In Fig. \[f:simulations\](b) the PDF for a force field with the same $\phi$ and $\Delta\phi$ but with $\Omega = 37.1 \, s^{-1}$ is presented. The presence of the rotational component in the force field produces two main effects. First, the PDF is more rotationally-symmetric and its main axes undergo a further rotation. Secondly, as we show below, the CCF is not null (Fig. \[f:simulations\](d)).
Evaluation of the parameters $\phi$, $\Delta\phi$, and $\Omega$
---------------------------------------------------------------
In order to evaluate the parameters of the force field, $\phi$, $\Delta\phi$, and $\Omega$, we calculate the correlation matrix in the coordinate system where the experiments have been done, $$\label{sim1}
\left\langle {{\bf r'}(\Delta t){\bf r'}^{\bf h} (0)}
\right\rangle = \left( {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
r_{x'x'} (\Delta t) & r_{x'y'} (\Delta t) \\
r_{y'x'} (\Delta t) & r_{y'y'} (\Delta t) \\
\end{array}} \right).$$ Then we calculate the CCF difference (\[e:rxyp-ryxp\]), $r_{x'y'} (\Delta t) - r_{y'x'} (\Delta t)$. As we showed in section II, this function is invariant with respect to the choice of the reference system, and it is different form zero only if $\Omega \neq 0$. The results are shown in Fig. \[f:simulations\](c) and \[f:simulations\](d) for the cases of the data shown in Fig. \[f:simulations\](a) and \[f:simulations\](b) respectively. The three aforementioned parameters can be found by fitting the experimental data to the theoretical shape of this function. In particular, the exponential decay of the function is related to the $\phi$ parameter; the period of the superimposed oscillations is related to the effective angular frequency $\sqrt{|\Delta\phi^2-\Omega^2|}$; and the sign of the slope in $\Delta t = 0$ gives the sign of $\Omega$.
When $\Omega = 0$, the CCF difference (\[e:rxyp-ryxp\]) is null (Fig. \[f:simulations\](c)), it can not be used to find the two remaining parameters. For $\Omega = 0$, the other invariant function, the ACF sum (equation (\[e:rxxp+ryyp\])), is given by $$\label{sim2}
r_{x'x'} (\Delta t) + r_{y'y'} (\Delta t)
=
2D \frac{e^{-\phi \left|\Delta t\right|}}{\phi}
\left[
\frac{\phi^2}{\phi^2 - \Delta\phi^2}
\mathcal{C}(\Delta t)
+
\frac{\Delta\phi^2}{\phi^2 - \Delta\phi^2}
\mathcal{S}(\Delta t)
\right] .$$ $\phi$ and $\Delta\phi$ can be evaluated by fitting the data to (\[sim2\]). The function (\[e:rxxp+ryyp\]) can be used for the fitting of the three parameters but can not give information on the sign of $\Omega$, which must be retrieved from the sign of the slope at $\Delta t = 0$ of the CCF difference.
Coordinate system transformation
--------------------------------
Although the values of the parameters $\phi$, $\Delta\phi$, and $\Omega$ are now known, the directions of the force vectors are still missing. In order to retrieve the orientation of the experimental coordinate system, we now use the orientation dependent functions (\[e:rxyp+ryxp\]) and (\[e:rxxp-ryyp\]). The best choice is to evaluate the two functions for $\Delta t = 0$, because the signal-to-noise ratio is highest at this point: $$\label{sim4}
\left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}
{r_{x'y'} (0) + r_{y'x'} (0)= 2D \frac{\alpha^2}{\phi} \frac{\Delta \phi}{\phi}
\left( \frac{\Omega}{\phi} \cos{(2\theta)} - \sin{(2\theta)}\right) }
\\
{r_{x'x'} (0) - r_{y'y'} (0)= -2D \frac{\alpha^2}{\phi} \frac{\Delta \phi}{\phi}
\left( \frac{\Omega}{\phi} \sin{(2\theta)} + \cos{(2\theta)}\right)}
\\
\end{array}} \right . .$$ The solution of this system delivers the value of the rotation angle $\theta$. If $\Delta \phi = 0$, (\[sim4\]) is undetermined as a consequence of the PDF radial symmetry. In this case any orientation can be used. If $\Omega = 0$, the orientation of the coordinate system coincide with the axis of the PDF ellipsoid and, although (\[sim4\]) can still be used, the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) algorithm is a convenient means to determine their directions.
Reconstruction of the force field
---------------------------------
Now everything is ready to reconstruct the unknown force field acting on the probe around the equilibrium position in an area comparable with the mean square displacement of the probe. From the values of $\phi$ and $\Delta\phi$, the conservative forces acting on the probe result ${\bf f}_c(x,y) = - \left( {k_x x{\bf e}_x + k_y y{\bf e}_y}\right)$ and, from the values of $\Omega$, the rotational force is ${\bf f}_r(x,y) = \Omega\left( {y{\bf e}_x - x{\bf e}_y}\right)$. The total force field is $$\label{}
{\bf f}(x,y) = {\bf f}_c(x,y) +{\bf f}_r(x,y) =
\left(-k_x x + \Omega y\right){\bf e}_x - \left(k_y y + \Omega x\right){\bf e}_yx$$ in the rotated coordinate system. Now the rotation (\[e:rotation\]) can be used in order to have the force field in the experimental coordinate system. The unknown component can be easily reconstructed by subtraction of the know ones, such as the optical field.
Experimental results {#sec:cases}
====================
For an experimental verification of our conclusions, we analyze the Brownian motion of an optically trapped polystyrene sphere in the presence of an external force field generated by a fluid flow [@Giorgio2007]. A schematic of the setup is presented in Fig. \[f:setup\].
An optical trap is generated by a CW $633\, nm$ beam at the focal plane of a $100 \times$ $1.3 NA$ objective lens inside a chamber. The chamber is prepared using two cover slips separated by a $50\, \mu m$ spacer and filled with a solution containing polystyrene spheres (radius $R=0.5\,\mu m$). The forward scattered light from the trapped sphere is collimated by a $50\times$ objective onto a quadrant photodiode (QPD). The trap force constant can be adjusted by changing the intensity of the laser beam.
The fluid flow that produces the external force field was generated using solid spheres made of a birefringent material (Calcium Vaterite Crystals (CVC) spheres, radius $R = 1.5 \pm 0.2 \mu m$ [@Bishop2004]), which can be made spin due to the transfer of orbital angular momentum of light. They are all-optically controlled, i.e. their position can be controlled by an optical trap and their spinning state can be controlled through the polarization state of the light. In our experimental realization up to four CVC spheres were optically trapped in water and put into rotation using four steerable $1064\,nm$ beams from a Nd:YAG laser with controllable polarization - to control the direction of the rotation - and power - to control the rotation rate.
Conservative force field
------------------------
In order to produce a conservative force field, two CVC were placed as shown in Fig. \[f:setup2\](a), which should theoretically produce the force field presented in Fig. \[f:setup2\](c).
In Fig. \[f:two\](a), the invariant functions, $r_{x'x'}+r_{y'y'}$ (black line) and $r_{x'y'}-r_{y'x'}$ (blue line), and respective fitting to the theoretical shapes are presented. The CCF difference tells us that $\Omega = 0$ in this case, while the fitting to the ACF sum tells us the values of $\phi = 18 \, s^{-1}$ and $\Delta\phi = 6 \, s^{-1}$. The value of the rotation of the coordinate system in this case is $32^{\circ}$.
The total force field can now be recontructed: $k_x = 225\, fN/\mu m$ and $k_y = 112 \, fN/\mu m$. This force field is presented in Fig. \[f:two\](b). We can now retrieve the hydrodynamic force field by subtracting the optical force field ($k_{opt} = 185 \, fN/ \mu m$ approximatively constant in all directions), that can be measured in absence of rotation of the spinning beads.
Rotational force field
----------------------
In order to produce a rotational force field, four CVC were placed as shown in Fig. \[f:setup2\](b), which should theoretically produce the force field presented in Fig. \[f:setup2\](d).
In Fig. \[f:four\](a), the invariant functions, $r_{x'x'}+r_{y'y'}$ (black line) and $r_{x'y'}-r_{y'x'}$ (blue line), and respective fitting to the theoretical shapes are presented. Now the CCF difference is not null any more and tehrefore it can be used to fit the three parameters: $\phi = 11\,
s^{-1}$, $\Delta \phi \approx 0$, and $\Omega = 5\, rads^{-1}$. We can notice that the ACF sum can be used for this purpose as well; however, we have to remark that using the latter the sign of $\Omega$ stays undetermined. The small value of $\Delta\phi$ implicates that the rotation of the coordinate system is not crucial.
The total force field can now be recontructed: $k_x \approx k_y = 100 \, fN/\mu m$. This force field is presented in Fig. \[f:four\](b). We can now retrieve the hydrodynamic force field by subtracting the optical force field ($k_{opt} = 78 \, fN/\mu m$ approximatively constant in all directions), that can be measured in absence of rotation of the spinning beads.
Conclusion
==========
We have shown how the PFM can be applied to the detection of locally non-homogeneous force fields. This has been achieved by analyzing the ACFs and CCFs of the probe position time-series. We believe that this technique can gain new insights into micro- and molecular-scale phenomena. In these cases the presence of the Brownian motion is intrinsic and has can not be disregarded. Therefore this technique permits one to take advantage to the Brownian fluctuations of the probe in order to explore the force field present in its surroundings.
One of the most remarkable advantages of the technique we propose is that it can be implemented in all existing PFM-setups and even on data acquired in the past. Indeed, it does not require changes to be made in the physical setup, but only to analyze the data in a deeper way.
The authors acknowledge useful discussions with N. Heckenberg, A. Bagno, and M. Rubí. This research was carried out in the framework of ESF/PESC (Eurocores on Sons), through grant 02-PE-SONS-063-NOMSAN, and with the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science. It was also partially supported by the Departament d’Universitats, Recerca i Societat de la Informació and the European Social Fund.
[35]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ** (, , ).
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , (), .
, , , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, so-called alternative mass balance equations for atmospheric constituents published recently are assessed in comparison with the true local mass balance equations deduced from exact integral formulations. It is shown that these “alternative” expressions appreciably violate the physical law of the conservation of mass as expressed by the equation of continuity. It is also shown that terms of these “alternative” mass balance equations have different physical units, a clear indication that these “alternative” expressions are incorrect. Furthermore, it is argued that in the case of “alternative” mass balance equations a real basis for Monin-Obukhov similarity laws does not exist. These similarity laws are customarily used to determine the turbulent fluxes of momentum, sensible heat and matter in the so-called atmospheric surface layer over even terrain. Moreover, based on exact integral formulations a globally averaged mass balance equation for trace species is derived. It is applied to discuss the budget of carbon dioxide on the basis of the globally averaged natural and anthropogenic emissions and the globally averaged uptake caused by the terrestrial biosphere and the oceans.'
address:
- '$^1$ Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 903 Koyukuk Drive Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320, USA'
- '$^2$ Arbeitsgruppe Atmosphärische Prozesse (AGAP), Gernotstraße 11, D-80804 Munich, Germany'
author:
- 'Gerhard Kramm$^1$, Ralph Dlugi$^2$ and Michael Zelger$^2$'
title: 'On the recognition of fundamental physical principles in recent atmospheric-environmental studies'
---
Introduction
============
Recently, Finnigan et al. [@Fin1] and many others [@Aub; @Fei; @Fin2; @Fin3; @Lee1; @Lee2; @Liu; @Mas; @Sog] proposed “alternative” forms of balance equations of atmospheric constituents. Unfortunately, these equations are not self-consistent and their terms are afflicted with different physical units. The latter is a clear indication that something is going wrong. Since mainly the results of turbulent fluxes of carbon dioxide ($CO_2$) published recently were harmfully affected by these “alternative” mass balance equations, these results must be assessed carefully, especially in front of the debate on global warming due to an increase of greenhouse gases like $CO_2$.\
To assess these “alternative” mass balance equations it is indispensable to compare them with the correct ones. Therefore, in section 2 we will derive the correct local mass balance equations from exact integral mass balance equations and discuss them physically. It is shown in section 3 that one of the fundamental physical principles namely the conservation of mass (as expressed by the equation of continuity) is notably violated by the “alternative” mass balance equations. Some aspects of Reynolds averaging are briefly, but thoroughly discussed in section 4. In identifying an adequate averaging time, we argue that the Allan variance criterion [@All] combined with the wavelet analysis is much more favorable than block averaging as suggested, for instance, by Finnigan et al. [@Fin1] and Treviño and Andreas [@Tre]. In section 5, we present the Reynolds averaged mass balance equations for a turbulent fluid and compare it with that of the “alternative” forms. In section 6, these different forms of mass balance equations are vertically integrated by assuming horizontal homogeneity and the results obtained are assessed. We show in section 7 that in the case of the “alternative” form of the mass balance equations a real basis for Monin-Obukhov similarity laws does not exist. Consequently, such similarity laws customarily used for determining the flux densities (hereafter, a flux density is simply called a flux) of long-lived trace gases like $CO_2$ would be obsolete. Based on exact integral formulations a globally averaged mass balance equation for trace species is derived in section 8 to underline that the emission and uptake of matter serve as boundary conditions. This result is in complete contrast to the “alternative” mass balance equation in which emission and uptake are considered as volume-related source/sink functions. Final remarks and our conclusions are listed in section 9.
The mass balance equations of atmospheric constituents for a macroscopic fluid
==============================================================================
First, we will derive the conservation laws for a macroscopic fluid (often called a molecular flow). The total rate of change in the mass $M_i$ of a constituent, $i = 0, 1,
\dots, N$, within an arbitrary volume $V(t)$ that also depends on time, $t$, can be expressed by [@Gro] $$\label{2.1}
\frac{dM_i}{dt} = \frac{d}{dt}\int_{V(t)} \rho_i\;dV\;,$$ where $\rho_i = M_i/V$ is the corresponding partial density. This quantity $dM_i/dt$ is equal to the material flow of the $i^{th}$ component into and out of this volume through its surface $A(V(t))$, i.e., the exchange of material between the volume and its surroundings, and the net production/depletion $\sigma_i =
f(\rho_1, \dots, \rho_N)$ of the $i^{th}$ constituent per unit volume owing to chemical reactions (and phase transition effects) that occur inside $V$. Thus, we have (see Figure \[Figure1\]) $$\label{2.2}
\frac{d}{dt}\int_{V(t)} \rho_i\;dV = - \int_{A(V(t))} \rho_i\;
\textbf{v}_N \cdot d\textbf{A} + \int_{V(t)} \sigma_i\;dV\;.$$ Here, $\textbf{v}_N = \textbf{v}_i - \textbf{v}$ is the net velocity that characterizes the diffusion of the $i^{th}$ constituent with respect to the barycentric flow, considered as being of Newtonian kind. The quantity $\textbf{v}_i$ is the individual velocity, and $\textbf{v}$ denotes the barycentric velocity defined by $$\label{2.3}
\textbf{v} = \frac{1}{\rho} \sum_{i=0}^N \rho_i\;\textbf{v}_i\;,$$ where $$\label{2.4}
\rho = \frac{M}{V} = \frac{1}{V} \sum_{i=0}^N M_i = \sum_{i=0}^N
\rho_i$$ is the total density of air. The use of the barycentric velocity as a reference velocity, of course, is not the only possibility to describe diffusion. Prigogine [@Pri] deduced from the entropy principle that in systems with mechanical equilibrium diffusion processes can be related to an arbitrary reference velocity. Herbert [@Her2; @Her3] discussed the general application of Prigogine’s diffusion theorem to the atmosphere and some specific invariance properties of the thermodynamic laws as well as various alternative relations to describe Fick-type mass diffusion in a (diluted) binary gas mixture such as the atmosphere. Nevertheless, in our contribution the diffusion is related to the barycentric velocity and the quantity $\textbf{J}_i = \rho_i
\textbf{v}_N = \rho_i (\textbf{v}_i - \textbf{v})$ is denoted as the diffusion flux of the $i^{th}$ constituent. Furthermore, $d\textbf{A} = \textbf{n}\;dA$ is a vector normal to the surface of the volume $V$ with the unit vector $\textbf{n}$ and the magnitude $dA$. The unit vector is counted positive from inside to outside of the volume. Note that $i = 0$ denotes that portion of dry air which is chemically inert, i.e., this portion does not contain any chemically active atmospheric constituent. Furthermore, the occurrence of the surface integral in Eq. (\[2.2\]) means that we consider a system that is open in the sense of thermodynamics, when the exchange of energy is allowed, too. It is the most general one.\
Since the volume is considered as time-dependent, the differentiation of the volume with respect to time is also required. It can be performed by applying *Leibnitz’s integral theorem*. In doing so, we obtain for the total rate of change, $dM_i/dt$, $$\label{2.5}
\frac{d}{dt}\int_{V(t)} \rho_i\;dV = \int_{V(t)}
\frac{\partial{\rho_i}}{\partial{t}}\;dV + \int_{A(V(t))} \rho_i\;
\textbf{v} \cdot d\textbf{A}\;.$$ Thus, combining equations (\[2.2\]) and (\[2.5\]) results in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.6}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
\nonumber \frac{d}{dt}\int_{V(t)} \rho_i\;dV &=& \int_{V(t)}
\frac{\partial{\rho_i}}{\partial{t}}\;dV + \int_{A(V(t))} \rho_i\;
\textbf{v} \cdot d\textbf{A}\\
&=& - \int_{A(V(t))} \textbf{J}_i \cdot d\textbf{A} + \int_{V(t)}
\sigma_i\;dV\end{aligned}$$ or $$\label{2.7}
\int_{V(t)} \frac{\partial{\rho_i}}{\partial{t}}\;dV +
\int_{A(V(t))}\bigl(\rho_i \; \textbf{v} + \textbf{J}_i\bigr) \cdot
d\textbf{A} = \int_{V(t)} \sigma_i\;dV\;.$$ This expression is called the *integral balance equation* of the $i^{th}$ atmospheric constituent. It is a very general formulation and not affected by any kind of averaging process usually applied in deriving local balance equations for turbulent systems like the atmospheric boundary layer. McRae and Russell [@Rae], for instance, used such an integral formulation for practical purposes by considering the domain of the South Coast Air Basin of Southern California.\
By applying *Gauss’ integral theorem* (often called the divergence theorem), the surface integral occurring in Eq. (\[2.7\]) can by replaced by a volume integral so that we obtain $$\label{2.8}
\int_{V(t)} \frac{\partial{\rho_i}}{\partial{t}}\;dV + \int_{V(t)}
\nabla \cdot \bigl(\rho_i \; \textbf{v} + \textbf{J}_i\bigr)\;dV =
\int_{V(t)} \sigma_i\;dV\;,$$ where $\nabla$ is the nabla (or del) operator. Since in Eq. (\[2.8\]) the shape of the volume is arbitrary, we may also write: $$\label{2.9}
\frac{\partial{\rho_i}}{\partial{t}} + \nabla \cdot \bigl(\rho_i \;
\textbf{v} + \textbf{J}_i\bigr)= \sigma_i\;.$$ This equation is called the *local balance equation* of the $i^{th}$ constituent [@Bus; @Gro; @Kra00; @Rau; @Sei; @Stu]. The term $\partial{\rho_i}/\partial{t}$ is the local temporal change of $\rho_i$, and the quantities $\rho_i \textbf{v}$ and $\textbf{J}_i$ are frequently called the *convective* and *non-convective transports* of matter, respectively. It is obvious that in the case of a closed or isolated thermodynamic system the divergence term vanishes because it only describes the exchange of matter between the system and its surroundings. As the use of Gauss’ integral theorem requires that some mathematical pre-requisites have to be fulfilled, the local balance equation (\[2.9\]) is somewhat lesser valid than the integral balance equation (\[2.7\]). Nevertheless, any integration of Eq. (\[2.9\]) over a certain volume as performed, for instance, by numerical models of the troposphere must be in agreement with Eq. (\[2.7\]).\
Summing Eq. (\[2.9\]) over all substances, $i = 0, 1.
\dots, N$, provides $$\label{2.10}
\sum_{i=0}^N \frac{\partial{\rho_i}}{\partial{t}} + \sum_{i=0}^N
\nabla \cdot \bigl(\rho_i \; \textbf{v} + \textbf{J}_i\bigr)=
\sum_{i=0}^N \sigma_i\;.$$ Since, according to de Lavoisier’s law, mass is conserved in chemical reactions (and/or phase transition processes; i.e., the transformation of mass into energy as expressed by Einstein’s formula is unimportant in the case of atmospheric trace constituents), we have $$\label{2.11}
\sum_{i=0}^N \sigma_i = 0\;.$$ Furthermore, with the aid of Eqs. (\[2.3\]) and (\[2.4\]) and the definition of the diffusion flux, we obtain $$\label{2.12}
\sum_{i=0}^N \frac{\partial{\rho_i}}{\partial{t}} =
\frac{\partial{}}{\partial{t}} \Bigl(\sum_{i=0}^N \rho_i\Bigr) =
\frac{\partial{\rho}}{\partial{t}}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{2.13}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
\nonumber \sum_{i=0}^N \nabla \cdot (\rho_i \; \textbf{v} +
\textbf{J}_i) &=& \nabla \cdot \Bigl(\sum_{i=0}^N \bigl(\rho_i \;
\textbf{v} + \rho_i(\textbf{v}_i - \textbf{v})\bigr)\Bigr) \\
&=& \nabla \cdot \Bigl(\sum_{i=0}^N \bigl(\rho_i \;
\textbf{v}_i\bigr)\Bigr) = \nabla \cdot \bigl(\rho\;
\textbf{v}\bigr) \;.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, Eq, (\[2.10\]) leads to the macroscopic balance equation for the total mass per unit volume [@Gro; @Gar; @Kra00; @Lan1; @Rau; @Stu] $$\label{2.14}
\frac{\partial{\rho}}{\partial{t}} + \nabla \cdot \bigl(\rho \;
\textbf{v}\bigr)= 0\;.$$ It represents the formulation of the conservation of mass on the local scale and is customarily called the *equation of continuity*.\
If we use the mass fraction $c_i = \rho_i/\rho$, then Eq. (\[2.9\]) will read $$\label{2.15}
\frac{\partial{\bigl(\rho\; c_i\bigr)}}{\partial{t}} + \nabla \cdot
\bigl(\rho\; c_i \; \textbf{v} + \textbf{J}_i\bigr)= \sigma_i\;.$$ Applying the product rule of differentiation to this equation yields $$\label{2.16}
\rho\;\frac{\partial{c_i}}{\partial{t}} + c_i
\Bigl(\underbrace{\frac{\partial{\rho}}{\partial{t}} + \nabla \cdot
\bigl(\rho \; \textbf{v}\bigr)}_{=\;0\; (see Eq.
(\ref{2.14}))}\Bigr) + \rho\;\textbf{v} \cdot \nabla{c_i} + \nabla
\cdot \textbf{J}_i = \sigma_i$$ or $$\label{2.17}
\rho\Bigl(\frac{\partial{c_i}}{\partial{t}} + \textbf{v} \cdot
\nabla{c_i}\Bigr) + \nabla \cdot \textbf{J}_i = \sigma_i\;,$$ where $$\label{2.18}
\frac{dc_i}{dt} = \frac{\partial{c_i}}{\partial{t}} + \textbf{v}
\cdot \nabla{c_i}$$ is the substantial or total derivative with respect to time. Equation (\[2.17\]) may be called the *advection-diffusion equation* of a chemically active atmospheric constituent.
The “alternative” mass balance equations of atmospheric constituents
====================================================================
Recently, several authors proposed a mass balance as an “alternative” form to the conservation equation (\[2.9\]). This “alternative” form reads [@Aub; @Fei; @Fin1; @Fin2; @Fin3; @Lee1; @Lee2; @Liu; @Mas; @Sog] $$\label{3.1}
\frac{\partial{\rho_i}}{\partial{t}} + \nabla \cdot \bigl(\rho_i \;
\textbf{v}\bigr)= S_i\;.$$ In this equation, the diffusion flux $\textbf{J}_i$ is generally ignored. This flux, however, is not negligible because, as expressed in Eq. (\[2.9\]), it must represent the local balance equation for a macroscopic fluid. If $\textbf{J}_i$ would not occur, diffusion of the $i^{th}$ constituent in a macroscopic fluid could not be quantified. This means, for instance, that the sedimentation of airborne particles like aerosol and ice particles and water drops would generally be excluded. Moreover, this “alternative” form is applied to quantify the sinks or sources of $CO_2$ inside canopies of tall vegetation like forests by a method where the term $S_i$ is called a source/sink inside the volume $V$ of the fluid. However, considering the derivation of Eq. (\[2.9\]), an uptake or emission of a substance by plant elements or soil is a process at the boundary of a fluid and, therefore, has to be described in terms of boundary conditions, as substantiated by the integral balance equation (\[2.7\]). Therefore, $S_i$ is not a biological source/sink term. Such a term must not occur in the local form of a balance equation. Boundary conditions only occur when the local mass balance equation is integrated, in complete agreement with Eq. (\[2.7\]). The “alternative” equation (\[3.1\]), however, cannot be deduced from any integral mass balance equation. Finnigan et al. [@Fin1] introduced it into the literature in an unforced manner and without any physical justification. One of the physical consequences related to this “alternative” mass balance equation is that the biological source/sink would explicitly cause a temporal change in the partial density. Whereas Eq. (\[2.9\]) clearly substantiates that only the divergence of the convective and non-convective fluxes contributes to a temporal change of the partial density.\
Finnigan et al. [@Fin1] and many others [@Aub; @Fei; @Fin2; @Fin3; @Lee1; @Lee2; @Liu; @Mas; @Sog] expressed $S_i$ as a surface source (instead of a volume-related source or sink due to chemical reactions or/and phase transition processes) by $$\label{3.2}
S_i = S_i\bigl(\textbf{x}\bigr)\;\delta \bigl(\textbf{x} -
\textbf{x}_0\bigr)\;,$$ where $\delta(\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_0)$ is Dirac’s delta function (from a mathematical point of view a distribution). Finnigan et al. [@Fin1] argued that “the source term, $S_i(\textbf{x})$, is multiplied by the Dirac delta function, signifying that the source is zero except on the ground and vegetation surfaces, whose locus is $\textbf{x}_0$”. This is incorrect at least by two reasons: As mentioned before, the physical meaning of $S_i$ in Eq.(\[3.1\]) must be a source or sink within the volume, but not at the boundaries, which are represented by boundary conditions. Furthermore, the Dirac delta function has the property that $\delta(\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_0) = 0$ for all $\textbf{x} \neq \textbf{x}_0$ [@Bra; @Dir; @Lan2; @Mes; @Ril], i.e., there is only the infinitesimal region (namely when $\textbf{x} = \textbf{x}_0$) at which a source or sink of matter is defined. In addition, in various textbooks [@Lan2; @Mes], it is pointed out that $\delta(\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_0) = \infty$ for $\textbf{x} = \textbf{x}_0$. Thus, Eq. (\[3.2\]) and, hence, Eq. (\[3.1\]) would become meaningless for $\textbf{x} =
\textbf{x}_0$. As pointed out later on, the main properties of the $\delta$-function are defined by the integral over a region containing $\textbf{x} = \textbf{x}_0$.\
Uptake and emission of a constituent by plants, soil and/or water systems are surface effects, expressed, for instance, in SI units by $kg/(m^2 s)$; whereas the local temporal change in Eqs. (\[2.9\]) and (\[2.15\]) has the SI units $kg/(m^3 s)$. If we express Dirac’s delta function using SI units we will have $m^{-3}$. Therefore, the term $S_i(\textbf{x})\;\delta(\textbf{x}-\textbf{x}_0)$ would have the SI units $kg/(m^5 s)$. It is indispensable that in any physical equation its terms must have identical physical units. This fundamental requirement, however, is not satisfied in the case of the “alternative” forms of mass balance equations. There is evidence (e.g., Eq. (6) of Finnigan et al. [@Fin1], Eq. (11) of Finnigan [@Fin2], Eqs. (2.2) and (3.8) of Lee et al. [@Lee2], and Eq. (14) of Massman and Tuovinen [@Mas]) that the biological source/sink term is, indeed, expressed by the units of a flux of matter, i.e., in $kg/(m^2 s)$, even though, as expressed by the local temporal change of the partial density ($\partial{\rho_i}/\partial{t}$), $kg/(m^3 s)$ is unequivocally required.\
Nevertheless, assuming for a moment that Eq. (\[3.2\]) is reasonable, then Eq. (\[2.11\]) would result in $$\label{3.3}
\sum_{i=1}^N S_i = \sum_{i=1}^N S_i\bigl(\textbf{x}\bigr)\;\delta
\bigl(\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_0\bigr)\neq 0\;,$$ and, hence, Eq. (\[2.10\]) in $$\label{3.4}
\frac{\partial{\rho}}{\partial{t}} + \nabla \cdot \bigl(\rho \;
\textbf{v}\bigr) = \sum_{i=1}^N S_i\bigl(\textbf{x}\bigr)\;\delta
\bigl(\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_0\bigr)\neq 0\;.$$ The right-hand side of this equation is not equal to zero because atmospheric constituents have different natural and anthropogenic origins and different sinks. This means: if Eq. (\[3.2\]) would be reasonable, than one of the fundamental laws of physics, namely the conservation of the total mass on a local scale, as expressed by the equation of continuity (\[2.14\]), is notably violated by the “alternative” forms of mass balance equations.
Reynolds averaging calculus
===========================
Conservation laws for a turbulent fluid can be derived by using Reynolds’ averaging calculus, i.e., decomposition of any instantaneous field quantity $\varphi(\textbf{r})$ like $\rho_i(\textbf{r})$ and $\textbf{v}(\textbf{r})$ by $\varphi(\textbf{r}) = \overline{\varphi} + \varphi'$ and subsequent averaging according to [@Her1; @Kra00; @Mie] $$\label{4.1}
\overline{\varphi} = \overline{\varphi(\textbf{r})} = \frac{1}{G}
\int_{G} \varphi \bigl(\textbf{r}, \textbf{r}'\bigr)\;dG'\;,$$ where $\overline{\varphi}$ is the average in space and time of $\varphi(\textbf{r})$, and the fluctuation $\varphi'$ is the difference between the former and the latter. Here, $\textbf{r}$ is the four-dimensional vector of space and time in the original coordinate system, $\textbf{r}'$ is that of the averaging domain $G$ where its origin, $\textbf{r}' = 0$, is assumed to be $\textbf{r}$, and $dG' = d^3r\;dt'$. The averaging domain $G$ is given by $G =
\int_{G} dG'$. Hence, the quantity $\overline{\varphi}$ represents the mean values for the averaging domain $G$ at the location $\textbf{r}$. Since $\overline{\overline{\varphi}} =
\overline{\varphi}$, averaging the quantity $\varphi(\textbf{r}) =
\overline{\varphi} + \varphi'$ provides $\overline{\varphi'} = 0$. Any kind of averaging must be in agreement with these basic definitions. These basic definitions cannot be undermined by imperfect averaging procedures. Since, in accord with the ergodic theorem, assemble averaging as expressed by Eq. (\[4.1\]) may be replaced by time averaging [@Lie], the common practice, it is indispensable to ask whether a time averaging procedure is in complete agreement with the statistical description of turbulence or not.\
A basic requirement for using a time averaging procedure is that turbulence is statistically steady [@Fal; @Lum; @Ten]. Consequently, sophisticated procedures for identifying non-stationary effects (trends) are indispensable to prevent that computed turbulent fluxes of atmospheric constituents are notably affected by non-stationary effects. In order to identify such stationary states in the off-line time series analysis, Werle et al. [@Wer1] suggested the Allan-variance criterion [@All] as a suitable and efficient tool. As argued by Percival and Guttorp [@Per], this variance is an appropriate measure for studying long-memory processes because it can be estimated without bias and with good efficiency for such processes, and it may be interpreted as the Haar wavelet coefficient variance [@Fla; @Kra99]. Percival and Guttorp [@Per] generalized this to other wavelets [@Kum]. Following various authors [@Bru; @Hag; @How; @Katu], wavelet decomposition seems to be well appropriate to study turbulence data. Thus, the Allan variance criterion combined with the wavelet analysis is much more favorable than simple block averaging as suggested, for instance, by Finnigan et al. [@Fin1] and Treviño and Andreas [@Tre].\
Figure \[Figure2\] illustrates two Allan plots deduced from a synthetic data set generated by the equation $Y_t = a + b\;t
+ G(\sigma)$ (see Figure \[Figure3\]), where $a$ is an offset, $b\; t$ is a linear drift and $G(\sigma)$ is a Gaussian distributed white noise (lower trace) and a data set containing a ten times stronger drift (upper trace). In both cases $\sigma_A^2(k)$ was calculated using Haar wavelet coefficients [@Kra99]. For convenience, it is assumed that the sampling interval between consecutive observations is constant and amounts to $\Delta{t}=
1\;s$. Thus, the time $\tau = k\;\Delta{t}$ is equivalent to the averaging or integration time. As shown in Figure \[Figure3\], the lower trace indicates a minimum of $\sigma_A^2(k)$ at an integration time, denoted here as optimum integration time $\tau_{opt}$, of about $130\; s$. Whereas the upper trace for the data set with the ten times stronger drift suggests a $\tau_{opt}$ value of about $25\;s$. For $\tau < \tau_{opt}$, the Allan plots show a $\tau^{-
1}$ behavior that is typical for white noise. Beyond $\tau_{opt}$, the Allan plots obey the $\tau^2$ law which indicates that a linear drift becomes dominant. Consequently, for $\tau > \tau_{opt}$, stationary conditions as required by time averaging are not assured. From this point of view, $\tau_{opt}$ may be considered as the maximum averaging time [@Kra99].
The balance equations of atmospheric constituents for a turbulent fluid
=======================================================================
Applying the conventional Reynolds’ averaging calculus to Eq. (\[2.9\]) yields [@Bus; @Kra00] $$\label{5.1}
\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}} + \nabla \cdot
\Bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{\textbf{v}} +
\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'} + \overline{\textbf{J}_i}\Bigr)=
\overline{\sigma_i}\;.$$ Here, the overbar represents the conventional Reynolds average; whereas the prime denotes the departure from that. Equation (\[5.1\]) is called the balance equation for the $1^{st}$ moment (or $1^{st}$-order balance equation). Here, $\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}$ is the turbulent (or eddy) flux. It is a non-convective flux, too.\
As mentioned before, the diffusion flux represents not only molecular fluxes, but also the sedimentation of aerosol particles affected by the gravity field. Thus, $\overline{\textbf{J}_i}$ cannot generally be neglected in comparison with the corresponding second moment $\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}$. Even in the immediate vicinity of the earth’s surface it must not be ignored because the wind vector vanishes at any rigid surface, and, consequently, no exhalation or deposition of matter would be possible. In the case of gaseous constituents $\overline{\textbf{J}_i}$ becomes negligible in comparison with $\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}$ when a fully turbulent flow is considered. Obviously, Eq. (\[5.1\]) also fulfils the conditions $\sum_{i=0}^N \overline{\textbf{J}_i} = 0$ and $\sum_{i=1}^N
\overline{\sigma_i} = 0$, and, as required by the equation of continuity in its averaged form, $$\label{5.2}
\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho}}}{\partial{t}} + \nabla \cdot
\Bigl(\overline{\rho}\;\overline{\textbf{v}} +
\overline{\rho'\;\textbf{v}'}\Bigr)= 0\;,$$ the conditions $\sum_{i=0}^N
\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{\textbf{v}}=
\overline{\rho}\;\overline{\textbf{v}}$ and $\sum_{i=0}^N
\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'} = \overline{\rho'\;\textbf{v}'}$ are fulfilled, too.\
If mass fractions are considered (see Eqs. (\[2.15\]) to (\[2.18\])), then density-weighted averaging techniques [@Dut; @Her1; @Kra95; @Pic; @Mie] should be applied in formulating local balance equations for turbulent flows to avoid any simplification [@Kra00; @Kra06].\
If we rearrange Eq. (\[5.1\]) by using the equation of continuity (\[5.2\]) (it is similar to the rearrangement of Eq. (\[2.15\]) that leads to Eq. (\[2.17\])) and ignoring the covariance terms $\overline{\rho'\;\textbf{v}'}$ and $\overline{\rho'\;c_i'}$, as customarily accepted within the framework of the Boussinesq approximation, we will obtain $$\label{5.3}
\overline{\rho} \Bigl(\frac{\partial{\overline{c_i}}}{\partial{t}} +
\overline{\textbf{v}} \cdot \nabla{\overline{c_i}}\Bigr) + \nabla
\cdot \Bigl(\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'} +
\overline{\textbf{J}_i}\Bigr)= \overline{\sigma_i}\;.$$ It may be called the advection-diffusion equation of a chemically active atmospheric constituent for a turbulent fluid. Here, $\sigma_i$ still represents the gain or lost of matter due to chemical reactions (and/or phase transition processes).\
For the purpose of comparison: Finnigan’s [@Fin2] Eqs. (8) as well as Eq. (3.7) and (10.8) of Lee et al. [@Lee2] read $$\label{5.4}
\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}} +
\overline{\textbf{v}} \cdot \nabla{\overline{\rho_i}} + \nabla \cdot
\Bigl(\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}\Bigr)= \overline{S_i}\;,$$ where $S_i$ is still given by $S_i(\textbf{x}) \delta
(\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_0)$ (see our Eq. (\[3.2\])). Obviously, Eq. (\[5.4\]) is not self-consistent. First, as shown in Eq. (\[5.3\]), the mass fraction $c_i$ must occur in the two terms on the left-hand side of Eq. (\[5.4\]), but not the partial density $\rho_i$. Second, the rearrangement of Eq. (\[2.15\]) that leads to Eq. (\[2.17\]) requires that the right-hand side of Eq. (\[3.4\]) is always equal to zero so that Eq. (\[3.4\]) equals the equation of continuity (\[2.14\]).
Vertically integrated mass balance equations
============================================
If we assume horizontally homogeneous conditions and recognize that in such a case the vertical component of the mean wind vector becomes nearly equal to zero ($\overline{w} \cong 0$), Eq. (\[5.1\]) will provide $$\label{6.1}
\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}} +
\frac{\partial}{\partial{z}}\Bigl(\overline{\rho_i'\;w'} +
\overline{J_{i,z}}\Bigr)= \overline{\sigma_i}\;,$$ where, $w$ is the vertical component of the wind vector, $J_{i,z}$ is the vertical component of the diffusion flux, and $z$ is the height above ground. Note that Archimedean effects are related to the gravity field. The same is true in the case of the hydrostatic pressure. Consequently, the vertical direction is related to the gravity field[@Sun1]; but not to the normal vector of a slope or a streamline as recently described, for instance, by Finnigan et al. [@Fin1] and Finnigan [@Fin2]. Especially over complex terrain trajectories and streamlines are usually vary with time and position. Therefore, it is difficult to find, for instance, a common reference streamline coordinate frame for using sonic anemometry at different heights to estimate the variation of turbulent fluxes of momentum, sensible heat and matter with height. Without knowing a reference coordinate frame that is invariant in space and time, the convergence/divergence of any trace gases cannot be calculated [@Sun1; @Sun2]. In contrast to a streamline coordinate frame, one may use a terrain-following coordinate frame as usually considered within the framework of mesoscale meteorological modeling, but an exact transformation of the governing equations is still indispensable. Fortunately, this transformation is well known since more than three decades (see, e.g., [@Piel]).\
The integration of this equation from the earth’s surface ($z = 0$) to a certain height above ground ($z = h$),where a fully turbulent flow is established, yields then $$\label{6.2}
\int_{0}^{h} \Bigl(\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}} -
\overline{\sigma_i}\Bigr) dz = \Bigl[\overline{\rho_i'\;w'} +
\overline{J_{i,z}}\Bigr]_{z=0} - \Bigl[\overline{\rho_i'\;w'} +
\overline{J_{i,z}}\Bigr]_{z=h}\quad.$$ Assuming long-lived trace species ($\overline{\sigma_i}
\cong 0$) and stationary condition ($\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}/\partial{t}= 0$)leads to the constant flux approximation expressed by $$\label{6.3}
\Bigl[\overline{\rho_i'\;w'} + \overline{J_{i,z}}\Bigr]_{z=h} =
\Bigl[\overline{\rho_i'\;w'} + \overline{J_{i,z}}\Bigr]_{z=0}\;.$$ At the height $z = h$ the vertical component of the diffusion flux of a trace gas can usually be ignored in comparison with the vertical component of the corresponding eddy flux component ($|\overline{J_{i,z}}|_{z=h} \ll |\overline{\rho_i'\;w'}|_{z=h}$). As already mentioned, the opposite is true in the immediate vicinity of the earth’s surface ($|\overline{J_{i,z}}|_{z=0} \gg
|\overline{\rho_i'\;w'}|_{z=0}$). Thus, Eqs. (\[6.2\]) and (\[6.3\]) may be written as $$\label{6.4}
\int_{0}^{h} \Bigl(\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}} -
\overline{\sigma_i}\Bigr) dz \cong
\Bigl[\overline{J_{i,z}}\Bigr]_{z=0} -
\Bigl[\overline{\rho_i'\;w'}\Bigr]_{z=h}$$ and $$\label{6.5}
\Bigl[\overline{\rho_i'\;w'}\Bigr]_{z=h} \cong \Bigl[
\overline{J_{i,z}}\Bigr]_{z=0}\;.$$ In contrast to this, Eq. (\[5.4\]) with $S_i = S_i(z)\;
\delta(z)$ (see Eq. (\[3.2\])) leads to [@Fin1; @Fin2; @Fin3; @Mon] $$\label{6.6}
\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}} +
\frac{\partial}{\partial{z}}\Bigl(\overline{\rho_i'\;w'}\Bigr)=
\overline{S_i(z)}\;\delta(z)\;.$$ Here, an important inconsistency exists because $\textbf{x}$ and $\textbf{x}_0$ are vectors so that $\delta(\textbf{x} - \textbf{x}_0) = 0$ has to be expressed, for instance, in Cartesian coordinates by $\delta(x - x_0)\delta(y -
y_0)\delta(z) = 0$ when $z_0 = 0$ is considered. Therefore, we would have $$\label{6.7}
\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}} +
\frac{\partial}{\partial{z}}\Bigl(\overline{\rho_i'\;w'}\Bigr)=
\overline{S_i(z)}\;\delta \bigl(x - x_0\bigr)\;\delta \bigl(y -
y_0\bigr)\;\delta\bigl(z\bigr)\;.$$ Nevertheless, following for a moment Finnigan and disciples, the integration of this equation should yield [@Fin1; @Fin2; @Fin3; @Mon] $$\label{6.8}
\int_{0}^{h} \frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}} dz = -
\Bigl[\overline{\rho_i'\;w'}\Bigr]_{z=h} + \overline{S_i}\;,$$ where the biological source/sink term $\overline{S_i}$ is given by $$\label{6.9}
\overline{S_i} = \int_0^h \overline{S_i(z)}\;\delta
\bigl(z\bigr)\;dz\;.$$ Assuming steady-state condition yields then [@Mon]\
$$\label{6.10}
\Bigl[\overline{\rho_i'\;w'}\Bigr]_{z=h} = \overline{S_i}\;.$$ Obviously, Eq (\[6.10\]) looks similar like Eq. (\[6.5\]). However, from a mathematical point of view, Eq. (\[6.9\]) is faulty because Dirac’s delta function has the fundamental property that [@Bra; @Dir; @Lan2; @Mes; @Ril] $$\label{6.11}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f\bigl(x\bigr)\;\delta \bigl(x - a\bigr)\;dx
= f\bigl(a\bigr)\;,$$ where $f(x)$ is any function continuous at the point $x =
a$, and, in fact, $$\label{6.12}
\int_{a-\epsilon}^{a+\epsilon} f\bigl(x\bigr)\;\delta \bigl(x -
a\bigr)\; dx = f(a)\quad \textrm{for} \;\epsilon > 0$$ or, with $b_1 = a-\epsilon < a$ and $b_2 = a+\epsilon >
a$, $$\label{6.13}
\int_{b_1}^{b_2} f\bigl(x\bigr)\;\delta \bigl(x - a\bigr)\; dx =
f\bigl(a\bigr)\quad \textrm{for} \;b_1 < a < b_2\quad.$$ In the special case of $f(x) = 1$ this equation directly provides $$\label{6.14}
\int_{b_1}^{b_2} \delta \bigl(x - a\bigr)\; dx = 1\;.$$ This means that the range of integration must include the point $x = a$, as expressed in Eq. (\[6.13\]) by $b_1 < a < b_2$; otherwise, the integral equals zero. Equation (\[6.9\]) does not fulfill this requirement. Consequently, we have $$\label{6.15}
\overline{S_i} = \int_0^h \overline{S_i(z)}\;\delta
\bigl(z\bigr)\;dz = 0\;.$$ This result is generally valid for any value of $z\;\geq\;0$.
The bases for Monin-Obukhov similarity laws
===========================================
Similarity hypotheses according to Monin and Obukhov [@Bar; @Monin] are based on the pre-requisite that the turbulent fluxes of momentum, sensible heat and matter are invariant with height across the atmospheric surface layer (ASL). These similarity hypotheses can be expressed by [@Monin; @Busch; @Pano84; @Kra89] $$\label{7.1} \frac{\kappa\;z}{u_*} \frac{dU}{dz} =
\Phi_m \bigl(\zeta\bigr)\;,$$ $$\label{7.2}
\frac{\kappa\;z}{\Theta_*} \frac{d\overline{\Theta}}{dz} = \Phi_h
\bigl(\zeta\bigr)\;,$$ and $$\label{7.3}
\frac{\kappa\;z}{c_{i,*}} \frac{d\overline{c_i}}{dz} = \Phi_i
\bigl(\zeta\bigr)\;.$$ Here, $\kappa$ is the von Kármán constant, $u_*$ is the friction velocity, $U = |\overline{\textbf{v}_H}|$ is the magnitude of the mean horizontal wind component, $\Theta$ is the potential temperature, $\Theta_*$ is the so-called temperature scale, and $c_{i,*}$ is the so-called scale of matter. Furthermore, $\Phi_m(\zeta)$, $\Phi_h(\zeta)$, and $\Phi_i(\zeta)$ are the local similarity functions for momentum (subscript m), sensible heat (subscript h), and matter (subscript i), respectively. Moreover, $\zeta$ is the Obukhov number, where $L$ is the Obukhov stability length defined by [@Obuk; @Monin; @Zil; @Kra89] $$\label{7.4}
L = \frac{u_*^2}{\kappa\;
\frac{g}{\overline{\Theta}}\;\bigl(\Theta_* + 0.61\;
\overline{\Theta}\; c_{v,*}\bigr)}\;.$$ Here, $g$ is the acceleration of gravity, and $c_{v,*}$ is the so-called humidity scale when subscript $i$ stands for water vapor. The turbulent fluxes of momentum (the magnitude of the Reynolds stress vector), $\tau$, sensible heat, $H$, and matter, $F_i$, are related to these scaling quantities by [@Monin; @Busch; @Pano84; @Kra89] $$\label{7.5}
\tau = \Bigl(\overline{\rho}\;\overline{u'\;w'}+
\overline{\rho}\;\overline{v'\;w'}\Bigr)^{\frac{1}{2}} =
\overline{\rho}\;u_*^2 = const.\;,$$ $$\label{7.6}
H = c_{p,d}\;\overline{\rho}\;\overline{w'\;\Theta'} = -
c_{p,d}\;\overline{\rho}\;u_*\;\Theta_* = const.\;,$$ and $$\label{7.7}
F_i = \overline{\rho}\;\overline{w'\;c_i'} = -
\overline{\rho}\;u_*\;c_{i,*} = const.\;,$$ where $c_{p,d}$ is the specific heat at constant pressure for dry air. Assuming that these fluxes are invariant with height and integrating Eqs. (\[7.1\]) to (\[7.3\]) over he height interval $[z_1, z_2]$ ($z_1$ and $z_2$ may be the lower and upper boundaries of the fully turbulent part of the ASL) result in $$\label{7.8}
U(z_2) = U(z_1) + \frac{u_*}{\kappa}\Bigl(\ln\frac{z_2}{z_1}-
\Psi_m\bigl(\zeta_2,\zeta_1\bigr)\Bigr)\;,$$ $$\label{7.9}
\overline{\Theta}(z_2) = \overline{\Theta}(z_1) +
\frac{\Theta_*}{\kappa}\Bigl(\ln\frac{z_2}{z_1}-
\Psi_h\bigl(\zeta_2,\zeta_1\bigr)\Bigr)\;,$$ and $$\label{7.10}
\overline{c_i}(z_2) = \overline{c_i}(z_1) +
\frac{c_{i,*}}{\kappa}\Bigl(\ln\frac{z_2}{z_1}-
\Psi_i\bigl(\zeta_2,\zeta_1\bigr)\Bigr)\;,$$ where the corresponding integral similarity functions are defined by [@Pano63; @Pau; @Pano84; @Kra89] $$\label{7.11}
\Psi_{m,h,i}\bigl(\zeta_2,\zeta_1\bigr) = \int_{\zeta_1}^{\zeta_2}\frac{1 -
\Phi_{m,h,i}(\zeta)}{\zeta}\;d\zeta$$ Obviously, not only the similarity hypotheses of Monin and Obukhov but also the integration of Eqs. (\[7.1\]) to (\[7.3\] require that the fluxes of momentum, sensible heat and matter are height-invariant across the ASL. Since the local similarity functions of Monin and Obukhov cannot be derived using methods of dimensional analysis like Buckingham’s [@Buck] $\pi$ theorem, it is indispensable to use formulae empirically derived. Integral similarity functions that are based on various local similarity functions empirically determined are reviewed by Panofsky and Dutton [@Pano84], Kramm [@Kra04], and Kramm and Herbert [@Kra08].\
The set of so-called profile functions (\[7.8\]) to (\[7.11\]) enables the experimentalist to estimate turbulent fluxes of momentum, sensible heat and matter in dependence on the thermal stratification of air at a certain height above the lower boundary, namely the earth’s surface, using the vertical profiles of mean values of windspeed, potential temperature and mass fractions [@Gar; @Stu]. Furthermore, the parameterization schemes used in state-of-the-art numerical models of the atmosphere (weather prediction models, climate models, etc.) for predicting the exchange of momentum, sensible heat and matter between the atmosphere and the underlying ground also based on this set of profile functions.\
In the case of trace species Eq. (\[5.1\]) is the essential rule for micrometeorological profile measurement. With respect to this, it requires stationary state and horizontally homogeneous conditions and that chemical reactions play no role like in the case of $CO_2$. Under these premises one obtains $$\label{7.12}
\frac{\partial}{\partial{z}}\Bigl(\overline{\rho_i'\;w'} +
\overline{J_{i,z}}\Bigr)= 0\Rightarrow \overline{\rho_i'\;w'} +
\overline{J_{i,z}} = \textrm{const.}$$ This result completely agrees with Eq. (\[6.3\]). On the contrary, under the same premises the “alternative” equation (\[5.4\]) leads to $$\label{7.13}
\frac{\partial}{\partial{z}}\Bigl(\overline{\rho_i'\;w'}\Bigr)=
\overline{S_i}\;\delta \bigl(z\bigr) \neq \textrm{const.}$$ when we assume for a moment that Eq. (\[6.9\]) would be correct. Consequently, the “alternative” advection-diffusion equation (\[5.4\]) would imply that no basis for the similarity laws of Monin and Obukhov does exist, i.e., the profile functions (\[7.8\]) to (\[7.11\]) customarily used for determining the fluxes of long-lived trace gases like $CO_2$ would be obsolete.
The global budget of carbon dioxide
===================================
Dividing Eq. (\[2.7\]) by the volume and rearranging the resulting equation yield for a turbulent system $$\label{8.1}
\Bigl\langle\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}}\Bigr\rangle_V
=
-\;\frac{1}{V(t)}\;\int_{A(V(t))}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{\textbf{v}}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}+ \overline{\textbf{J}_i}\bigr)\cdot
d\textbf{A} + \bigl\langle\overline{\sigma_i}\bigr\rangle_V\;,$$ where the volume average of an arbitrary quantity $\psi$ is generally defined by $$\label{8.2}
\bigl\langle\psi\bigr\rangle_V = \frac{1}{V}\int_V \psi \; V\;.$$ Hitherto, the volume $V(t)$ has been considered as arbitrary. Suppose the earth can be considered as a sphere with the radius $r_E \cong 6,371$ km and the atmospheric layer under study that directly covers the earth as a spherical shell of a thickness of $\Delta r$, the volume of the atmospheric layer, $V_A$, now considered as independent of time is then given by $$\label{8.3}
V_A = \frac{4}{3}\;\pi\;r_E^3\;\Bigl\{\Bigl(1 + \frac{\Delta
r}{r_E}\Bigr)^3 - 1\Bigr\}\;.$$ Since $\Delta r/r_E \ll 1$, the term $(1 + \Delta
r/r_E)^3$ can be approximated by $1 + 3\;\Delta r/r_E$. Thus, we obtain $$\label{8.4}
V_A = 4\;\pi\;r_E^2\;\Delta r\;.$$ The surface of this spherical shell is given by $A_A = A_T
+ A_E = 4\;\pi\;r_E^2\;\{(1 + \Delta r/r_E)^2 + 2\}$, where $A_T$ and $A_E$ are the outer surface and the inner surface of this shell, respectively. The latter is congruent with the earth’s surface. The surface integral in Eq. (\[8.1\]) may, therefore, be expressed by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8.5}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
\nonumber
\lefteqn{\int_{A_A}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{\textbf{v}}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}+ \overline{\textbf{J}_i}\bigr)\cdot
d\textbf{A} =
\int_{A_T}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{\textbf{v}}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}+ \overline{\textbf{J}_i}\bigr)\cdot
d\textbf{A}} \\
&+& \int_{A_E}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{\textbf{v}}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}+ \overline{\textbf{J}_i}\bigr)\cdot
d\textbf{A}\;.\end{aligned}$$ The first integral on the right-hand side of this equation describes the exchange of matter between the atmospheric layer under study and the atmospheric region aloft across the common border, and the second integral the exchange of matter between the atmospheric layer under study and the earth caused by the total (anthropogenic plus natural) emission (counted positive) and the uptake (counted negative) by the terrestrial biosphere (plants and soils) and the oceans. If we choose $\Delta r$ in such a sense that exchange across the outer surface of this spherical shell is equal to zero (or in comparison with that at the earth’s surface, at least, negligible) because of the vertical profile of the $CO_2$ concentration becomes (nearly) independent of height (see, e.g., Figure 1 in [@Steph]), we will obtain $$\label{8.6}
\int_{A_A}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{\textbf{v}}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}+ \overline{\textbf{J}_i}\bigr)\cdot
d\textbf{A} =
\int_{A_E}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{\textbf{v}}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}+ \overline{\textbf{J}_i}\bigr)\cdot
d\textbf{A}\;.$$ Since the unit vector normal to the inner surface of the spherical shell shows in the direction of the earth’s center, we have only to consider the radial components of these fluxes characterized by the subscript $r$, i.e., $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8.7}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
\nonumber \lefteqn{
\int_{A_E}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{\textbf{v}}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;\textbf{v}'}+
\overline{\textbf{J}_i}\,\bigr)\cdot d\textbf{A} =
-\;\int_{A_E}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{v_r}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;v_r'}+ \overline{J_{r,i}}\,\bigr)\Bigr|_{EM}
dA }\\
&+& \int_{A_E}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{v_r}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;v_r'}+ \overline{J_{r,i}}\,\bigr)\Bigr|_U dA\;.\end{aligned}$$ The first integral on the right-hand side of this equation represents the total emission (subscript $EM$) and the second one the uptake (subscript $U$). The signs of these terms are determined by the scalar product between the unit vectors of the fluxes and the unit vector normal to the inner surface of the spherical shell.\
Combining Eqs. (\[8.1\]) and (\[8.5\]) to (\[8.7\]) yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8.8}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
\nonumber
\Bigl\langle\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}}\Bigr\rangle_{V_A}
&=&
\frac{1}{V_A}\;\Bigl\{\int_{A_E}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{v_r}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;v_r'}+ \overline{J_{r,i}}\,\bigr)\Bigr|_{EM}dA \\
&-& \int_{A_E}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{v_r}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;v_r'}+ \overline{J_{r,i}}\,\bigr)\Bigr|_U
dA\Bigr\} + \bigl\langle\overline{\sigma_i}\bigr\rangle_{V_A}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Since $CO_2$ is a long-lived trace gas, the effect caused by chemical reactions can be ignored. Thus, Eq. (\[8.8\]) can be approximated by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8.9}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
\nonumber
\Bigl\langle\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}}\Bigr\rangle_{V_A}
&=&
\frac{1}{V_A}\;\Bigl\{\int_{A_E}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{v_r}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;v_r'}+ \overline{J_{r,i}}\,\bigr)\Bigr|_{EM}dA \\
\nonumber &-& \int_{A_E}\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{v_r}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;v_r'}+ \overline{J_{r,i}}\,\bigr)\Bigr|_U dA\Bigr\}\;.\\\end{aligned}$$ Expanding the right-hand side of this equation with $A_E$ yields finally $$\begin{aligned}
\label{8.10}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
\nonumber
\Bigl\langle\frac{\partial{\overline{\rho_i}}}{\partial{t}}\Bigr\rangle_{V_A}
&=& \frac{1}{\Delta r}
\;\Bigl\{\Bigl\langle\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{v_r}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;v_r'}+ \overline{J_{r,i}}\,\bigr)\Bigr|_{EM}\Bigr\rangle_{A_E} \\
&-& \Bigl\langle\bigl(\overline{\rho_i}\;\overline{v_r}
+\overline{\rho_i'\;v_r'}+ \overline{J_{r,i}}\,\bigr)\Bigr|_U
\Bigr\rangle_{A_E} \Bigr\}\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\label{8.11}
\bigl\langle\psi\bigr\rangle_{A_E} =
\frac{1}{A_E}\int_{A_E}\psi\;dA\;.$$ represents the global average of an arbitrary quantity $\psi$. Equation (\[8.10\]) deduced by using the exact integral formulations substantiates that (a) total emission and the uptake of $CO_2$ have to be considered as lower boundary conditions and (b) the partial density of $CO_2$ averaged over the volume of the atmospheric layer under study will rise as long as the globally averaged total emission is higher than the globally averaged uptake.
Final remarks and conclusions
=============================
In 1999 Sarmiento and Gruber [@Sar] pointed out that “the land sink for carbon is the subject of considerable controversy at present, concerning not only its magnitude but also its cause”. It seems that any use of an “alternative” mass balance equation in micrometeorology may contribute to considerably more confusion because this “alternative” expression is clearly incorrect.\
The use of an “alternative” mass balance equation can harmfully affect not only the whole atmospheric budget of $CO_2$, but also that of other greenhouse gases like water vapor (the most important greenhouse gas), nitrous oxide ($N_2O$), methane ($CH_4$), and ozone ($O_3$).\
If Eqs. (\[3.1\]) and (\[5.4\]) are correct, the biological source/sink, for instance, would explicitly cause a temporal change in the partial density. However, the reality is different. Figure \[Figure4\] illustrates that the atmospheric $CO_2$ concentration has been rising since the beginning of the 18th century. If these results are correct as stated in various reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we can infer from Eq. (\[8.10\]) that the total emission of $CO_2$ has always been higher than the $CO_2$ uptake during the period covered by these results. Thus, lowering, for instance, the anthropogenic emissions of $CO_2$ to those of the year 1990 would not reduce the $CO_2$ concentration in the atmosphere (see Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) of the Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the IPCC IS92, [@Hou; @Kat]). However, if the $CO_2$ uptake would rise due to a higher atmospheric $CO_2$ concentration, a stabilization of this concentration at a level of nearly 550 ppmV, i.e., higher than that of 1990, might be possible [@Hou; @Kat].\
A decrease of the atmospheric $CO_2$ concentration can only be achieved when the $CO_2$ uptake by the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean is higher than the total emission $CO_2$. As indicated by Beck’s[@Beck] inventory for the past 180 years that is based on more than 90,000 observations using chemical methods, there were $CO_2$ concentrations appreciably higher than the current value of about 385 $ppmV$. Only when Beck’s data are reliable, we may conclude that during various periods of the past the uptake was stronger than the total emission.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
Sections 2 to 6 of this contribution were presented and discussed on the workshop of the University of Alaska Fairbanks “2007 Dynamics of Complex Systems: Common Threads” held in Fairbanks, Alaska, July 25-27, 2007. We would like to express our thanks to the conveners of this workshop.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[label]{} Allan, D.W. 1966. Statistics of atomic frequency standards. *Proceedings IEEE* **54**, 221-230. Aubinet, M., Heinesch, B., and Yernaux, M. 2003. Horizontal and vertical $CO_2$ advection in a sloping forest. *Boundary-Layer Meteorol.* **108**, 397-417. Barenblatt, G.I., 1996: Similarity, Self-Similarity, and Intermediate Asymptotics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 386 pp. Beck, E.G. 2007. 180 years of atmospheric $CO_2$ gas analysis by chemical method. *Energy and Environment* **18**, 259-282. Bracewell, R. 1999. *The Fourier Transform and its Applications.* McGraw-Hill, New York, 640 pp. Brunet, Y. and Collineau, S. 1994. Wavelet analysis and nocturnal turbulence above a maize-crop. In: Foufoula-Georgiou, E. and Kumar, P. (eds.), *Wavelets in Geophysics.* Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 129-150. Buckingham, E., 1914. On physically similar systems; illustrations of the use of dimensional equations. Physical Review 4, 345-376. Busch, N.E. 1973. On the mechanics of atmospheric turbulence. In: haugen, D.A. (ed.), *Workshop on Micrometeorology*. American Meteorological Society, Boston, Mass., pp. 1-65. Businger, J.A. 1986. Evaluation of the accuracy with which dry deposition can be measured with current micrometeorological techniques. *J. Appl. Meteor.* **25**, 1100-1124. de Groot, S.R. and Mazur, P. 1969. *Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.* North-Holland Publishing Comp., Amsterdam/London, 514 pp. Dirac, P.A.M. 1958. *The Principles of Quantum Mechanics.* Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 314 pp. Dutton, J.A. 1995. *Dynamics of Atmospheric Motion.* Dover, New York, 617 pp. Falkovich, G. and Sreenivasan, K.R. 2006. Lessons from hydrodynamic turbulence. *Physics Today* **59** (4), 43-49. Feigenwinter, C., Bernhofer, C., and Vogt, R. 2004. The influence of advection on the short-term $CO_2$-budget in and above a forest canopy. *Boundary-Layer Meteorol.* **113**, 201-224. Finnigan, J.J., Clement, R., Malhi, Y., Leuning, R., and Cleugh, H.A. 2003. A re-evaluation of long-term flux measurement techniques, Part I: Averaging and coordinate rotation. *Boundary-Layer Meteorol.* **107**, 1-48. Finnigan, J.J. 2004a. A re-evaluation of long-term flux measurement techniques, Part II: Coordinate systems. *Boundary-Layer Meteorol.* **113**, 1-41. Finnigan, J.J. 2004b. Advection and modeling. In: Lee, X., Massman, W., and Law, B. (eds.), *Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for Surface Flux Measurement and Analysis.* Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 209-244. Flandrin, P. 1992. Wavelet analysis and synthesis of fractional Brownian motion. *IEEE Tans. Info. Theo.* **38**, 910-917. Friedli, H., Lötscher, H., Oeschger, H., Siegenthaler, U., and Stauffer, B. 1986. Ice core record of the $^{13}C/^{12}C$ ratio of atmospheric $CO_2$ in the past two centuries. *Nature* **324**, 237-238. Garratt, J.R. 1992. *The Atmospheric Boundary Layer.* Cambridge University Press, 316 pp. Hagelberg, C.R. and Gamage, N.K.K. 1994. Applications of structure preserving wavelet decompositions to intermittent turbulence: A case study. In: Foufoula-Georgiou, E. and Kumar, P. (eds.), *Wavelets in Geophysics.* Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 45-80. Herbert, F. 1975. Irreversible Prozesse der Atmosphäre - 3. Teil (Phänomenologische Theorie mikroturbulenter Systeme). *Beitr. Phys. Atmosph.* **48**, 1-29 (in German). Herbert, F. 1980. Prigogine’s diffusion theorem and its application to atmospheric transfer processes, Part 1: The governing theoretical concept. *Beitr. Phys. Atmosph.* **53**, 181-203. Herbert, F. 1983. Prigogine’s diffusion theorem and its application to atmospheric transfer processes, Part 2: Invariance properties and Fick type diffusion laws. *Beitr. Phys. Atmosph.* **56**, 480-494. Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., and Johnson, C.A. (eds.). 2001. *Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.* Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 881 pp. Howell, J.F. and Mahrt, L. 1994. An adaptive decomposition: Application to turbulence. In Foufoula-Georgiou, E. and Kumar, P. (eds.), *Wavelets in Geophysics.* Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 107-128. Kattsov, V.M. and Källén, E. (lead authors). 2005. A*rctic Climate Impact Assessment 2004 Report* (Chapter 4), Future climate change: Modeling and scenarios for the Arctic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 52 pp. Katul, G.G., Albertson, J.D., Chu, C.R., and Parlange, M.B. 1994. Intermittency in atmospheric surface layer turbulence: The orthogonal wavelet representation. In: Foufoula-Georgiou, E. and Kumar, P. (eds.), *Wavelets in Geophysics.* Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 81-106. Kramm, G., 1989. A numerical method for determining the dry deposition of atmospheric trace gases. *Boundary-Layer Meteorol.* **48**, 157-176. Kramm, G., Dlugi, R., and Lenschow, D.H. 1995. A re-evaluation of the Webb-correction using density-weighted averages. *J. Hydrol.* **166**, 283-292. Kramm, G., Beier, N., Dlugi, R., and Müller, H. 1999. Evaluation of conditional sampling methods. *Contr. Atmos. Phys.* **72**, 161-172. Kramm, G. and Meixner, F.X., 2000. On the dispersion of trace species in the atmospheric boundary layer: A re-formulation of the governing equations for the turbulent flow of the compressible atmosphere. *Tellus* **52A**, 500-522. Kramm, G. 2004. Sodar data and scintillometer data obtained from the UPOS project “Optical Turbulence” and applied to study the turbulence structure in the atmospheric surface layer. Report of the Geophysical Institute, 89 pp. Kramm, G. and Dlugi, R. 2006. On the correction of eddy fluxes of water vapour and trace gases. *J. Calcutta Math. Soc.* **2**, 29-54. Kramm, G. and Herbert, F. 2008. Similarity hypotheses for the atmospheric surface layer expressed by dimensional $\pi$ invariants analysis - a review (submitted). Kumar, P. and Foufoula-Georgiou, E. 1997. Wavelet analysis for geophysical applications. *Rev. Geophys.* **35**, 385-412. Landau, L.D. and Lifshitz, E.M. 1959. *Course of Theoretical Physics - Vol. 6) Fluid Mechanics.* Pergamon Press, Oxford/New York/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt, 536 pp. Landau, L.D. and Lifshitz, E.M. 1977. *Course of Theoretical Physics - Vol. 3) Quantum Mechanics.* Pergamon Press, Oxford/New York/Toronto/Sydney/Paris/Frankfurt, 673 pp. Lee, X., Finnigan, J.J., and Paw U, K.T. 2004a. Coordinate systems and flux bias error. In: Lee, X., Massman, W., and Law, B. (eds.), *Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for Surface Flux Measurement and Analysis.* Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 33-66. Lee, X., Massman, W., and Law, B. (eds.), 2004b. *Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for Surface Flux Measurement and Analysis.* Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 250 pp. Liepmann, H.V. 1952. Aspects of the turbulence problem. *Z. angew. Math. Phys.* **3**, 1th part, 321-342, 2nd part, 407-426. Liu, H. 2005. An alternative approach for flux correction caused by heat and water vapour transfer. *Boundary-Layer Meteorol.* **115**, 151-168. Lumley, J.L. and Panofsky, H.A. 1964. *Atmospheric Turbulence.* Interscience Publishers, New York/London/Sydney, 239 pp. Massman, W.J. and Tuovinen, J.P. 2006. An analysis and implications of alternative methods of deriving the density(WPL) terms for eddy covariance flux measurements. *Boundary-Layer Meteorol.* **121**, 221-227. McRae, G.J. and Russell, A.G. 1984. Dry deposition of nitrogen-containing species. In: Hicks, B.B. (ed.), *Deposition both Wet and Dry.* Acid precipitation series - Vol. 4, Butterworth Publishers, Boston/London, pp. 153-193. Messiah, A. 1961. *Quantum Mechanics - Volume I*. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and J. Wiley & Sons, New York/London, 504 pp. Moncrieff, J., Clement, R., Finnigan, J., and Meyers, T. 2004. Averaging, detrending, and filtering of eddy covariance time series. In: Lee, X., Massman, W., and Law, B. (eds.), *Handbook of Micrometeorology: A Guide for Surface Flux Measurement and Analysis.* Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp. 7-31. Monin, A.S. and Obukhov, A.M. 1954. Osnovnye zakonomernosti turbulentnogo peremesivanija v prizemnom sloe atmosfery. *Trudy geofiz inst AN SSSR* **24** (151), 163-187 (in Russian). Neftel, A., Moor, E., Oeschger, H., and Stauffer, B. 1985. Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric $Co_2$ in the past two centuries. *Nature* **315**, 45-47. Obukhov, A.M. 1946. Turbulentnost’ v temperaturno-neodnorodnoj atmosphere. *Trudy Inst. Teoret. Geofiz. AN. SSSR.* **1** (in Russian; English translation in *Boundary-Layer Meteorol.* **2**, 7-29, 1971). Panofsky, H.A. 1963. Determination of stress from wind and temperature measurements. *Quart. J. R. Met. Soc.* **89**, 85-94. Panofsky, H.A. and Dutton, J.A. 1984. *Atmospheric Turbulence*. New York/Chichester/ Brisbane/Toronto/Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, 397 pp. Paulson, C.A. 1970. The mathematical representation of wind speed and temperature profiles in the unstable atmospheric surface layer. *J. Appl. Meteor.* **9**, 857-861. Percival, D.B. and Guttorp, P. 1994. Long-memory processes, the Allan variance and wavelets. In: Foufoula-Georgiou, E. and Kumar, P. (eds.), *Wavelets in Geophysics.* Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 325-344. Pichler, H. 1984. *Dynamic der Atmosphäre.* Bibliographisches Institut, Zürich, 456 pp. (in German). Pielke, R.A., Sr., 2002. *Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling*. 2nd Edition, Academic Press, San Diego, CA., 672 pp. Prigogine, I. 1947. Étude thermodynamique des phénomènes irréversibles. Thesis, Dunod, Paris, and Desoer, Liège. Raupach, M.R. 2001. Inferring biochemical sources and sinks from atmospheric concentrations: General consideration and applications in vegetation canopies. In: Schulze E.D. et al (eds.), *Global Biochemical Cycles in the Climate System.* Academic Press, San Diego/San Francisco/New York/Boston/London/Sydney/ Tokyo, pp. 41-59. Riley, K.F., Hobson, M.P., and Bence, S.J. 1998. *Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering.* Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1008 pp. Sarmiento, J.L. and Gruber, N. 2002. Sinks for anthropogenic carbon. *Physics Today* **55** (8), 30-36. Seinfeld, J.H. and Pandis, S.N. 1998. *Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics*. John Wiley & Sons, New York/Chichester/Weinheim/Brisbane/ Singapore/Toronto, 1326 pp. Sogachev, A. and Lloyd, J. 2004. Using a one-and-a-half order closure model of the atmospheric boundary layer for surface flux footprint estimation. *Boundary-Layer Meteorol.* **112**, 467-502. Stephens, B.B., Gurney, K.R., Tans, P.P., Sweeney, C., Peters, W., Bruhwiler, L., Ciais, P., Ramonet, M., Bousquet, P., Nakazawa, T., Aoki, S., Machida, T., Inoue, G., Vinnichenko, N., Lloyd, J., Jordan, A., Heimann, M., Shibistova, O., Langenfelds, R.L., Steele, L.P., Francey, R.J., and Denning, A.S. 2007. Weak northern and strong tropical land carbon uptake from vertical profiles of atmospheric $CO_2$. *Science* **316**, 1732-175. Stull, R.B. 1988. A*n Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology.* Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 666 pp. Sun, J. 2007. Tilt corrections over complex terrain and their implication for $CO_2$ transport. *Boundary-Layer Meteorol.* **124**, 143-159. Sun, J., Burns, S.P., Delany, A.C., Oncley, S.P., Turnipseed, A.A., Stephens, B.B., Lenschow, D.H., LeMone, M.A. 2007. $CO_2$ transport over complex terrain. *Agric. Forest. Meteorol.* **145**, 1-21. Tennekes, H. and Lumley, J.L. 1972. *A First Course in Turbulence*. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 300 pp. Treviño, G. and Andreas, E.L. 2006. Averaging operators in turbulence. *Physics Today* **59** (11), 16-17. van Mieghem, J. 1973. *Atmospheric Energetics.* Clarendon Press, Oxford, 306 pp. Werle, P., Mücke, R., and Slemr, F. 1993. The limits of signal averaging in atmospheric trace-gas monitoring by tunable diode-laser absorption spectroscopy (TDLAS). *Appl. Phys.* **B57**, 131-139. Werle, P., Kormann, R., Mücke, R., Foken, T., Kramm, G., and Müller, H. 1996. Analysis of time series data: A time domain stability criterion for stationarity tests. In: Borrell, P. et al (eds.), *Transport and Transformation of Pollutants in the Troposphere, Vol. 2, Proceedings of the EUROTRAC Symposium ’96*. Computational Mechanics Publications, Southampton, Boston, pp. 703-707. Zilitinkevich, S.S. 1966. Effects of humidity stratification on hydrostatic stability. *Izv. Atmos. Ocean. Phys*. **2**, 655-658.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We have undertaken several projects with the purpose of determining accurate distances to nearby galaxies to calibrate the extragalactic distance scale. Specifically, I describe the DIRECT project which aims to derive the distance to M31 and M33 directly, using detached eclipsing binaries and the Baade-Wesselink method for Cepheids. I also present a “hybrid” method of discovering Cepheids with ground-based telescopes using image subtraction and then following them up with the [*HST*]{} to derive Cepheid period-luminosity distances.'
author:
- Alceste Bonanos
title: Determining Accurate Distances to Nearby Galaxies
---
Introduction
============
Distances to extragalactic objects are known with an accuracy of less than 10-15%. This is due to the fact that standard candles available to astronomers are not completely understood theoretically and most importantly, that there are large uncertainties in the current anchor galaxy of the extragalactic distance scale, the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). Cepheids are examples of such distance indicators: the periods of Cepheid variables are tightly correlated with their luminosities. The correlation seems to depend on metallicity, but this dependence is not well understood and is controversial. Also, the distances to the LMC obtained with the same technique but different calibrations disagree [see @Ben02 Figure 8]. The LMC has the advantages of being nearby and easy to observe, however it introduces problems as the anchor galaxy for the extragalactic distance scale. The sources of systematic error associated with the LMC include the differential reddening across the LMC, the elongation along the line of sight, the metallicity of the galaxy and the zeropoint of the Cepheid period-luminosity (PL) relation.
The uncertainty in the LMC distance not only translates into uncertainty in the Hubble constant, but also in the calibration of stellar luminosities and in constraining population synthesis models for early galaxy formation and evolution. We therefore propose to use other nearby galaxies, such as M31 and M33, as anchors of the extragalactic distance scale bypassing the LMC and the systematic errors associated with it.
Hybrid Method for Measuring Distances
=====================================
We have proposed a “hybrid” approach for obtaining distances to nearby galaxies with Cepheids [@Bon03]. Cepheids in nearby galaxies can be discovered and characterized using large ground-based telescopes and then followed-up with the [*HST*]{} to obtain precise distances. We demonstrated this by re-analyzing the excellent 8.2 meter VLT data of M83, obtained by @Thi03, using the image subtraction method.
Blending must be taken into account in deriving the Cepheid distance to nearby galaxies. For example, at the distance of M83 which is $\sim4.5$ Mpc [@Thi03], the median seeing of $0.76\arcsec$ of the VLT data corresponds to $17\;$pc. As first discussed by Mochejska et al. (2000), blending is the close association of a Cepheid with one or more intrinsically luminous stars, which is the result of the higher value of the star-star correlation function for massive stars, such as Cepheids, compared to random field stars. This effect cannot be detected within the observed PSF by usual analysis. In M83, a large fraction of the flux of a blended Cepheid could come from its companions and would result in a significant distance bias. The discovery of Cepheids in nearby galaxies can be done adequately from the ground given good signal-to-noise photometry; however, deriving the Cepheid PL distance requires high spatial resolution [*HST*]{} imaging.
With the image subtraction package ISIS [@Ala98; @Ala00], we were able to detect 112 Cepheids, a nine-fold increase compared to the number detected by @Thi03 with the “traditional” method of PSF photometry. We therefore demonstrate the power of image subtraction, which should especially be used in crowded fields. These additional Cepheids are valuable for determining the PL distance to M83 accurately. However, [*HST*]{} observations are necessary to resolve blending effects.
The DIRECT Project
==================
Starting in 1996 we undertook a long term project, DIRECT (i.e. “direct distances”), to obtain the distances to two important galaxies in the cosmological distance ladder, M31 and M33. These “direct” distances will be obtained by determining the distance to Cepheids using the Baade-Wesselink method and by measuring the absolute distance to detached eclipsing binaries (DEBs). DEBs [for reviews see @And91; @Pac97] offer a single step distance determination to nearby galaxies and have the potential to establish distances to M31 and M33 with an unprecedented accuracy of 5%. However, DEBs are not easy to detect since they are intrinsically rare objects (massive unevolved stars) and only certain configurations produce eclipses. Now that large-format CCD detectors are available and that CPUs are inexpensive, the DIRECT project has undertaken a massive search for periodic variables, which is producing some good DEB candidates.
We have so far analyzed observations taken with the 1.2 meter FLWO telescope of six fields in M31, A-D, F [@Kal98; @Kal99; @Sta98; @Sta99; @Moc99; @Mac01 Papers I-VI] and recently field Y [@Bon03b Paper IX]. A total of 674 variables, mostly new, were found in M31: 89 eclipsing binaries, 332 Cepheids, and 253 other periodic, possible long-period or non-periodic variables. We have analyzed two fields in M33, A and B [@Mac01 Paper VI] and found 544 variables: 47 eclipsing binaries, 251 Cepheids and 246 other variables. Follow up observations with the 2.1 meter KPNO telescope of fields M33A and M33B produced 280 and 612 new variables, respectively [@Moc01a; @Moc01b Papers VII, VIII].
Of the $\sim 130$ eclipsing binaries, we have found 4 DEB systems suitable for follow-up spectroscopy, 2 in M31 and 2 in M33. In October 2002, we obtained spectra of the two systems in M33 with ESI on Keck-II but did not have enough phase coverage (see Figure \[fig\]) to derive the radial velocity amplitude accurately. However, we concluded that M33A is a resolved double line eclipsing binary of early B type that is suitable for distance determination and obtained spectra with ESI on 3 more nights in September 2003. Deriving a radial velocity curve is challenging, because early type stars have few absorption lines in the visible spectrum, which are often broadened and blended. We are currently analyzing these spectra and will soon have the first direct measurement of the distance to M33.
![Radial velocity curve for the 4.89 day period DEB M33A, from two nights of data on Keck-II in October 2002.[]{data-label="fig"}](Fig.epsi){width="60.00000%"}
We have also undertaken the first CCD variability study of the Draco dwarf spheroidal galaxy with the FLWO 1.2 m telescope, producing 163 variable stars, 146 of which were RR Lyrae [@Bon04]. Using the short distance scale statistical parallax calibration of @Gou98 for 94 RRab detected in our field, we obtained a distance modulus of $\rm (m-M)_{0}=19.40 \pm 0.02\, (stat)\pm 0.15\,(syst)$ mag, corresponding to a distance of 75.8 $\rm \pm 0.7 \,(stat) \pm 5.4
\,(syst)$ kpc to the Draco dwarf spheroidal galaxy.
Summary
=======
The need for a new anchor galaxy or preferably for several anchor galaxies to calibrate the extragalactic distance scale is long overdue. The systematic effects introduced by using the LMC as the anchor galaxy can be avoided now that 10-meter class telescopes have become available. Large telescopes can be used for the detection of Cepheids from the ground and later followed-up with the [*HST*]{} to obtain accurate distances, as demonstrated in M83. The DIRECT project will determine geometric distances to M31 and M33 with an accuracy of 5% with DEBs and the Baade-Wesselink method for Cepheids. Both of these Local Group galaxies are excellent anchor galaxies for the calibration of the extragalactic distance scale.
[33]{} Alard, C., & Lupton, R. 1998, , 503, 325
Alard, C. 2000, A&AS, 144, 363
Andersen, J. 1991, A&AR, 3, 91
Benedict, G. F., McArthur, B. E., Fredrick, L. W., Harrison, T. E., Lee, J., Slesnick, C. L., Rhee, J., et al. 2002, , 123, 473
Bonanos, A. Z., & Stanek, K. Z. 2003, , 591, L111
Bonanos, A. Z., Stanek, K. Z., Sasselov, D. D., Mochejska, B. J., Macri, L. M., & Kaluzny, J. 2003, , 126, 175
Bonanos, A. Z., Stanek, K. Z., Szentgyorgyi, A.H., Sasselov, D. D., Bakos, G.Á 2004, , in press
Gould, A., & Popowski, P. 1998, , 508, 844
Kaluzny, J., Stanek, K. Z., Krockenberger, M., Sasselov, D. D., Tonry, J. L., Mateo, M. 1998, , 115, 1016 (Paper I)
Kaluzny, J., Mochejska, B. J., Stanek, K. Z., Krockenberger, M., Sasselov, D. D., Tonry, J. L., Mateo, M. 1999, , 118,346 (Paper IV)
Macri, L. M., Stanek, K. Z., Sasselov, D. D., Krockenberger, M., Kaluzny, J. 2001, , 121, 870 (Paper VI)
Mochejska, B. J., Kaluzny, J., Stanek, K. Z., Krockenberger, M., Sasselov, D. D. 1999, , 118, 2211 (Paper V)
Mochejska, B. J., Macri, L. M., Sasselov, D. D., & Stanek, K. Z. 2000, , 120, 810
Mochejska, B. J., Kaluzny, J., Stanek, K. Z., Sasselov, D. D., Szentgyorgyi, A. H. 2001a, , 121, 2032 (Paper VII)
Mochejska, B. J., Kaluzny, J., Stanek, K. Z., Sasselov, D. D., Szentgyorgyi, A. H. 2001b, , 121, 2032 (Paper VIII)
Paczyński, B. 1997, in The Extragalactic Distance Scale, ed. M. Livio, M. Donahue & N. Panagia (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 273
Stanek, K. Z., Kaluzny, J., Krockenberger, M., Sasselov, D. D., Tonry, J. L., Mateo, M. 1998, , 115, 1894 (Paper II)
Stanek, K. Z., Kaluzny, J., Krockenberger, M., Sasselov, D. D., Tonry, J. L., Mateo, M. 1999, , 117, 2810 (Paper III)
Thim, F., Tammann, G. A., Saha, A., Dolphin, A., Sandage, A., Tolstoy, E., & Labhardt, L. 2003, , 590, 256
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: '**Neural synchronisation plays a critical role in information processing, storage and transmission. Characterising the pattern of synchronisation is therefore of great interest. It has recently been suggested that the brain displays broadband criticality based on two measures of synchronisation – phase locking intervals and global lability of synchronisation – showing power law statistics at the critical threshold in a classical model of synchronisation. In this paper, we provide evidence that, within the limits of the model selection approach used to ascertain the presence of power law statistics, the pooling of pairwise phase-locking intervals from a non-critically interacting system can produce a distribution that is similarly assessed as being power law. In contrast, the global lability of synchronisation measure is shown to better discriminate critical from non critical interaction.**'
author:
- 'M. Botcharova$^{1,2}$'
- 'S.F. Farmer$^2$'
- 'L. Berthouze$^{3,4}$'
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: 'A power-law distribution of phase-locking intervals does not imply critical interaction'
---
Introduction
============
The notion of criticality has been hotly discussed in relation to its presence in the human brain [@chialvo2004; @sornette; @timme; @stam2012; @werner2011]. Support for the concept of a critical brain has emerged from comparing brain dynamics at various scales with the dynamics of physical systems at criticality. Much impetus for this line of work has come from the observation of power laws, a necessary but insufficient condition for criticality, in distributions associated with neuronal avalanches [@beggsandplenz; @shew], but further evidence has come from the application of methods from statistical physics for identifying spatio-temporal scaling functions in fMRI [@plenzandchialvo; @expert], long-range temporal correlations in amplitude fluctuations of bandpass filtered electro/magneto-encephalogram (M/EEG) [@linkenkaer2001; @poil2012] as well as universal scaling functions in the activity of individual neurons [@friedman; @ribeiro]. Functionally, it has been difficult to attribute relevance to these findings other than by making observations of difference in some scaling parameter between different human subject populations or with the subject’s age. It would therefore be of great interest to find evidence of criticality in the synchronisation of activity between different brain areas i.e. a parameter that has been directly linked with information processing, storage, and transmission [@fries; @singer].
A system at, or close to, a critical phase transition has been associated with the possibility of rapid reconfigurations in response to external stimuli [@shew; @werner2010]. Kitzbichler et al. [@bullmore; @kitzbichler] argue that rapid state changes are crucial for the brain to deal with the environment it meets. They suggest that in some situations, an extensive cognitive effort is required and information transfer needs to be maximised between brain regions, and at other, relatively quiescent periods, the greater concern is minimising neuronal wiring costs [@kitzbichler]. A brain at criticality might allow the necessary rapid transitions in functional connectivity to occur quickly [@honey]. Werner [@werner2010] indicates that a neurophysiological system in a critical state is best able to learn and remember complex logical rules, by adapting its synaptic weights quickly. Meisel et al. [@meisel] suggest that local events can spread rapidly through a system in such a state, and that remaining at criticality prevents the spread both from becoming uncontrollably large, or from dying away without effect. A single element hence has the ability to affect the entire system, which may be crucial to processing external stimuli efficiently [@chialvo].
To assess criticality of synchronisation, Kitzbichler et al. [@bullmore] proposed two measures characterising the pattern of synchronisation in a complex system. The first measure is the frequency density of phase locking intervals (PLI), which are defined as the periods of time for which two oscillators differ in their phase by less than a value of $\pi/4$ in modulus. The phase, here, describes where an oscillator is in its cycle, relative to the origin. It evolves in the interval $\left[ -\pi, \pi \right]$ as the oscillator completes an oscillation. The second measure is the frequency density of the change in number of phase locked pairs between successive time points (global lability of synchronisation or GLS). Both measures are derived from a thresholded wavelet-transformed instantaneous phase difference (further introduced in Sections \[sec:scales\] and \[sec:measures\]). Kitzbichler et al. validated the PLI and GLS results by showing that in two known models of critical interaction, namely, the Ising model [@ising1; @ising2] and the Kuramoto Model [@kuramoto0; @kuramoto1; @kuramoto2] (further discussed in Section \[sec:kuramoto\]), these measures display power law distributions at the critical threshold but not in a decoupled system [@bullmore]. The presence of this power law in the PLI and GLS was determined using a model selection approach [@Konishi2007; @Claeskens2008] whereby both the power law and alternative models (log-normal and exponential) are fitted and the best model is decided on the basis of the Akaike Information Criterion (formally introduced in Section \[sec:AIC\]).
Whilst it is true that power law statistics of some observable of the system should be evident in a system at criticality [@bak; @sornette; @BakTangWiesenfeld; @phillips], the point has been made that power laws could result from the superposition of multiple processes each with their own characteristic time scale [@wagenmakers] or from the use of thresholds [@touboul]. Given this, we ask whether power law distributions in the PLI and GLS measures introduced in [@bullmore] are uniquely indicative of a system in a critical state. Our approach is to pool the phase locked intervals (respectively, the number of phase locked pairs between successive time points) of a non-critically interacting system of Kuramoto oscillators and compare the resulting distributions with those derived from a critically-coupled system. If this pooling produces distributions that, within the limits of a model selection approach, cannot be distinguished from those of a critically-coupled system then we suggest that this approach to inferring criticality is suspect. To do so, we consider a system formed from a collection of independent paired oscillators, which we refer to as the Independent Pairs model. The two oscillators making up a pair are coupled, having phases evolving according to the Kuramoto differential equations (formally introduced in Section \[sec:kuramoto\]), but there is no connection between pairs. Each pair can snap into synchronisation at a coupling value unique to itself, however, there is no collective order parameter to unite their progressive synchronisation, i.e., this system can have no critical coupling value.
The paper is organised as follows. After a brief review of the Kuramoto oscillators (Section \[sec:kuramoto\]), we derive analytically the phase difference between two sine-phase coupled oscillators, which makes it possible to generate a large number of Independent Pairs, with natural frequencies drawn from a normal distribution and pair-wise coupling a free parameter (Section \[sec:pairformulation\]). After summarising the methodology of Kitzbichler et al. (Sections \[sec:natfreq\]-\[sec:AIC\]), we compare its application to both the Kuramoto model and our Independent Pairs model (Sections \[sec:Kresults\]-\[sec:IPMResults\]), revealing the coupling parameters under which PLIs and GLSs may give rise to power laws within a model selection approach.
Methods and Materials
=====================
The Kuramoto model {#sec:kuramoto}
------------------
The Kuramoto model is a classical model of synchronisation [@acebron; @chopra05]. It has been widely used to study the oscillatory behaviour of biological systems such as the sleep and body temperature cycles in humans [@pikovsky; @strogatz00], heart pacemaker cell firing [@acebron; @pikovsky; @strogatz00], neuronal firing [@breakspear; @bullmore; @pikovsky] and fire-fly flashing [@acebron; @pikovsky; @strogatz; @strogatz00].
The Kuramoto model describes the phase behaviour of a system of mutually coupled oscillators with a set of differential equations. Each of $N$ oscillators in the system rotates at its own natural frequency $\left\lbrace \omega_i, i = 1,...,N \right\rbrace $, drawn from some distribution $g(\omega)$. However, it is attracted out of this cycle through coupling $K$, which is globally applied to the system. The differential equation to describe the time evolution of the phase $\theta_i$ of oscillator $i$ in such a system is given by [@kuramoto0; @kuramoto1; @kuramoto2]: $$\label{thetadot}
\dot{\theta}_i = \omega_i + \frac{K}{N} \Sigma^{N}_{j = 1} \mbox{sin}(\theta_j - \theta_i)$$ Kuramoto [@kuramoto0] showed that the evolution of any phase $\theta_i$ can be re-expressed using two mean field parameters, which result from the combined effect of all oscillators in the system. Namely, we may say: $$\label{meanfield}
\dot{\theta}_i = \omega_i + K r \mbox{sin}(\psi - \theta_i)$$ where $\psi$ is the mean phase of the oscillators, and $r$ is their phase coherence, so that: $$\label{order}
r e^{i \psi} = \frac{1}{N} \sum^N_{j=1} e^{i \theta_j}$$ This crucially indicates that each oscillator is coupled to the others through its relationship with mean field parameters $r$ and $\psi$, so that no single oscillator, or oscillator pair drives the process on their own. The oscillators synchronise at a phase equal to the mean field $\psi$, and $r$ describes the strength of synchronisation, sometimes referred to as the extent of order in the system [@mirollo; @bonilla]. When $r=0$, no oscillators are synchronised with each other. When $r=1$, all oscillators are entrained with each other.
It is easy to see that one solution to Equation \[meanfield\] is $r \equiv 0$ for all time and coupling, leaving each oscillator to evolve independently at its own natural frequency. Using a limit of $N \rightarrow \infty$, some further deductions can be made, including the fact that when the natural frequency distribution $g(\omega)$ is unimodal and symmetric, another solution can be found for $\theta_i$, with $r$ not equivalent to $0$ [@kuramoto0]. A critical bifurcation occurs for sufficiently high coupling, resembling a second-order phase transition [@miritello] in which the order parameter (here, $r$) leaves zero and grows continuously with coupling [@dorfler; @mirollo]. The coupling at the bifurcation is referred to as the critical coupling $K_c$ [@dorfler]. While the above definition holds for a system of infinite size, for a finite system such as that considered in this paper, the critical coupling can only be approximated by this theoretical value. In Section \[kvalue\], we will provide an operational definition of critical coupling in a finite size system.
Analytic Phase Difference for the Independent Pairs Model {#sec:pairformulation}
---------------------------------------------------------
An independent pair is defined as two coupled oscillators $i$ and $j$ whose phases evolve according to Equation (\[thetadot\]), namely: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{phasediff2}
\dot{\theta}_i - \dot{\theta}_j & = (\omega_i - \omega_j) + \frac{K}{2} \left( \mbox{sin}(\theta_j - \theta_i) - \mbox{sin}(\theta_i - \theta_j) \right) \nonumber \\
& = (\omega_i - \omega_j) - K \left( \mbox{sin}(\theta_i - \theta_j) \right) \end{aligned}$$ Letting $\bigtriangleup_{ij} = \theta_i - \theta_j $ yields: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{diffequation}
\dot{\bigtriangleup}_{ij} & = (\omega_i - \omega_j) - K \mbox{sin}(\bigtriangleup_{ij}) \end{aligned}$$ This equation has two solutions depending on whether $ K< \mid\omega_i -\omega_j\mid $ or $ K>\mid \omega_i - \omega_j\mid $. If we let $ C = \frac{K}{(\omega_i - \omega_j)}$, and $D$ is an integrating constant, then the solution for $ K< \mid\omega_i - \omega_j\mid $ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{delta}
\begin{split}
\bigtriangleup_{ij} &= 2 \mbox{tan}^{-1} \left[ \left( \sqrt{1 - C^2}\right)\mbox{tan} \left( \frac{\left( t-D\right) (\omega_i - \omega_j) \sqrt{(1-C^2) } }{2} \right) \right. \\
& \left. +C\vphantom{\frac{\left( t-D\right) (\omega_i - \omega_j) \sqrt{(1-C^2) } }{2}} \right]
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ The solution for $ K> \mid\omega_i - \omega_j\mid $ is: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sync}
\bigtriangleup_{ij} &= 2 \mbox{tan}^{-1} \left[ \sqrt{C^2 - 1} \left( \frac{e^{-t (\omega_i - \omega_j) \sqrt{(C^2-1)}} - A}{ A+e^{-t (\omega_i - \omega_j) \sqrt{(C^2-1)}}} \right) + C \right] \end{aligned}$$ with $A$ an integrating constant. A full derivation is provided in the Appendix. After deriving this, the authors were made aware that the dynamics of a single pair from this model has previously been described in [@adler] in relation to the interaction between a pendulum suspended in a viscous fluid inside a rotating container, and used in [@hemmen] as a basis for constructing a Lyapunov function.
The time evolution of $\bigtriangleup_{ij}$ is dependent on two parameters: the coupling $K$, and the difference between the natural frequencies of rotation, $\omega_i - \omega_j$ of the two oscillators. The selection of these two quantities is crucial to further analysis and we look at each in turn.
Natural Frequencies {#sec:natfreq}
-------------------
The natural frequencies of oscillators in the Kuramoto system considered in [@bullmore] were drawn from a normal distribution $ \mathcal{N} \left( 0, 1\right)$. As any normal distribution may be scaled and shifted so that it is equivalent to one with a mean of $0$ and a standard deviation of $1$, we consider that our natural frequencies are also distributed with $\omega_i \sim \mathcal{N} \left( 0, 1\right)$ without loss of generality. If both natural frequencies $\omega_i$ and $\omega_j$ are drawn in this way, then by laws of normal distributions, $\omega_i - \omega_j \sim \mathcal{N} \left( 0, 2 \right) $. As the quantity $\omega_i - \omega_j$ only is of interest to us in order to calculate $\bigtriangleup_{ij}$ (Equations \[delta\] and \[sync\]), we draw values from a distribution of $\mathcal{N} \left( 0, 2 \right) $ for the Independent Pairs Model.
Coupling Parameter {#kvalue}
------------------
The critical coupling parameter was calculated analytically by Kuramoto under a certain set of assumptions [@kuramoto0]. Namely, if the probability distribution of the natural frequencies $g(\omega)$ is unimodal and symmetric, and the number of oscillators is infinite ($N \rightarrow \infty$), then the analytic critical coupling parameter $K_c$ is:
$$K_c = \frac{2}{\pi g(0)}$$
And, in the case of $g(\omega) = \mathcal{N} \left( 0, 1\right) $: $$K_c = \frac{2 \sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{\pi}} \simeq 1.596$$
In any feasible realisation of the Kuramoto model, the assumption $N \rightarrow \infty$ is not realistic. This means that the theoretical value of $K_c \simeq 1.596$ is not necessarily the precise coupling parameter for which the system reaches critical behaviour. Kitzbichler and colleagues [@bullmore] describe two practical measures characterising the onset of synchronisation with increasing coupling. The first is the change in the ‘effective mean-field coupling strength’, $\Delta (Kr)$. If the value of $Kr$ exceeds the difference between the natural frequency and the mean phase $\omega_i - \psi$ (in modulus) i.e. $\vert \omega_i - \psi \vert < Kr$, then oscillator $i$ will synchronise to the mean field [@mertens]. Thus the value of $K$ at which $Kr$ increases maximally is the coupling value at which the greatest number of oscillators are drawn into the mean field, i.e., a defining feature of the critical point in the system. The second measure is the change in the time-averaged number of synchronised pairs $N_{SP}$ as the coupling increases, $\Delta N_{SP}$. Again, this describes the point at which the greatest change in synchronisation occurs, i.e., the critical point. The two measures $\Delta (Kr)$ and $\Delta N_{SP}$ peak at the same point. We shall call the coupling value at this point the effective critical coupling value for our system.
In contrast, in our Independent Pairs model, there is no longer a global critical coupling parameter $K_c$ since there can be no mean field. From the two distinct analytical solutions for $\bigtriangleup_{ij}$ (Equations \[delta\] and \[sync\]) we see that each pair of oscillators will synchronise independently when $K$ exceeds $\mid\omega_i - \omega_j\mid $ for that pair. Some insight can nevertheless be gained by calculating the measures derived from a standard Kuramoto model, namely, $r$, $N_{SP}$, $\Delta (Kr)$ and $\Delta N_{SP}$.
As shown by Figure \[order\_parameters\]A, there is a clear growth in order in the Kuramoto model, with the parameter beginning near $0$ for low coupling, and increasing to nearly $1$ after the coupling value exceeds $K=3$. The maximum rise in $Kr$ occurs at around $K=2$, which is therefore the effective critical coupling for this system. A similar pattern is traced by $N_{SP}$, with $\Delta N_{SP}$ peaking at around $K=2$. In this paper, we will provide results for the theoretical critical value $K_c \simeq 1.596$ (occasionally referred to as $K_c \simeq 1.6$), as well as for the (above defined) effective critical coupling for our finite system, $K =2$. This latter value is where we might expect power law statistics to be present in the Kuramoto model. The authors have empirically confirmed that as $N$ increases, the effective critical coupling $K$ converges to the theoretical critical coupling $K_c$ (results not shown, but the effective critical coupling is $K=1.8$ for $N=1000$ for example). It should be noted that although the number of oscillators considered here is limited, $44$ oscillators as in [@bullmore], this system still gives rise to $946$ pairwise interactions, which is more substantial. From a neuroscience viewpoint, it could be argued that $44$ oscillators are sufficient for drawing useful conclusions about a neuronal system. For example, the use of a Kuramoto model of $66$ phase oscillators by the authors of [@cabral] led to the emergence of slow activity fluctuations consistent with empirically measured functional neural connectivity. Nevertheless, in order to verify our conclusions, we replicated our analysis with $N=1000$ oscillators yielding similar results (not shown but available upon request from the corresponding author).
With independent pairs, on the other hand, both the order parameter and the number of synchronised pairs remain unchanged across all coupling values, at the values observed for $K=0$ in the Kuramoto model (see Figure \[order\_parameters\]B). This is because, although the pairs individually synchronise with each other, the frequencies at which they synchronise are distributed across the whole range of possible frequencies.
Frequency scales {#sec:scales}
----------------
An important feature of the findings in [@bullmore] is that the critical behaviour of neural activity extends across a number of frequency scales, so that criticality is referred to as being broadband. The decomposition of the phase difference data into several frequency scales is done using a Hilbert wavelet transform, and was implemented computationally here using the algorithms from [@whitcher04; @whitcher05; @selesnick]. Specifically, wavelet scales $3$ - $11$ were used, corresponding to frequencies of $125-62.5$Hz, $62.5-31$Hz, $31-15.5$Hz, $15.5-8$Hz, $8-4$Hz, $4-2$Hz, $2-1$Hz, $1-0.5$Hz, and $0.5-0.25$Hz.
First, Kitzbichler et al. [@bullmore] construct two signals denoted $s_i$ and $s_j$ hereafter, by taking the cosine of phases $\theta_i$ and $\theta_j$ respectively. They then take the $k$-th scale wavelet transforms of $s_i$ and $s_j$ to obtain $\mathcal{W}_k (s_i)$ and $\mathcal{W}_k (s_j)$, which are time-varying complex vectors of wavelet coefficients. Each set of wavelet coefficients quantifies the power of the signal in the corresponding frequency band. These two sets of wavelet coefficients are multiplied element-wise to form the vector $\mathcal{W}_k (s_i)^{\dagger} \mathcal{W}_k (s_j)$, where the symbol $\dagger$ indicates the complex conjugate. This vector is then normalised by dividing it (again, element-wise) by the element-wise product $\mid \mathcal{W}_k (s_i)\mid \mid \mathcal{W}_k (s_j) \mid$ where operator $\mid . \mid $ denotes the modulus. The result is an instantaneous time-varying complex phase vector:
$$\label{Cij}
C^k_{ij} = \frac{ \mathcal{W}_k (s_i)^{\dagger} \mathcal{W}_k (s_j) }{ \mid \mathcal{W}_k (s_i)\mid \mid \mathcal{W}_k (s_j) \mid }$$
To ensure a more robust and less noisy estimate of the phase relation, the instantaneous phase vector is smoothed by using a moving average of the numerator and the two vectors contributing to the denominator of $C^k_{ij}$, yielding a new vector $\bar{C}^k_{ij}$ given by: $$\bar{C}^k_{ij} = \frac{ \langle \mathcal{W}_k (s_i)^{\dagger} \mathcal{W}_k (s_j) \rangle }{ \sqrt{ \langle\mid \mathcal{W}_k (s_i)\mid ^2 \rangle \langle \mid \mathcal{W}_k (s_j) \mid ^2 \rangle } }$$ Here the operator $\left\langle . \right\rangle $ denotes that a moving average is taken. The length of the sliding window used for the moving average is set to the number of time steps spanning 8 oscillation cycles at the highest frequency in that wavelet scale [@bullmore].
The argument of $\bar{C}^k_{ij}$ is then taken as a measure of the phase relationship of the two oscillators $i$ and $j$ corresponding to wavelet scale $k$, so that $ \bigtriangleup^k_{ij} = \mbox{arg}(\bar{C}^k_{ij} )$.
In the Independent Pairs model, the phase differences within each pair are known analytically (see Section \[sec:pairformulation\]), however, they are not associated with particular wavelet scales. To produce probability distributions comparable to those in [@bullmore], surrogate pairs of signals were created with the first signal evolving constantly at a frequency given by a base value drawn from the distribution of natural frequencies $g(\omega)$, and the second signal phase shifted from the first by $\bigtriangleup^k_{ij}$.
PLI and GLS {#sec:measures}
-----------
In this section, we will use $\bigtriangleup^k_{ij}(t)$ to denote the value of $\bigtriangleup^k_{ij}$ at time $t$. For phase difference $\bigtriangleup^k_{ij}$ between two oscillators $i$ and $j$, the PLIs are defined as the duration (in seconds) for which $-\alpha < \bigtriangleup^k_{ij} (t) < \alpha$, for some threshold $\alpha$. This definition was given by [@bullmore] with $\alpha = \pi/4$.
The GLS was also defined in [@bullmore] and characterises the evolution of the number of synchronised pairs, $\mbox{N}_{SP}$, to describe the lability of synchronisation. The number of synchronised pairs at wavelet scale $k$ is formally defined as: $$N_{SP}^k(t) = \sum_{i<j} \left\lbrace \mid \bigtriangleup^k_{ij}(t)\mid < \alpha \mbox{ and } {M^k_{ij}}^2 (t) > \frac{1}{2} \right\rbrace$$ where ${M^k_{ij}}^2 = \mid \bar{C}^k_{ij} \mid ^2$ is proposed as a measure of the significance of the phase difference estimate $\bar{C}^k_{ij}$, and $\alpha = \pi/4$ as above. It should be noted here that the condition ${M^k_{ij}}^2(t) > \frac{1}{2}$ introduces an additional threshold. The use of thresholds on otherwise stochastic data has been shown by Touboul et al. [@touboul] to occasionally give rise to spurious power laws.
The GLS at scale $k$ is then obtained by calculating the square of the difference in the number of phase-locked pairs between two successive points in time: $$GLS^k = \mid N_{SP}^k(t+\delta t) - N_{SP}^k(t) \mid ^2$$ where $\delta t$ is an increment in time and $k$ denotes the wavelet scale.
From examination of our analytic equations for phase difference (Equations \[delta\] and \[sync\]), we observe that the phase difference $\bigtriangleup^k_{ij}$ changes with time in a very structured way. For $ K<\mid\omega_i -\omega_j\mid$, $\bigtriangleup^k_{ij}$ is a periodic function. For $K>\mid \omega_i - \omega_j\mid $, there is a short-lived transient before $\bigtriangleup^k_{ij}$ settles to a constant.
Before we proceed to pool our probability distributions across many pairs of oscillators, we first consider what we might expect from a single pair.
For $ K<\mid\omega_i -\omega_j\mid$, the lengths of PLIs between two oscillators would be identical within any given oscillation cycle, and the probability distribution will only contain one value. If a given simulation is cut off before a full cycle is complete, or more precisely, before a phase locked interval has come to an end, this may give rise to a second phase locked interval, and the probability distribution may have more than one value in this case. For $K>\mid \omega_i - \omega_j\mid $, the phase difference will be a single constant, either occurring during the transient, or at the permanent value to which the phase difference converges, depending on the starting phase difference, and the value of the final constant. Again, the probability distribution contains one value.
The GLS can either take the value $1$ if the oscillators either go from being non-phase-locked to phase locked, or the value $0$ if no change occurs. This allows two possible values in the probability distribution.
For a single oscillator pair, we would therefore not expect to find a valid probability distribution of either PLIs of GLS for any coupling $K$.
This is a trivial, but important point to make. If a single pair of oscillators could give rise to a probability distribution which appeared linear on a log-log plot (as a power law does) for some pairwise coupling value that could be considered ‘critical’ over some small range of values, then the final, observed power law created by pooling many pairs may be the result of a simple superimposition of these smaller linear components. We now demonstrate that the power law could result from a process that does not involve ‘critical’ interactions for any reasonable definition of the term (even on a pairwise level), but through completely independent systems evolving with no connections between the elements that combine to produce the power law.
Akaike Information Criterion {#sec:AIC}
----------------------------
As in [@bullmore], the presence of power law statistics is assessed using a model selection approach whereby the Akaike’s Information Criterion [@akaike] is used to compare the goodness-of-fit of a power law distribution with that of two alternative distributions, namely, the exponential and log-normal distributions. It is important to stress that the Akaike Information Criterion only provides a means of comparing models, but gives no information on how good the model is objectively at fitting the data. This means that only the relative values of this measure, for different models, are important.
For a model using $k$ parameters, with likelihood function $L$, the Akaike Information Criterion is calculated using the following expression:
$$AIC = 2k - 2 \mbox{ln}(L)$$
As in [@bullmore], this measure was adjusted to account for small sample sizes, using the following:
$$AIC_{c} = AIC + \frac{2k(k+1)}{n-k-1}$$
where $n$ is the number of observations of the data. This is especially relevant because all three models were fitted to the binned histogram heights, rather than the full data set. Since the basis of the AIC is a log-likelihood function, it can be used with binned data in this way [@cowan]. The number of bins used will affect the raw values of the $AIC$, but not the relative values obtained for the models used, so that the best-fitting model will pertain for the data analysed.
Results
=======
Independent Pair model simulation {#sec:IPM}
---------------------------------
We simulated pairs of Kuramoto-coupled oscillators alongside our analytic solution. Both were calculated over $1000$ seconds, with an integration time step of $ \delta t = 2^{-11} $ for the simulated oscillators. This provided a total of $1000 \times 2^{11}$ time steps. We then down-sampled the resulting time series by a factor of 2 to obtain a time series with sampling frequency of $2^{10} \mbox{Hz}$. The analytic signal was also generated with a sampling frequency of $2^{10} \mbox{Hz}$. The coupling $K$ was incremented between $0$ and $4$, in intervals of $0.2$, and the two curves were compared.
![ The evolution of phase difference between the oscillators in a two-oscillator Kuramoto system, plotted using our analytic expression (blue), and a simulation of the Kuramoto model by Euler’s method (red). The two phase calculations are perfectly superimposed. The root mean square error (RMSE) is shown for different coupling values,for a single simulation. Panels A,B,C have $C<1$ (where $C$ is defined in Section \[sec:pairformulation\]), but coupling is increased progressively. The phase evolves periodically. Panel D is the same pair of oscillators, but for $C>1$. There is a brief transient before the oscillators fully synchronise with a constant level of phase difference. The initial phase separation has been set to $\bigtriangleup = 0$ without loss of generality. []{data-label="phases"}](phases.eps)
The behaviour of the phase difference is qualitatively different in the cases $C = \frac{K}{(\omega_i - \omega_k)} <1$ and $C>1$. We demonstrate the phase difference between two oscillators in Figure \[phases\] as obtained with our analytic expressions alongside a simulation of the Kuramoto model, using Euler’s method to iteratively update the phase by Equation \[thetadot\]. The two phase calculations are perfectly superimposed.
Although the root mean square error (RMSE) varies for different coupling values, the normalised RMSE is less than $0.1\%$ for the range of coupling values considered in this paper, demonstrating good agreement between simulated and analytic results.
It is evident that when the coupling supersedes the difference in natural frequencies ($C>1$), the two oscillators synchronise in exponential time. When the coupling is small ($C<1$), however, the phase difference grows (or falls) at a rate dictated by the frequency difference, but with increasingly lengthy periods of constant phase difference, or synchronisation.
PLI and GLS of Kuramoto model {#sec:Kresults}
-----------------------------
As a baseline for comparison, the results of Kitzbichler et al. [@bullmore] on the Kuramoto model were replicated using our own code in the Matlab environment. A system of 44 Kuramoto oscillators, each with a natural frequency drawn from a normal distribution $\mathcal{N} \left( 60 \pi, 20 \pi \right)$, was simulated using the same simulation parameters as in Section \[sec:IPM\]. We present three different regimes (uncoupled, critically coupled, and super-critically coupled), which yield the power spectra shown in Figure \[powerspec\].
Next, using 44 oscillators whose natural frequencies were drawn from a $\mathcal{N} \left( 0, 1\right)$ distribution, the PLI and GLS probability distributions were calculated for the following coupling values - $K = 0$, $K = K_c = 1.596$, $K = 2$ and $K = 4$. At $t=0$, all oscillators had a phase $\theta_i=0$. The data presented in figures \[powerspec\], \[k\_pli\_results\] and \[k\_gls\_results\] were obtained from a single run of the model, however, it was confirmed that the results were not sensitive to the exact values of the natural frequencies.
A histogram for the PLI data was constructed using $20$ logarithmically spaced bins, with the first bin beginning at a single time step of $2^{-10}$ seconds, and the largest bin ending at the total length of the data, of $1000$ seconds. The histogram was then scaled so that each bin count was divided by the total number of PLIs, and then by the bin size that it represented.
For GLS, we took $1000$ logarithmically spaced bins ranging from a value of $1$ to $10^{4.5}$, as displayed on the plot. The GLS histogram was also scaled. Here each bin count was divided by the total number of counts (sum of all bin counts), and then by the bin size that it represented.
--------------- ----------- -------- ------------- -- ------------ --------
Wavelet Scale Power-Law Exponential Log-Normal
\[0.5ex\] 3 251.04 288.75 116.26 $\ast$
4 253.87 289.35 123.10 $\ast$
5 257.03 316.55 157.24 $\ast$
6 258.62 370.14 218.44 $\ast$
7 254.59 396.20 252.47 $\ast$
8 245.74 $\ast$ 359.41 250.97
9 220.50 $\ast$ 343.30 227.93
10 224.56 $\ast$ 318.80 229.26
11 220.38 $\ast$ 306.27 223.93
--------------- ----------- -------- ------------- -- ------------ --------
: Akaike Information Criterion values for various models applied to the PLI distributions of the Kuramoto model at $K = 2$, the effective critical coupling value for our system. Smaller values indicate a better fit, but comparisons are only meaningful across rows. The smallest value in each row is indicated with an asterisk.
\[aic\_k\_pli\]
--------------- ----------- -------- ------------- -- ------------ --------
Wavelet Scale Power-Law Exponential Log-Normal
\[0.5ex\] 3 -2533.43 $\ast$ -1019.49 -2478.83
4 -2531.41 $\ast$ -1296.02 -2484.28
5 -2540.75 $\ast$ -1351.52 -2490.46
6 -2520.30 $\ast$ -1304.60 -2473.17
7 -2439.44 -1293.77 -2465.53 $\ast$
8 -2415.82 -1163.59 -2426.63 $\ast$
9 -2000.55 $\ast$ -941.78 -1985.62
10 -1536.79 $\ast$ -686.48 -1515.75
11 -546.67 -239.38 -568.82 $\ast$
--------------- ----------- -------- ------------- -- ------------ --------
: Akaike Information Criterion values for various models applied to the GLS distributions of the Kuramoto model at $K = 2$, the effective critical coupling value for our system. Smaller values indicate a better fit, but comparisons are only meaningful across rows. The smallest value in each row is indicated with an asterisk.
\[aic\_k\_gls\]
The Akaike Information Criterion $(AIC)$ was calculated for both the PLI and GLS distributions for all studied coupling values. Only PLI intervals of length $0.1$ seconds or more were used for model-fitting, and these only are shown in the plot. The power-law model was fitted using the procedure described by Clauset et al. [@clauset2009], and implemented using their freely available code, and a minimum data value of $0.1$ seconds. The log-normal and exponential distributions were both fitted using in-built Matlab functions.
The values obtained for the effective critical coupling $K=2$ are shown in Table \[aic\_k\_pli\] for PLIs and Table \[aic\_k\_gls\] for GLS. As in [@bullmore], the power law distribution was only found to be the best fit at certain wavelet scales. The $AIC$ values in Table 1 of Kitzbichler et al. [@bullmore], stated as being at critically coupled Kuramoto, favour a power law model of the PLI frequency distribution for $5$ of $9$ wavelet scales, although no value is reported for wavelet scale $11$.
![Distribution of PLIs in a system of 44 Kuramoto oscillators, with natural frequencies drawn from a $\mathcal{N} \left( 0, 1\right)$ distribution and four levels of coupling - $K = 0$, $K = K_c \simeq 1.6$, $K = 2$ and $K = 4$ (from top-left, clock-wise). A power law of exponent -2 is shown by a dotted black line. The coloured lines represent wavelet scales $3-11$ (see key).[]{data-label="k_pli_results"}](k_pli_results.eps)
In our system, at the effective critical coupling $K=2$, the power law distribution was the best model for the data for $4$ out of $9$ wavelet scales for the PLI data. Note that the same number of wavelet scales were also best fitted by a power law distribution for coupling values $K=1$, $K=3$ and $K=4$. At coupling $K = K_c = 1.596$, $3$ wavelet scales were best fitted by a power law, and at no coupling, i.e., $K=0$, only $2$ wavelet scales. The log-normal distribution was otherwise the best fit at all coupling values and all other scales. The fact that less than half of the wavelet scales were best fitted by a power law distribution at the critical coupling, combined with the fact that non-critical coupling parameters ($K=1,3,4$) resulted in the same proportion of scales being best fitted by a power law distribution, leads us to conclude that the distribution of PLIs is not a reliable measure of criticality in a finite size Kuramoto system.
For the GLS probability distribution the coupling values giving greatest resemblance to power law distributions were $K=K_c \simeq 1.6$ and also $K=3$, both with $8$ of $9$ wavelet scales best fitted by the power law model. (The $AIC$ values for the GLS distribution were not included in [@bullmore]). In contrast, a power law model was best-fitting for only $2$ wavelet scales at coupling value of $K=0$. It was the best fit for $4$ wavelet scales at coupling $K=1$, for $6$ wavelet scales at coupling $K=2$ and for $3$ wavelet scales at coupling $K=4$. The remaining wavelet scales for all coupling values were again best fitted by a log-normal distribution. The prevalence of good power law fits in the GLS probability distribution across wavelet scales for coupling values $K=K_c$, $2$ and $3$, and the fact that power law distributions were not a good fit for the data resulting from coupling values $K=0$ and $K=4$, collectively suggest that the GLS measure may be an acceptable but not very sensitive indicator of the region of critical coupling for the finite size Kuramoto system.
The probability distributions of PLIs and GLS in Figures \[k\_pli\_results\] and \[k\_gls\_results\] are consistent with those shown in Figure 3 of [@bullmore] for the zero and critical coupling values. For $K=0$, the probability distribution of the PLIs has a drop-off for PLI values above $10^0$. However, our plot at this value differs from that in Kitzbichler et al. [@bullmore], which shows that no intermediate length PLIs exist for many of the scales. We observe PLIs of all lengths from $0.1$ to over $100$ seconds with non-zero probability. We suspect that their data was truncated for display, but no detail is given in the paper. The distributions at all wavelet scales appear linear in the log-log space both at theoretical critical coupling of $K_c \simeq 1.6$, and at $K=2$, the effective coupling parameter for this simulation of the Kuramoto system. The range in which this linearity holds is similar to that in [@bullmore], lying between $10^0$ and $10^2$. Our results for coupling values beyond criticality show that the distributions remain power-law-like as the coupling is increased to $K=3$, suggesting that linearity in the log-log space is not specific to $K=K_c$ for this system. This linearity in the log-log space vanishes for $K=4$, where sufficiently many oscillators have synchronised at the mean field phase for the system, which induces a particular interval of phase-locking, indicated by the peak in the distribution. Qualitatively similar observations can be made regarding the GLS distributions.
PLI and GLS in the Independent Pairs model {#sec:IPMResults}
------------------------------------------
PLI and GLS probability distributions were computed from the phase difference of $1000$ pairs of oscillators with $\omega_i - \omega_k \sim \mathcal{N} \left( 0, 2 \right)$. The length of data, and time steps used were identical to those described in Section \[sec:IPM\]. The number of pairs was set to a value close to that of the total number ($946$) of pairings available in a system of 44 oscillators. We computed all PLIs across these pairings, and the measures of GLS for all consecutive time points. Histograms of PLI and GLS, and $AIC$ values were computed exactly as in the previous Section (see Figures \[pli\_results\] and \[gls\_results\], and Tables \[aic\_m\_pli\] and \[aic\_m\_gls\]).
### PLI probability distribution
As indicated by Figure \[pli\_results\], the structure of the probability distribution alters as the coupling increases. For $K =0$, there is a drop-off below the power law of the distribution for values of the PLI above $1$ second. At or around the theoretical and effective critical couplings, the log-log plot of the distribution approaches the same power law with slope $-2$ as indicated by [@bullmore]. For values up to $K=3$, there is no significant difference between the evolution of PLI probability distributions with coupling in the Independent Pairs model and that of the Kuramoto model. The main dissimilarity arises from the continuing presence of an apparent power law distribution in the ‘super-critical’ range of $K=4$. In the Independent Pairs model, the log-log plot of the distribution retains some of its linearity whereas there is synchronisation to the mean field in the Kuramoto model, as evidenced by a well-defined peak in Figure \[k\_pli\_results\].
![Distribution of PLIs in the Independent Pairs Model, with natural frequencies drawn from a $\mathcal{N} \left( 0, 1\right)$ distribution and four levels of coupling - $K = 0$, $K = K_c \simeq 1.6$, $K = 2$ and $K = 4$ (from top-left, clock-wise). A power law of exponent -2 is shown by a dotted black line. The coloured lines represent wavelet scales $3-11$ (see key).[]{data-label="pli_results"}](pli_results.eps)
For the Independent Pairs Model, the $AIC$ indicated that the power law distribution best fitted the PLI probability distribution for $4$ of the $9$ wavelet scales, at critical coupling value $K \simeq 1.6$, as well as for coupling values $K=1$ and $K=4$. Both the effective critical coupling value $K=2$ (see Table \[aic\_m\_pli\]) and $K=3$ favoured the power distribution for $5$ wavelet scales in contrast to only $1$ wavelet scale for coupling $K=0$. The remaining wavelet scales at all coupling values were best fitted by a log-normal distribution. As there is little difference between the numbers of wavelet scales best fitted by a power law distribution for corresponding coupling values of the Kuramoto and Independent Pairs models, we conclude that the PLI measure is therefore unable to distinguish between critically and non-critically coupled systems.
--------------- ----------- -------- ------------- -- ------------ --------
Wavelet Scale Power-Law Exponential Log-Normal
\[0.5ex\] 3 205.74 121.02 49.49 $\ast$
4 189.05 222.37 120.70 $\ast$
5 171.14 192.08 107.80 $\ast$
6 154.09 166.67 93.89 $\ast$
7 138.37 $\ast$ 241.74 139.03
8 122.33 $\ast$ 210.90 124.66
9 104.09 $\ast$ 174.94 109.51
10 88.21 $\ast$ 161.30 93.26
11 72.94 $\ast$ 129.74 80.59
--------------- ----------- -------- ------------- -- ------------ --------
: Akaike Information Criterion values for various models applied to the PLI distributions of the Independent Pairs Model at $K = 2$, the effective critical coupling value for our system. Smaller values indicate a better fit, but comparisons are only meaningful across rows. The smallest value in each row is indicated with an asterisk.
\[aic\_m\_pli\]
### GLS probability distribution
![Distribution of GLS in the Independent Pairs Model, with natural frequencies drawn from a $\mathcal{N} \left( 0, 1\right)$ distribution and four levels of coupling - $K = 0$, $K = K_c \simeq 1.6$, $K = 2$ and $K = 4$ (from top-left, clock-wise). A power law of exponent -1 is shown by a dotted black line. The coloured lines represent wavelet scales $3-11$ (see key).[]{data-label="gls_results"}](gls_results)
In contrast to the PLI results, the probability distribution for the GLS of the Independent Pairs model remains largely unaltered as coupling increases, as shown in Figure \[gls\_results\]. The GLS distributions do not resemble those of the Kuramoto model. The range in which the log-log plot of the distribution is linear is narrower with a drop-off in the distribution for values of GLS above $100$s, suggesting that the Global Lability of Synchronisation measure may be more sensitive to the lack of critical interaction in the system.
For GLS, only $2$ wavelet scales were best modelled by the power law model at the effective critical coupling $K=2$ (see Table \[aic\_m\_gls\] for $K=K_c$). $1$ wavelet scale was best fitted by a power law at coupling $K=0$, $3$ at $K=1$, $2$ at $K=K_c$, $4$ at $K=3$, and $3$ at $K=4$. The remaining wavelet scales at all coupling values were best fitted by a log-normal distribution. There is no evident pattern of increasing similarity to a power law of the GLS distribution, as the coupling increases.
--------------- ----------- -------- ------------- -- ------------ --------
Wavelet Scale Power-Law Exponential Log-Normal
\[0.5ex\] 3 -297.16 42.78 -301.51 $\ast$
4 -379.92 8.93 -391.39 $\ast$
5 -591.87 -54.62 -596.56 $\ast$
6 -409.53 -38.71 -425.36 $\ast$
7 -227.94 -6.39 -251.63 $\ast$
8 -193.42 23.66 -204.54 $\ast$
9 -129.49 51.58 -132.82 $\ast$
10 -84.46 $\ast$ 57.75 -78.53
11 -63.34 $\ast$ 62.20 -51.41
--------------- ----------- -------- ------------- -- ------------ --------
: Akaike Information Criterion values for various models applied to the GLS distributions of the Independent Pairs model at $K = 2$, the effective critical coupling value for our system. Smaller values indicate a better fit, but comparisons are only meaningful across rows. The smallest value in each row is indicated with an asterisk.
\[aic\_m\_gls\]
Conclusions
===========
In this paper, we critically examined two measures, phase-locking intervals (PLI) and global lability of synchronisation (GLS), proposed by Kitzbichler and colleagues [@bullmore] to characterise the presence of critical synchronisation in a system. We did so by presenting those measures with two very different models of synchronisation. In the first (Kuramoto Model) the oscillators are coupled with increasing $K$ to the mean field and undergo a critical transition. In the second (Independent Pairs Model) the oscillators are only allowed to couple in a pair wise manner. This latter model cannot be formulated as a system at criticality because there is no global coupling to associate the pairs with one another, and so no possibility of a mean field.
When calculating the phase locking intervals (PLI) following the methodology of Kitzbichler et al. [@bullmore], we showed that power laws were the best fit for a similar number of wavelet scales when considering PLI distributions for the critical, Kuramoto, model and the non-critical, Independent Pairs, model. The power law distribution and the slope found for the PLIs of the non-critical system was closely similar to that shown by the critical model. When further exploring the PLI probability distribution for coupling parameter values exceeding criticality, we found that the linearity of the log-log plot of the distribution at a number of wavelet scales still led to a best fit by a power law, suggesting that the observation of power laws within this framework can be present in a wide range of coupling values. We therefore conclude that the PLI measure should not be used to infer criticality (broadband or otherwise) in a system.
In our simulations the GLS measure appeared better at discriminating between the critical, Kuramoto, system and the non-critical, Independent Pairs, model. We therefore conclude that GLS is a better measure than PLI for identifying critical systems, however, we believe that further work should be done to ascertain more precisely where its strengths lie, and compare it to other, non threshold-based methods such as proposed by Gong et al. [@gong]. In particular, we note that the GLS measure relies on counting the number of synchronised oscillators and that this depends crucially on how oscillators are defined, and distinguished. In the Kuramoto model, the number of oscillators is well defined, and each one is a discrete entity. With recorded neural activity, however, distinguishing multiple discrete oscillators is less straightforward. Kitzbichler et al., have applied the GLS measure to fMRI and MEG signals but its interpretation was limited by finite size effects (see loss of log-log linearity in the GLS distribution of MEG data in their figures 5D and 7D). To our knowledge the GLS measure has not been applied again to human neural data. Recently Meisel et al. [@meisel] have claimed to detect when compared to seizure-free electro-corticogram (ECoG) data a loss of adaptive self-organized criticality of the ECoG during epileptic seizures. This conclusion was arrived at through exploring power law scaling of ECoG phase locking using the PLI measure only. This is an exciting finding which received support from analysing the changes in PLI scaling seen in a computational model of self-organized criticality [@bornholdt]. However, our work indicates that interpreting the presence of a power law in the PLI probability distribution as a marker of criticality is problematic especially when a threshold has been applied to detect PLIs and when there has been pooling across many elements.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to acknowledge: Dr M Kitzbichler for making his R code available, Dr J Cabral for providing her Matlab implementation of the Kuramoto model, Dr C Ginestet for useful discussions. MB was funded by CoMPLEX (Centre for Mathematics and Physics in the Life Sciences and Experimental Biology), University College London. SF was funded by UCLH CBRC (University College London Hospital, Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre). All source code used in this study is available on request from the corresponding author.
Analytic Derivation of $\bigtriangleup_{ij}$
============================================
The analytical solutions for $\bigtriangleup_{ij}$, the difference between phases $\theta_i$ and $\theta_j$ of oscillators $i$ and $j$, are distinct for the two cases $\frac{K}{\omega_i - \omega_j}>1$ and $\frac{K}{\omega_i - \omega_j}<1$ where $\omega_i$ and $\omega_j$ are the respective natural frequencies of oscillators $i$ and $j$, and $K$ is the coupling added globally to the system. We can rearrange Equation \[diffequation\] to obtain the following integral:
$$\label{diff}
\int d t = \int \frac{d\bigtriangleup}{(\omega_i - \omega_j) -K \mbox{sin} (\bigtriangleup_{ij}) }$$
where $t$ denotes time. This integral can be solved using the standard substitution of $x = \mbox{tan} \left( \frac{\bigtriangleup_{ij}}{2} \right)$.
Doing so, and letting $C = \frac{K}{(\omega_i - \omega_j)}$, we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{integral}
\int d t & = \frac{2}{ (\omega_i - \omega_j)} \int{ \frac{ dx}{ \left( 1 - C^2 + \left(x - C \right)^2 \right) } }\end{aligned}$$
There are two different scenarios for this integral, depending on whether $C<1$ and $\sqrt{1 - C^2}$ is a real or imaginary number. We deal with each case in turn.
If $C<1$, or when coupling is smaller than the difference in natural frequency
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We can rearrange \[integral\] in terms of $\sqrt{1 - C^2}$ which is real and: $$\int d t = \frac{2}{ (\omega_i - \omega_j)(1-C^2)} \int{ \frac{ dx}{ \left( 1 + \left(\frac{x - C}{\sqrt{1 - C^2}} \right)^2 \right) } }$$
We can solve this integral using the fact that $\mbox{tan}^{-1}(z) = \int \frac{dz}{1+z^2}$ to get: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{time}
\begin{split}
t & = \frac{2}{ (\omega_i - \omega_j) \sqrt{(1-C^2)}} \left[ \mbox{tan}^{-1}\left( \frac{ \mbox{tan} \left( \frac{\bigtriangleup_{ij}}{2} \right) - C}{\sqrt{1 - C^2}}\right) \right. \\
& \left. - \mbox{tan}^{-1}\left( \frac{ \mbox{tan} \left( \frac{\bigtriangleup^0_{ij}}{2} \right) - C}{\sqrt{1 - C^2}}\right) \right]
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
Here, $\bigtriangleup^0_{ij}$ is the value of $\bigtriangleup_{ij}$ at time $t=0$, i.e., the initial difference in phase between oscillators $i$ and $j$.
Setting $ D = \frac{2}{ (\omega_i - \omega_j) \sqrt{(1-C^2)}} \mbox{tan}^{-1}\left( \frac{ \mbox{tan} \left( \frac{\bigtriangleup^0_{ij}}{2} \right) - C}{\sqrt{1 - C^2}}\right)$ we can rearrange Equation \[time\] to get: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\bigtriangleup_{ij} &= 2 \mbox{tan}^{-1} \left( \left( \sqrt{1 - C^2}\right) \right. \\
&\left. \mbox{tan} \left( \frac{\left( t-D\right) (\omega_i - \omega_j) \sqrt{(1-C^2) } }{2} \right) +C \right)
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$
If $C>1$, or when coupling is larger than the difference in natural frequency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here, $\sqrt{1 - C^2}$ is imaginary, so we rearrange \[integral\] in terms of $\sqrt{C^2 - 1}$:
$$\int d t = \frac{2}{ (\omega_i - \omega_j)(1-C^2)} \int{ \frac{ dx}{ \left( 1 - \left(\frac{x - C}{\sqrt{ C^2 - 1}} \right)^2 \right) } }$$
We can solve this integral using the fact that $\frac{1}{2} \left( \mbox{log}^{-1}(-z-1) - \mbox{log}^{-1}(z-1) \right) = \int \frac{dz}{1-z^2}$: $$t = \frac{-1}{ (\omega_i - \omega_j) \sqrt{(C^2-1)}} \mbox{log} \left[ A \left( \frac{1+y}{1-y} \right) \right]$$ where $A = \frac{1-y^0}{1+y^0}$ and $y^0$ is the value of $y$ at time $t=0$.
This can be rearranged to yield: $$\bigtriangleup_{ij} = 2 \mbox{tan}^{-1} \left[ \sqrt{C^2 - 1} \left( \frac{e^{-t (\omega_i - \omega_j) \sqrt{(C^2-1)}} - A}{ A+e^{-t (\omega_i - \omega_j) \sqrt{(C^2-1)}}} \right) + C \right]$$
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present measurements of the branching fraction and -violating asymmetries in the decay $B^0\to\ffzeroKs$. The results are obtained from a data sample of $123\times10^6$ $\FourS \to B\Bbar$ decays. From a time-dependent maximum likelihood fit we measure the branching fraction ${\cal B}(\Bz\to\fzero(\to\pi^+\pi^-)K^0)=(6.0\pm0.9\pm0.6\pm1.2)\tmsix$, the mixing-induced violation parameter $S=-1.62^{+0.56}_{-0.51} \pm 0.09\pm 0.04$ and the direct violation parameter $C=0.27\pm 0.36\pm 0.10 \pm 0.07 $, where the first errors are statistical, the second systematic and the third due to model uncertainties. We measure the $\fzero$ mass and width to be $m_{\fzero}=(980.6 \pm 4.1 \pm 0.5\pm 4.0)\mevcc$ and $\Gamma_{\fzero}=(43^{+12}_{-9} \pm 3 \pm 9 )\mevcc$, respectively.'
title: ' [**Measurements of the Branching Fraction and [*CP*]{}-Violation Asymmetries in $B^0\to\ffzeroKs$**]{} '
---
-PUB-[04]{}/[017]{}\
SLAC-PUB-[10498]{}\
hep-ex/[xxxxxx]{}\
pubboard/authors\_apr2004.tex
Biblio.tex
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Kernel density estimation (KDE) is a popular statistical technique for estimating the underlying density distribution with minimal assumptions. Although they can be shown to achieve asymptotic estimation optimality for any input distribution, cross-validating for an optimal parameter requires significant computation dominated by kernel summations. In this paper we present an improvement to the dual-tree algorithm, the first practical kernel summation algorithm for general dimension. Our extension is based on the series-expansion for the Gaussian kernel used by fast Gauss transform. First, we derive two additional analytical machinery for extending the original algorithm to utilize a hierarchical data structure, demonstrating the first truly hierarchical fast Gauss transform. Second, we show how to integrate the series-expansion approximation within the dual-tree approach to compute kernel summations with a user-controllable relative error bound. We evaluate our algorithm on real-world datasets in the context of optimal bandwidth selection in kernel density estimation. Our results demonstrate that our new algorithm is the only one that guarantees a hard relative error bound and offers fast performance across a wide range of bandwidths evaluated in cross validation procedures.'
author:
- |
Dongryeol Lee\
School of Computational Science and Engineering\
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. USA.\
[email protected]\
\
Alexander G. Gray\
School of Computational Science and Engineering\
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA. USA.\
[email protected]\
\
Andrew W. Moore\
Robotics Institute\
Carnegie Mellon University\
Pittsburgh, PA. USA.\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- '../bibtexfile/global.bib'
title: 'Dual-Tree Fast Gauss Transforms'
---
Introduction
============
Kernel density estimation (KDE) is the most widely used and studied nonparametric density estimation method. The model is the reference dataset $\mathcal{R}$ itself, containing the reference points indexed by natural numbers. Assume a local kernel function $K_h(\cdot)$ centered upon each reference point, and its scale parameter $h$ (the ’bandwidth’). The common choices for $K_h(\cdot)$ include the spherical, Gaussian and Epanechnikov kernels. We are given the query dataset $\mathcal{Q}$ containing query points whose densities we want to predict. The density estimate at the $i$-th query point $q_i \in
\mathcal{Q}$ is: [$$\hat{p}_h(q_i) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{R}|} \sum\limits_{r_j \in
\mathcal{R}} \frac{1}{V_{Dh}} K_h \left( ||q_i - r_j|| \right)$$ ]{} where $||q_i - r_j||$ denotes the Euclidean distance between the $i$-th query point $q_i$ and the $j$-th reference point $r_j$, $D$ the dimensionality of the data, $|\mathcal{R}|$ the size of the reference dataset, and $V_{Dh} = \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\infty} K_h(z) dz$, a normalizing constant depending on $D$ and $h$. With no assumptions on the true underlying distribution, if $h \rightarrow 0$ and $|
\mathcal{R} | h \rightarrow \infty$ and $K(\cdot)$ satisfy some mild conditions: [$$\int |\hat{p}_h(x) - p(x)|dx \rightarrow 0$$]{} as $| \mathcal{R} | \rightarrow \infty$ with probability 1. As more data are observed, the estimate converges to the true density.
\[alg:bruteforce\_alg\]
In order to build our model for evaluating the densities at each $q_i
\in \mathcal{Q}$, we need to find the initially unknown asymptotically optimal bandwidth $h^*$ for the given reference dataset $\mathcal{R}$. There are two main types of cross-validation methods for selecting the asymptotically optimal bandwidth. Cross-validation methods use the reference dataset $\mathcal{R}$ as the query dataset $\mathcal{Q}$ (i.e. $\mathcal{Q} = \mathcal{R}$). [*Likelihood cross-validation*]{} is derived by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence $\int p(x) \log \frac{p(x)}{\hat{p}_h(x)} dx$, which yields the score: [$$CV_{LK}(h) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{R}|} \sum\limits_{r_j \in \mathcal{R}
} \log \hat{p}_{h,-j}(r_j)$$ ]{} where the $-j$ subscript denotes an estimate using all $|\mathcal{R}|$ points except the $j$-th reference point. The bandwidth $h^*_{CV_{LK}}$ that maximizes $CV_{LK}(h)$ is an asymptotically optimal bandwidth in likelihood cross validation sense. [*Least-squares cross-validation*]{} minimizes the integrated squared error\
$\int \left(\hat{p}_h(x) - p(x)\right)^2 dx$, yielding the score: [$$CV_{LS}(h) = \frac{1}{|\mathcal{R}|} \sum\limits_{r_j \in \mathcal{R}}
\left( \hat{p}^{*}_{-j}(r_j) - 2 \hat{p}_{-j}(r_j) \right)$$ ]{} where $\hat{p}^{*}_{-j}(\cdot)$ is evaluated using the convolution kernel $K_h(\cdot) * K_h(\cdot)$. For the Gaussian kernel with bandwidth of $h$, the convolution kernel $K_h(\cdot) * K_h(\cdot)$ is the Gaussian kernel with bandwidth of $2h$. Both cross validation scores require $|\mathcal{R}|$ density estimate based on $|\mathcal{R}| - 1$ points, yielding a brute-force computational cost scaling [**quadratically**]{} (that is $O(|\mathcal{R}|^2)$) (see Algorithm \[alg:bruteforce\_alg\]). To make matters worse, nonparametric methods require a large number of reference points for convergence to the true underlying distribution and this has prevented many practitioners from applying nonparametric methods for function estimation.
Efficient Computation of Gaussian Kernel Sums
---------------------------------------------
One of the most commonly used kernel function is the Gaussian kernel, $K_h(||q_i - r_j||) = e^{\frac{-||q_i - r_j||^2}{2h^2}}$, although it is not the asymptotically optimal kernel. In this paper we focus on evaluating the Gaussian sums efficiently for each $q_i \in
\mathcal{Q}$: [$$G(q_i, \mathcal{R}) = \sum\limits_{r_j \in \mathcal{R}}
e^{\frac{-||q_i - r_j||^2}{2h^2}}
\label{eq:gaussian_kernel_sums}$$]{}which is proportional to $\hat{p}(q_i)$ using the Gaussian kernel. This computationally expensive sum is evaluated many times when cross-validating for an asymptotically optimal bandwidth for the Gaussian kernel. Algorithms have been developed to approximate the Gaussian kernel sums at the expense of reduced precision. We consider the following two error bound criteria that measure the quality of the approximation with respect to the true value.
[**(Bounding the absolute error)** ]{} An approximation algorithm guarantees $\epsilon$ absolute error bound, if for each exact value $\Phi(q_i, \mathcal{R} ) $, it computes an approximation $\widetilde{\Phi}(q_i, \mathcal{R})$ such that $|
\widetilde{\Phi}(q_i, \mathcal{R}) - \Phi(q_i, \mathcal{R} ) | \leq
\epsilon$.
[**(Bounding the relative error)** ]{} An approximation algorithm guarantees $\epsilon$ relative error bound, if for each exact value $\Phi(q_i, \mathcal{R} )$, it computes an approximation $\widetilde{\Phi}(x_q, \mathcal{R} )$ such that $|
\widetilde{\Phi}(q_i, \mathcal{R} ) - \Phi(q_i, \mathcal{R} ) | \leq
\epsilon | \Phi(q_i, \mathcal{R} ) |$. \[defn:bound\_relative\_error\]
Bounding the relative error is much harder because the error bound is in terms of the initially unknown exact quantity. Many previous methods [@greengard1991fgt; @yang2003improved] have focused on bounding the absolute error. Nevertheless, the relative error bound criterion is preferred to the absolute error bound criterion in statistical applications. Therefore, our experiment will evaluate the performance of the algorithms for achieving the user-specified relative error tolerance. Our new algorithm which builds upon [@gray2003nde; @gray2003rem; @gray2003vfm] is the only one to guarantee both the absolute error and the relative error bound criterion for all density estimates.
Previous Approaches
-------------------
There are three main approaches proposed for overcoming the computational barrier in evaluating the Gaussian kernel sums:
1. [to expand the kernel sum as a power series [@greengard1991fgt; @yang2003improved; @raykar2005fast] using a grid or a flat-clustering.]{}
2. [to express the kernel sum as a convolution sum by using the grid of field charges created from the dataset [@wand94].]{}
3. [to utilize an adaptive hierarchical structure to group data points based on proximity [@gray2003nde; @gray2003rem; @gray2003vfm].]{}
Now we briefly describe the strengths and the weaknesses of these methods.
[ \
**The Fast Gauss Transform (FGT).** ]{} FGT [@greengard1991fgt] belongs to a family of methods called the Fast Multipole Methods (FMM). These family of methods come with rigorous error bound on the kernel sums. Unlike other FMM algorithms, FGT uses a grid structure (see Figure \[fig:fgt\_grid\]) whose maximum side length is restricted to be at most the bandwidth $h$ used in cross-validation due to the error bound criterion. FGT has not been widely used in higher dimensional statistical contexts. First, the number of the terms in the power series expansion for the kernel sums grows exponentially with dimensionality $D$; this causes computational bottleneck in evaluating the series expansion or translating a series expansion from one center to another. Second, the grid structure is extremely inefficient in higher dimensions since the storage cost is exponential in $D$ and many of the boxes will be empty.
[**The Improved Fast Gauss Transform (IFGT).** ]{}IFGT is similar to FMM but utilizes a flat clustering to group data points (see Figure \[fig:ifgt\_cluster\]), which is more efficient than a grid structure used in FGT. The number of clusters $k$ is chosen in advance. A partition of the data points into $C_1$, $C_2$, $\cdots$, $C_k$ is formed so that each reference point $r_j \in \mathcal{R}$ is grouped according to its proximity to the set of representative points $c_1$, $c_2$, $\cdots$, $c_k$. That is, $r_j \in C_m$ (whose representative point is $c_m$) if and only if $||r_j - c_m|| \leq
||r_j - c_l||$ for $1 \leq l \leq k$.
Furthermore, IFGT proposes using a different series expansion that does not require translation of expansion centers as done in FGT. The original algorithm [@yang2003improved] required tweaking of multiple parameters which did not offer for a user to control the accuracy of the approximation. The latest version [@raykar2005fast] is now fully automatic in choosing the approximation parameter for the absolute error bound, but is still inefficient except on large bandwidth parameters. We will discuss this further in Section \[sec:experimental\_results\].
[ \
**Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).** ]{} FFT is often quoted as the solution to the computational problem in evaluating the Gaussian kernel sums. Gaussian kernel summation using FFT is described in [@silverman1982kernel] and [@wand94]. [@silverman1982kernel] discusses the implementation of KDE only in a univariate case, while [@wand94] extends [@silverman1982kernel] to handle more than one dimension. It uses a grid structure shown in Figure \[fig:fgt\_grid\] by specifying the number of grid points along each dimension.
The algorithm first computes the $M_1 \times \cdot\cdot\cdot \times
M_D$ matrix by binning the data assigning the raw data to neighboring grid points using one of the binning rules. This involves computing the minimum and maximum coordinate values ($g_{i, M_i}, g_{i, 1}$), and the grid width $\delta_i = \frac{g_{i, M_i} - g_{i, 1}}{M_i - 1}$ for each $i$-th dimension. This essentially divides each $i$-th dimension into $M_i - 1$ intervals of equal length. In particular, [@wand94] discusses two different types of binning rules - linear binning, which is recommended by Silverman, and nearest-neighbor binning. [@wand94] states that nearest-neighbor binning rule performs poorly, so we will test the implementation using the linear binning rule, as recommended by both authors. In addition, we compute the $L_1 \times \cdot\cdot\cdot \times L_D$ kernel weight matrix, where $L_i = \min \left (\left\lfloor \frac{\tau
h}{\delta_i} \right \rfloor, M_i - 1 \right )$, with $\tau \approx
4$ and $K_l = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^d e^{\frac{-0.5l_k\delta_k}{h^2}}$, $-L_k \leq l_k \leq L_k$, for $l = [l_1, ..., l_D]^T \in
\mathbb{Z}^D$.
To reduce the wrap-around effects of fast Fourier transform near the dataset boundary, we appropriately zero-pad the grid count and the kernel weight matrices to two matrices of the dimensionality $P_1
\times \cdot\cdot\cdot P_D$, where $P_i = 2^{\log_2 \lceil M_i + L_i
\rceil}$. The key ingredient in this method is the use of Convolution Theorem for Fourier transforms. The structure of the computed grid count matrix and the kernel weight matrix is crafted to take advantage of the fast Fourier transform. For every grid point $g
= (g_{1j_1}, ..., g_{dj_D})$, $\tilde{s_k}(g_j) = \sum\limits_{l_1 =
-L_1}^{L_1} \cdots \sum\limits_{l_D = -L_D}^{L_D} c_{j - l} K_{k,
l}$ can be computed using the Convolution Theorem for Fourier Transform. After taking the convolution of the grid count matrix and the kernel weight matrix, the $M_1 \times \cdots \times M_D$ sub-matrix in the upper left corner of the resultant matrix contains the kernel density estimate of the grid points. The density estimate of each query point is then linearly interpolated using the density estimates of neighboring grid points inside the cell it falls into.
The grid count matrix: $c^Z = \begin{pmatrix} c_{1, 1}
&\cdots & c_{1, M_2}\\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \textbf{0}\\ c_{M_1,
1} & \cdots & c_{M_1, M_2}\\ & \textbf{0} & & \textbf{0}\end{pmatrix}$
The kernel weight matrix: $\textbf{K}^Z = \begin{pmatrix} K_{00} &
\cdots & K_{0L_2} & & K_{0L_2} & \cdots & K_{01} \\ \vdots & \ddots &
\vdots & \textbf{0} & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ K_{L_10} & \cdots &
K_{L_1L_2} & & K_{L_1L_2} & \cdots & K_{L_11} \\ & \textbf{0} & &
\textbf{0} & & \textbf{0} \\ K_{L_10} & \cdots & K_{L_1L_2} & &
K_{L_1L_2} & \cdots & K_{L_11} \\ \vdots & \ddots & \vdots &
\textbf{0} & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\ K_{10} & \cdots & K_{1L_2} &
& K_{1L_2} & \cdots & K_{11}
\end{pmatrix}$
where $K_{l_1, l_2} = e^{\frac{-0.5((l_1\delta_1)^2 +
(l_2\delta_2)^2)}{h^2}}$.
However, performing a calculation on equally-spaced grid points introduces artifacts at the boundaries of the data. The linear interpolation of the data points by assigning to neighboring grid points introduce further errors. Increasing the number of grid points to use along each dimension can provide more accuracy but also require more space to store the grid. Moreover, it is impossible to directly quantify incurred error on each estimate in terms of the number of grid points.
[**Dual-tree KDE.** ]{}In terms of discrete algorithmic structure, the dual-tree framework of [@gray2001nbp] generalizes all of the well-known kernel summation algorithms. These include the Barnes-Hut algorithm [@barnes1986hof], the Fast Multipole Method [@greengard1987fap], Appel’s algorithm [@appel1985efficient], and the WSPD [@callahan1995dwh]: the dual-tree method is a node-node algorithm (considers query regions rather than points), is fully recursive, can use distribution-sensitive data structures such as [*kd*]{}-trees, and is bichromatic (can specialize for differing query set $\mathcal{Q}$ and reference set $\mathcal{R}$). It was applied to the problem of kernel density estimation in [@gray2003nde] using a simple variant of a centroid approximation used in [@appel1985efficient].
This algorithm is currently the fastest Gaussian kernel summation algorithm for general dimensions. Unfortunately, when performing cross-validation to determine the (initially unknown) optimal bandwidth, both sub-optimally small and large bandwidths must be evaluated. Section \[sec:experimental\_results\] demonstrates that the dual-tree method tends to be efficient at the optimal bandwidth and at bandwidths below the optimal bandwidth and at very large bandwidths. However, its performance degrades for intermediately large bandwidths.
Our Contribution
----------------
In this paper we present an improvement to the dual-tree algorithm [@gray2003nde; @gray2003rem; @gray2003vfm], the first practical kernel summation algorithm for general dimension. Our extension is based on the series-expansion for the Gaussian kernel used by fast Gauss transform [@greengard1991fgt]. First, we derive two additional analytical machinery for extending the original algorithm to utilize a adaptive hierarchical data structure called $kd$-trees [@bentley1975multidimensional], demonstrating the first truly hierarchical fast Gauss transform, which we call the Dual-tree Fast Gauss Transform (DFGT). Second, we show how to integrate the series-expansion approximation within the dual-tree approach to compute kernel summations with a user-controllable relative error bound. We evaluate our algorithm on real-world datasets in the context of optimal bandwidth selection in kernel density estimation. Our results demonstrate that our new algorithm is the only one that guarantees a relative error bound and offers fast performance across a wide range of bandwidths evaluated in cross validation procedures.
Structure of This Paper
-----------------------
This paper builds on [@lee2006dtf] where the Dual-Tree Fast Gauss Transform was presented briefly. It adds details on the approximation mechanisms used in the algorithm and provides a more thorough comparison with the other algorithms. In Section \[sec:computational\_strategy\], we introduce a general computational strategy for efficiently computing the Gaussian kernel sums. In Section \[sec:higher\_order\_dfgt\], we describe our extensions to the dual-tree algorithm to handle higher-order series expansion approximations. In Section \[sec:experimental\_results\], we provide performance comparison with some of the existing methods for evaluating the Gaussian kernel sums.
Notations
---------
The general notation conventions used throughout this paper are as follows. $\mathcal{Q}$ denotes the set of [*query points*]{} for which we want to make the density computations. $\mathcal{R}$ denotes the set of [*reference points*]{} which are used to construct the kernel density estimation model. [*Query points*]{} and [*reference points*]{} are indexed by natural numbers $i, j \in \mathbb{N}$ and denoted $q_i$ and $r_j$ respectively. For any set $S$, $|S|$ denotes the number of elements in $S$. For any vector $v \in \mathbb{R}^D$ and $1 \leq i \leq D$, let $v[i]$ denote the $i$-th component of $v$.
Computational Technique {#sec:computational_strategy}
=======================
We first introduce a hierarchical method for for organizing the data points for computation, and describe the [*generalized $N$-body approach*]{} [@gray2003nde; @gray2003rem; @gray2003vfm] that enables the efficient computation of kernel sums using a tree.
Spatial Trees {#sec:spatial_trees}
-------------
A [*spatial tree*]{} is a [*hierarchical*]{} data structure that allows summarization and access of the dataset at different resolutions. The recursive nature of hierarchical data structures enables efficient computations that are not possible with single-level data structures such as grids and flat clusterings. A hierarchical data structure satisfies the following properties:
1. [There is one root node representing the entire dataset.]{}
2. [Each leaf node is a terminal node.]{}
3. [Each internal node $N$ points to two child nodes $N^L$ and $N^R$ such that $N^L \cap N^R = \emptyset$ and $N^L \cup N^R =
N$.]{}
Since a [*node*]{} can be viewed as a collection of points, each term will be used interchangeably with the other. A [*reference node*]{} is a collection of reference points and a [*query node*]{} is a collection of query points. We use a variant of $kd$-trees [@bentley1975multidimensional] to form hierarchical groupings of points based on their locations using the [*recursive*]{} procedure shown in Algorithm \[alg:kdtree\].
$N$
\[alg:kdtree\]
In this procedure, the set of points in each node $N$ defines a bounding hyper-rectangle $[N.b[1].l, N.b[1].u] \times [N.b[2].l,
N.b[2].u] \times \cdots \times [N.b[D].l, N.b[D].u]$ whose $i$-th coordinates for $1 \leq i \leq D$ are defined by: $N.b[i].l =
\min\limits_{x \in N.\mathcal{P}} x[i]$ and $N.b[i].u = \min\limits_{x
\in N.P} x[i]$ where $N.\mathcal{P}$ is the set of points owned by the node $N$. We also define the geometric center of each node, which is [$$N.c = \left[ \frac{N.b[1].l + N.b[1].u}{2}, \frac{N.b[2].l +
N.b[2].u}{2}, \cdots, \frac{N.b[D].l + N.b[D].u}{2} \right]^T
\in \mathbb{R}^D$$]{}The node $N$ is split along the widest dimension of the bounding hyper-rectangle $N.\mathit{sd}$ into two equal halves at the splitting coordinate $N.\mathit{sc}$. The algorithm continues splitting until the number of points is below the [*leaf threshold*]{}. Computing a bounding hyper-rectangle requires $O(|\mathcal{P}|)$ cost.
Generalized $N$-body Approach {#sec:generalized_nbody_approach}
-----------------------------
Recall that the computational task involved in KDE is defined as: $\forall q_i \in \mathcal{Q}$, compute $G(q_i, \mathcal{R}) =
\sum\limits_{r_j \in \mathcal{R}} e^{\frac{-||q_i -
r_j||^2}{2h^2}}$. The general framework for computing a summation of this form is formalized in [@gray2003nde; @gray2003rem; @gray2003vfm]. This approach forms [*kd*]{}-trees for both the query and reference data and then perform a [*dual-tree traversal*]{} over pairs of nodes, demonstrated in Figure \[fig:dualtree\] and Algorithm \[alg:dualtree\]. This procedure is called with $Q$ and $R$ as the root nodes of the query and the reference tree respectively. This allows us to compare chunks of the query and reference data, using the bounding boxes and additional information stored by the [*kd*]{}-tree to compute bounds on distances as shown in Figure \[fig:dualtree\].
$\mbox{{\textsc{DualTreeBase}}}(Q,R)$
\[alg:dualtree\]
These distance bounds can be computed in $O(D)$ time using: [ $$\begin{aligned}
d^l(Q, R) &= \frac{1}{2} \sqrt{ \sum\limits_{k=1}^D
\left( d^{l, u}_{j,i}[k] + \left | d^{l, u}_{j,i}[k] \right | +
d^{l,u}_{i,j}[k] + \left | d^{l,u}_{i,j}[k] \right |
\right )^2 }\\ d^u(Q, R) &= \sqrt{\sum\limits_{k=1}^D
\left( \max \left \{ d^{u,l}_{j,i}[k], d_{i,j}^{u,l}[k] \right \} \right ) ^2 }\end{aligned}$$ ]{}where $d^{l,u}_{j,i}[k] = R^l[k] - Q^u[k]$, $d^{l, u}_{i, j}[k] =
Q^l[k] - R^u[k]$, $d^{u, l}_{j, i}[k] = R^u[k] - Q^l[k]$,\
$d^{u,
l}_{i, j}[k] = Q^u[k] - R^l[k]$. The $\mbox{{\textsc{CanSummarize}}}$ function tests whether it is possible to summarize the sum contribution of the given reference node for each query point in the given query node. If possible, the $\mbox{{\textsc{Summarize}}}$ function approximates the sum contribution of the given reference node; we then say the given pair of the query node and the reference node has been [**pruned**]{}. The idea is to [*prune*]{} unneeded portions of the dual-tree traversal, thereby minimizing the number of exhaustive leaf-leaf computations.
Dual-Tree Fast Gauss Transform {#sec:higher_order_dfgt}
==============================
Mathematical Preliminaries {#sec:mathematical_preliminaries}
--------------------------
[**Univariate Taylor’s Theorem.** ]{}The univariate Taylor’s theorem is crucial for the approximation mechanism in Fast Gauss transform and our new algorithm:
If $n \geq 0$ is an integer and $f$ is a function which is $n$ times continuously differentiable on the closed interval $[c, x]$ and $n +
1$ times differentiable on $(c, x)$ then [$$f(x) = \sum\limits_{i=0}^{n} f^{(i)}(c)\frac{(x-c)^i}{i!} +R_{n}$$ ]{} where the Lagrange form of the remainder term is given by\
$R_{n} =
f^{(n+1)}(\xi)\frac{(x-c)^{n+1}}{(n+1)!}$ for some $\xi \in (c, x)$.
\
[**Multi-index Notation.** ]{}Throughout this paper, we will be using the multi-index notation. A $D$-dimensional multi-index $\alpha$ is a $D$-tuple of non-negative integers. For any $D$-dimensional multi-indices $\alpha$, $\beta$ and any $x\in
\mathbb{R}^D$,
- [$|\alpha| = \alpha[1] + \alpha[2] + \cdots + \alpha[D]$]{}
- [$\alpha! = (\alpha[1])! (\alpha[2])! \cdots (\alpha[D])!$]{}
- [$x^{\alpha} = (x[1])^{\alpha[1]} (x[2])^{\alpha[2]} \cdots
(x[D])^{\alpha[D]}$]{}
- [$D^{\alpha} = \partial_1^{\alpha[1]} \partial_2^{\alpha[2]}
\cdots \partial_D^{\alpha[D]}$]{}
- [$\alpha + \beta = (\alpha[1] + \beta[1], \cdots, \alpha[D] +
\beta[D])$]{}
- [$\alpha - \beta = (\alpha[1] - \beta[1], \cdots, \alpha[D] -
\beta[D])$ for $\alpha \geq \beta$.]{}
where $\partial_i$ is a $i$-th directional partial derivative. Define $\alpha > \beta$ if $\alpha[d] > \beta[d]$, and $\alpha \geq p$ for $p \in \mathbb{Z^+} \cup \{0 \}$ if $\alpha[d]
\geq p$ for $1 \leq d \leq D$ (and similarly for $\alpha \leq p$).
\
[**Properties of the Gaussian Kernel.**]{} \[PropertiesOfTheGaussianKernel\] Based on the univariate Taylor’s Theorem stated above, [@greengard1991fgt] develops the series expansion mechanism for the Gaussian kernel sum. Our development begins with one-dimensional setting and generalizes to multi-dimensional setting. We first define the Hermite polynomials by the Rodrigues’ formula: [$$\begin{split}
H_n(t) = (-1)^n e^{t^2} D^n e^{-t^2}, t \in \mathbb{R}^1
\end{split}$$ ]{} The first few polynomials include: $H_0(t) = 1$, $H_1(t) = 2t$, $H_2(t) = 4t^2 - 2$. The generating function for Hermite polynomials is defined by: [$$\begin{split}
e^{2ts - s^2} = \sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty} \frac{s^n}{n!} H_n(t)
\end{split}$$ ]{} Let us define the Hermite functions $h_n(t)$ by [$$\begin{split}
h_n(t) = e^{-t^2}H_n(t)
\end{split}$$ ]{} Multiplying both sides by $e^{-t^2}$ yields: $$\begin{split}
e^{-(t - s)^2} = \sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty} \frac{s^n}{n!} h_n(t)
\end{split}$$ We would like to use a “scaled and shifted” version of this derivation for taking the bandwidth $h$ into account. [$$\begin{aligned}
e^{\frac{-(t - s)^2}{2h^2}} &= e^{\frac{-((t - s_0) - (s - s_0))^2}{2h^2}}
= \sum\limits_{n = 0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n!} \left( \frac{s -
s_0}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^n h_n \left( \frac{t - s_0}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Note that our $D$-dimensional multivariate Gaussian kernel can be expressed as a product of $D$ one-dimensional Gaussian kernel. Similarly, the multidimensional Hermite functions can be written as a product of one-dimensional Hermite functions using the following identity for any $t \in \mathbb{R^D}$. [$$\begin{split}
H_{\alpha}(t) &= H_{\alpha[1]}(t[1]) \cdots H_{\alpha[D]}(t[D])\\
h_{\alpha}(t) &= e^{-||t||^2}H_{\alpha}(t) = h_{\alpha[1]}(t[1])
\cdots h_{\alpha[D]}(t[D])\\
\end{split}$$ ]{} where $||t||^2 = (t[1])^2 + \cdots + (t[D])^2$. [$$\begin{split}
e^{\frac{-||t - s||^2}{2h^2}} &= e^{\frac{-(t[1] - s[1])^2 - (t[2] -
s[2])^2 - \cdots - (t[D] - s[D])^2}{2h^2}}\\ &= e^{\frac{-(t[1] -
s[1])^2}{2h^2}}e^{\frac{-(t[2] - s[2])^2}{2h^2}} \cdots
e^{\frac{-(t[D] - s[D])^2}{2h^2}}\\
\end{split}$$ ]{} We can also express the multivariate Gaussian about another point $s_0 \in \mathbb{R}^D$ as: [$$\begin{split}
e^{\frac{-||t - s||^2}{2h^2}} &= \prod\limits_{d=1}^D \left(
\sum\limits_{n_d = 0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n_d!} \left( \frac{s[d] -
s_0[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{n_d} h_{n_d} \left( \frac{t[d] -
s_0[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \right)\\ &= \sum\limits_{\alpha \geq 0}
\frac{1}{\alpha!} \left( \frac{s - s_0}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\alpha}
h_{\alpha} \left( \frac{t - s_0}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\\
\end{split}
\label{eq:primal}$$ ]{} The representation which is [*dual*]{} to Equation is given by: [$$\begin{split}
e^{\frac{-||t - s||^2}{2h^2}} &= \prod\limits_{d=1}^D \left(
\sum\limits_{n_d = 0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n_d}}{n_d!} h_{n_d} \left(
\frac{t_0[d] - s(d)}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{t[d] -
t_0}{\sqrt{2h^2}}\right)^{\beta} \right)\\ &= \sum\limits_{\beta \geq
0} \frac{(-1)^{\beta}}{\beta!} h_{\beta} \left( \frac{t_0 -
s}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{t -
t_0}{\sqrt{2h^2}}\right)^{\beta}
\end{split}
\label{eq:dual}$$ ]{} The final property is the recurrence relation of the one-dimensional Hermite function: [$$\begin{split}
h_{n + 1}(t) = 2t \cdot h_n(t) - 2n \cdot h_{n - 1}(t), t \in
\mathbb{R}^1
\end{split}$$ ]{} and the Taylor expansion of the Hermite function $h_{\alpha}(t)$ about $t_0 \in \mathbb{R^D}$. [$$\begin{split}
h_{\alpha}(t) = \sum\limits_{\beta \geq 0} \frac{(t -
t_0)^{\beta}}{\beta!}(-1)^{|\beta|} h_{\alpha + \beta}(t_0)\\
\end{split}$$ ]{}
Notations in Algorithm Descriptions {#sec:algorithmic_notations}
-----------------------------------
Here we summarize notations used throughout the descriptions and the pseudocodes for our algorithms. The followings are notations that are relevant to a query point $q_i \in \mathcal{Q}$ or a query node $Q$ in the query tree.
- [$\mathcal{R_E}(\cdot)$: The set of reference points $r_{j_n} \in
\mathcal{R}$ whose pairwise interaction is computed exhaustively for a query point $q_i \in \mathcal{Q}$ or a query node $Q$.]{}
- [$\mathcal{R_T}(\cdot)$: The set of reference points $r_{j_n} \in
\mathcal{R}$ whose contribution is pruned via centroid-based approximation for a given query point $q_i \in \mathcal{Q}$.]{}
The followings are notations relevant to a query point $q_i \in
\mathcal{Q}$.
- [$G(q_i, R)$: The true initially unknown kernel sum for a query point $q_i$ contributed by the reference set $R \subseteq
\mathcal{R}$, i.e. $\sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} K_h(||q_i -
r_{j_n}||)$.]{}
- [$G^l(q_i, \mathcal{R})$: A lower bound on $G(q_i, \mathcal{R})$.]{}
- [$G^u(q_i, \mathcal{R})$: An upper bound on $G(q_i, \mathcal{R})$.]{}
- [$\widetilde{G}(q_i, R)$: An approximation to $G(q_i, R)$ for $R
\subseteq \mathcal{R}$. This obeys the additive property for a family of pairwise disjoint sets $\{ R_i \}_{i=1}^{m}$: $\widetilde{G}\left( q_i, \bigcup\limits_{i=1}^m R_i \right) =
\sum\limits_{i=1}^m \widetilde{G}(q_i, R_i)$.]{}
- [$\widetilde{G}\left (q_i, \{ (R_j, A_j) \}_{j=1}^m \right )$: A refined notation of $\widetilde{G}\left (q_i, \bigcup\limits_{j=1}^m
R_j \right)$ to specify the type of approximation used for each reference node $R_j$.]{}
Here we define some notations for representing postponed bound changes to $G^l(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$ and $G^u(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$ for all $q_{i_m} \in Q$.
- [$Q.\Delta^l$: Postponed lower bound changes on $G^l(q_{i_m},
\mathcal{R})$ for a query node $Q$ in the query tree and $q_i \in
Q$.]{}
- [$Q.L$: Postponed changes to $\widetilde{G}(q_{i_m},
\mathcal{R_T}(q_{i_m}))$ for $q_{i_m} \in Q$.]{}
- [$Q.\Delta^u$: Postponed upper bound changes on $G^l(q_{i_m},
\mathcal{R})$ for a query node $Q$ in the query tree and $q_i \in
Q$.]{}
These postponed changes to the upper and lower bounds must be incorporated into each individual query $q_{i_m}$ belonging to the sub-tree under $Q$.
Our series-expansion based algorithm uses four different approximation methods, i.e. $A \in \{E, T(c, p), F(c, p), D(c, p) \}$. $E$ again denotes the exhaustive computation of $\sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R}
K_h(||q_i - r_{j_n}||)$. $T(c, p)$ denotes the translation of the order $p - 1$ far-field moments of $R$ to the local moments in the query node $Q$ that owns $q_i$ about a representative centroid $c$ inside $Q$. $F(c, p)$ denotes the evaluation of the order $p - 1$ far-field expansion formed by the moments of $R$ expanded about a representative point $c$ inside $R$. $D(c, p)$ denotes the $p - 1$th order direct accumulation of the local moments due to $R$ about a representative centroid $c$ inside $Q$ that owns $q_i$. We discuss these approximation methods in Section \[sec:series\_expansion\_for\_gaussian\_kernel\_sums\].
Series Expansion for the Gaussian Kernel Sums {#sec:series_expansion_for_gaussian_kernel_sums}
---------------------------------------------
We would like to point out to our readers that we present the series expansion in a way that sheds light to a working implementation. [@greengard1991fgt] chose a theorem-proof format for explaining the essential operations. We present the series expansion methods from the more informed computer science perspective of divide-and-conquer and data structures, where the discrete aspects of the methods are concerned.
One can derive the series expansion for the Gaussian kernel sums (defined in Equation ) using Equation and Equation . The basic idea is to express the kernel sum contribution of a reference node as a Taylor series of infinite terms and truncate it after some number of terms, given that the truncation error meets the desired absolute error tolerance.
The followings are two main types of Taylor series representations for infinitely differentiable kernel functions $K_h\left(\cdot\right)$’s. The key difference between two representations is the location of the expansion center which is either in a reference region or a query region. The center of the expansion for both types of expansions is conveniently chosen to be the geometric center of the region. For the node region $N$ bounded by $[N.b[1].l, N.b[1].u] \times \cdots \times [N.b[D].l, N.b[D].u]$, the center is $N.c = \left[ \frac{N.b[1].l + N.b[1].u}{2}, \cdots,
\frac{N.b[D].l + N.b[D].u}{2} \right]^T$.
1. [**Far-field expansion**]{}: A [*far-field expansion*]{} (derived from Equation ) expresses the kernel sum contribution from the reference points in the reference node $R$ for an arbitrary query point. It is expanded about $R.c$, a representative point of $R$. Equation is an infinite series, and thus we impose a truncation order $p$ in each dimension. Substituting $q_i$ for $t$, $r_j$ for $s$ and $R.c$ for $s_0$ into Equation yields: [$$\begin{aligned}
& G(q_i, R) = \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} e^{\frac{-||q_i -
r_{j_n}||^2}{2h^2}}\\ =& \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R}
\prod\limits_{d=1}^D \left( \sum\limits_{\alpha[d] = 0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{\alpha[d]!} \left( \frac{r_{j_n}[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\alpha[d]} h_{\alpha[d]} \left( \frac{q_i[d] -
R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \right)\\ =& \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R}
\prod\limits_{d=1}^D \Bigg( \sum\limits_{\alpha[d] < p}
\frac{1}{\alpha[d]!} \left( \frac{r_{j_n}[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\alpha[d]} h_{\alpha[d]} \left( \frac{q_i[d] -
R.c[d)]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) +\\ & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\sum\limits_{\alpha[d] \geq p} \frac{1}{\alpha[d]!} \left(
\frac{r_{j_n}[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\alpha[d]}
h_{\alpha[d]} \left( \frac{q_i[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)
\Bigg)\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Truncating after $p$ terms along each dimension yields: [$$\begin{aligned}
& G(q_i, R) \approx \widetilde{G}(q_i, \{ (R, F(R.c, p)) \})\\ =
&\sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} \prod\limits_{d=1}^D \left(
\sum\limits_{\alpha[d] < p} \frac{1}{\alpha[d]!} \left(
\frac{r_{j_n}[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\alpha[d]}
h_{\alpha[d]} \left( \frac{q_i[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)
\right)\\ =& \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} \sum\limits_{\alpha < p}
\frac{1}{\alpha!} \left( \frac{r_{j_n} - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\alpha} h_{\alpha} \left( \frac{q_i - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)\\ =& \sum\limits_{\alpha < p} \left[ \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in
R} \frac{1}{\alpha!} \left( \frac{r_{j_n} - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\alpha} \right] h_{\alpha}\left( \frac{q_i -
R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\\ =& \sum\limits_{\alpha < p} M_{\alpha}(R,
R.c) h_{\alpha} \left( \frac{q_i - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where we denote [$$M_{\alpha}(R, c) = \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} \frac{1}{\alpha!}
\left( \frac{r_{j_n} - c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\alpha}
\label{eq:far_field_moments}$$ ]{}which is a function of a reference node $R$ and an expansion center $c$. We denote $\widetilde{G}(q_i, \{ R, F(c, p) \})$ as the [ **far-field expansion of order $p - 1$ for the kernel sum contribution of $R$ expanded about $c$**]{}. Ideally, we would like to choose the smallest $p$ such that the truncation after the chosen order $p$ incurs tolerable error; this will be discussed in Section \[sec:error\_bounds\].
Note that the far-field expansion for the Gaussian kernel separates the interaction between a reference point and a query point (namely $e^{-||q_i - r_{j_n}||^2 / (2h^2)}$) into a summation of two product terms. For each multi-index $\alpha$, $M_{\alpha}(R, R.c)$, which depends only on the [*intrinsic*]{} information for the reference node (the reference points $r_{j_n} \in R$ and the reference centroid $R.c$ which is constant with respect to $R$), is called the [*far-field moments/coefficients*]{} of the reference region $R$. Because $M_{\alpha}(R, R.c)$ part of the far-field expansion of the Gaussian kernel sums is the same regardless of the query point $q_i$ used for evaluation, they can be computed [**only once**]{} and stored within $R$ for efficiently approximating the contribution of $R$ for different query points (see Figure \[fig:far\_field\_coeffs\]). Precomputing the far-field moments for a reference node $R$ up to $p^D$ terms (i.e. computing $\sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} \frac{1}{\alpha!} \left(
\frac{r_{j_n} - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\alpha}$ for each $\alpha <
p$) requires $O(|R| p^D)$ operations.
The far-field expansion of order $p - 1$ for the Gaussian kernel sums is valid for any query locations $q_i$ given that the reference node meets the certain size constraint (see Section \[sec:error\_bounds\]). However, for a fixed order $p$, evaluating on query points that are far away from the reference centroid in general incur smaller amount of error.
2. [**Local expansion**]{}: A [*local expansion*]{} (derived from Equation ) is a Taylor expansion of the kernel sums about a representative point $Q.c$ in a query region $Q$. After substituting $q_i$ for $t$, $Q.c$ for $t_0$ and $r_{j_n}$ for $s$, the kernel sum contribution of all reference points in a reference region $R$ to a query point $q_i \in Q$ is given by: [$$\begin{aligned}
& G(q_i, R) = \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} e^{\frac{-||q_i -
r_{j_n}||^2}{2h^2}}\\ =& \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R}
\prod\limits_{d=1}^D \left( \sum\limits_{n_d = 0}^{\infty}
\frac{(-1)^{n_d}}{n_d!} h_{n_d} \left( \frac{Q.c[d] -
r_{j_n}[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_i[d] -
Q.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}\right)^{\beta} \right)\\ =& \sum\limits_{r_{j_n}
\in R} \prod\limits_{d=1}^D \Biggl ( \sum\limits_{n_d < p }
\frac{(-1)^{n_d}}{n_d!} h_{n_d} \left( \frac{Q.c[d] -
r_{j_n}[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_i[d] -
Q.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}\right)^{\beta} +\\ & \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\sum\limits_{n_d \geq p} \frac{(-1)^{n_d}}{n_d!} h_{n_d} \left(
\frac{Q.c[d] - r_{j_n}[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_i[d] -
Q.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}\right)^{\beta} \Biggr )\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Again, truncating after $p$ terms along each dimension yields: [$$\begin{aligned}
& \widetilde{G}(q_i, \{ ( R, D(Q.c, p) ) \} )\\ =&
\sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} \prod\limits_{d=1}^D \left(
\sum\limits_{n_d < p} \frac{(-1)^{n_d}}{n_d!} h_{n_d} \left(
\frac{Q.c[d] - r_{j_n}[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_i[d] -
Q.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}\right)^{\beta} \right) \\ =& \sum\limits_{r_{j_n}
\in R} \sum\limits_{\beta < p} \frac{(-1)^{\beta}}{\beta!} h_{\beta}
\left( \frac{Q.c - r_{j_n}}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_i -
Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}\right)^{\beta}\\ =& \sum\limits_{\beta < p} \left[
\sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R}\frac{(-1)^{\beta}}{\beta!} h_{\beta}
\left( \frac{Q.c - r_{j_n}}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \right] \left(
\frac{q_i - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}\right)^{\beta}\\ =& \sum\limits_{\beta <
p} L_{\beta}(\{(R, D(Q.c, p)) \}) \left( \frac{q_i - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where we denote: [$$L_{\beta}( \{ (R, D(c, p)) \} ) = \begin{cases} \sum\limits_{r_{j_n}
\in R}\frac{(-1)^{\beta}}{\beta!} h_{\beta} \left( \frac{c -
r_{j_n}}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) &, \mbox{$\beta < p$} \\ 0 &,
\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:local_moments}$$ ]{} $\{ L_{\beta}( \{ ( R, D(Q.c, p) ) \}) \}_{\beta}$ are the [ *direct local moments*]{} of $R$ for $Q$. The error bound criterion will be discussed in Section \[sec:error\_bounds\]. Note that: [$$\begin{aligned}
& \widetilde{G}\left(q_i, \bigcup\limits_a \left \{ (R_a, D(p_a) )
\right \} \right ) = \sum\limits_{a} \widetilde{G}(q_i, \{ (R_a,
D(p_a)) \} )\\ =& \sum\limits_{a} \sum\limits_{\beta < p_a} \left[
\sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R_a}\frac{(-1)^{\beta}}{\beta!} h_{\beta}
\left( \frac{Q.c - r_{j_n}}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \right] \left(
\frac{q_i - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}\right)^{\beta}\\ =& \sum\limits_{\beta <
\max\limits_{a} p_a} \left[ \sum\limits_{a} L_{\beta}(\{ (R_a, D(Q.c,
p_a)) \} ) \right ] \left( \frac{q_i - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\beta}\\ =& \sum\limits_{\beta < \max\limits_{a} p_a}
L_{\beta}\left( \bigcup\limits_a \left \{ ( R_a, D(Q.c, p_a) ) \right
\} \right) \left( \frac{q_i - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}\right)^{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ ]{}In other words, the local moments for a fixed query node $Q$ are additive (see Figure \[fig:local\_accumulation\]) across a set of disjoint portions of the reference dataset $\mathcal{R}$ since its basis functions $\left \{ \left( \frac{q_i - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\beta} \right \}_{\beta}$ remain the same for all reference points regardless of their locations. For a given reference node $R$, accumulating the local moments of $R$ up to $p^D$ terms (that is, evaluating for each $\beta < p$) requires $O(|R| p^D)$ operations. These local coefficients are accumulated and stored within the given query node. The local expansion represented by the local coefficients is valid for all query points within the query node under certain constraints.
Gaussian Sum Approximation Using Series Expansion
-------------------------------------------------
Now again assume we are given a query node $Q$ and a reference node $R$. Here we describe three main methods that use the two expansion types for approximating Gaussian summation, $\widetilde{G}(q, R)$, for each $q \in Q$.
1. [[**Evaluating a far-field expansion of $R$:** ]{}Given the pre-computed far-field moments $M_{\alpha}(R)$ up to $p^D$ terms, one could evaluate the far-field expansion for a given query point $q$ (that is, approximate $\widetilde{G}(q, R)$) by forming a dot-product between the query-dependent vector and the far-field moments, as shown in Figure \[fig:far\_field\_coeffs\] and Figure \[fig:far\_field\_validity\]. Approximating $\widetilde{G}(q,
R)$ for all $q \in Q$ requires $O( |Q| p^D )$ operations since evaluating the far-field expansion each time requires $O(p^D)$ operations.]{}
2. [[**Computing and evaluating a local expansion inside $Q$ due to the contribution of $R$:** ]{}one could iterate over each reference point $r_{j_n} \in R$ and compute the local moments $L_{\beta}(\{(R,
D(Q.c, p)) \})$ due to $R$ up to $p^D$ terms, as shown in Figure \[fig:local\_coeffs\] and Figure \[fig:local\_accumulation\]. The [*local accumulation*]{} of the contribution of the reference node $R$ requires $O(|R| p^D)$ operations, and evaluating the [*local expansion*]{} for each $q_{i_m}
\in Q$ requires a total of $O(|Q| p^D)$ operations.]{}
3. [**Converting far-field moments of $R$ to a local expansion of $Q$:** ]{} Suppose $R$ has pre-computed far-field moments up to $p^D$ terms. From the far-field moments, we can approximate the [*local moments*]{} of $R$ but with some amount of error. This can be seen as a generalization of centroid-based approximation. [@greengard1991fgt] describes this method as one of the [*translation operators*]{}, called [*far-field to local translation operator*]{}, stated below:
\[H2LTranslationOperator\] [**Far-field to local (F2L) translation operator for Gaussian kernel**]{} (as presented in Lemma 2.2 in [@greengard1991fgt])[**:**]{} Given a reference node $R$, a query node $Q$, and the truncated far-field expansion centered at a centroid $R.c$ of $R$ up to $p^D$ terms:\
$\widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \{ (R, F(R.c, p)) \}) = \sum\limits_{\alpha <
p} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) h_{\alpha} \left( \frac{q_{i_m} -
R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)$,\
the Taylor expansion of the far-field expansion at the centroid $Q.c$ in $Q$ is given by $\widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \{ (R, F(R.c, p)) \}) = \sum\limits_{\beta
\geq 0} L_{\beta}(\{ (R, T(Q.c, p)) \}) \left( \frac{q_{i_m} - Q.c}
{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) ^{\beta}$ where for $q_{i_m} \in Q$, [$$L_{\beta}(\{ (R, T(Q.c, p)) \}) = \frac{(-1)^{|\beta|}}{\beta!}
\sum\limits_{\alpha < p} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) h_{\alpha + \beta} \left(
\frac{Q.c - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)
\label{eq:farfield_to_local_formula}$$ ]{}
The proof consists of replacing the Hermite function portion of the expansion with its Taylor series: [$$\begin{aligned}
& \widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \{ (R, F(R.c, p)) \}) =
\sum\limits_{\alpha < p} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) h_{\alpha} \left(
\frac{q_{i_m} - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\\ =& \sum\limits_{\alpha <
p} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) \sum\limits_{\beta \geq 0} \frac{(-1)^{| \beta
|}}{\beta !} h_{\alpha + \beta} \left( \frac{Q.c - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right) \left( \frac{q_{i_m} - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=&
\sum\limits_{\beta \geq 0} \left [ \frac{(-1)^{| \beta| }}{\beta!}
\sum\limits_{\alpha < p} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) h_{\alpha + \beta} \left(
\frac{Q.c - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \right ] \left( \frac{q_{i_m} -
Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
However, note $\widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \{ (R, F(R.c, p)) \})$ has an infinite number of terms, and must be truncated after $p^D$ terms. In other words, the local moments accumulated for $Q$ are the coefficients for $\widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \{ (R, T(Q.c, p)) \} ) =
\sum\limits_{\beta < p} L_{\beta}(\{ (R, T(Q.c, p)) \}) \left(
\frac{q_{i_m} - Q.c} {\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) ^{\beta}$, as shown in Figure \[fig:far\_to\_local\]. To compute $\{ L_{\beta}(\{ (R, T(Q.c,
p)) \}) \}_{\beta < p}$, we need to iterate over all of $p^D$ far-field moments $\{ M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) \}_{\alpha < p}$ for each $L_{\beta}(\{(R, T(Q.c, p)) \})$. This operation runs in $O(D p^{2D})$ operations.
In general, these approximations are valid only under certain conditions which depend on how the error bounds associated with these approximation methods are derived. Moreover, we have not discussed how to choose the method of approximation given a query and reference node pair, and how to determine the order of approximation, i.e. the number of terms required to achieve a given level of error. We discuss the details in Section \[sec:error\_bounds\].
Truncation Error Bounds {#sec:error_bounds}
-----------------------
Because the far-field and the local expansions are truncated after taking $p^D$ terms, we incur an error in approximation. The original error bounds for the Gaussian kernel in [@greengard1991fgt] were wrong and corrections were shown in [@baxter2002new]. Here we present the error bounds for (1) evaluating a truncated far-field expansion of a reference node for any query point $q \in \mathbb{R}^D$ (2) evaluating a truncated local expansion of $Q$ due to the contribution of a reference node $R$ for any query point $q_{i_m} \in
Q$ (3) evaluating a truncated local expansion formed from converting a truncated far-field expansion of a reference node $R$ for any query point $q_{i_m} \in Q$. Note that these error bounds place restrictions on the size of the nodes in consideration: reference node, query node, or both. First we start with the truncation error bound for evaluating the far-field expansion formed for a given reference node.
\[lem:truncating\_far\_field\] [**Error bound for evaluating a truncated far-field expansion**]{} (as presented in [@baxter2002new])[**:**]{} Suppose we are given a far-field expansion of a reference node $R$ about its centroid $R.c$:\
$\widetilde{G}(q, \{(R, F(R.c, p)) \}) = \sum\limits_{\alpha < p}
M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) h_{\alpha} \left( \frac{q - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)$ where\
$M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) = \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in
R}\frac{1}{\alpha!} \left( \frac{r_{j_n} - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\alpha}$. If $\forall r_{j_n} \in R$ satisfies $||r_{j_n} - R.c||_{\infty} < rh$ for $r < 1$, then for any $q \in \mathbb{R}^D$, [$$\left| \widetilde{G}(q, \{(R, F(R.c, p)) \}) - G(q, R) \right| \leq
\frac{|R|}{(1 - r)^D} \sum\limits_{k = 0}^ {D - 1} \binom{D}{k} (1 -
r^p)^k \left( \frac{r^p}{\sqrt{p!}} \right)^ {D - k}
\label{eq:error_bound_far_field}$$ ]{}
We expand the far-field expansion as a product of one-dimensional Hermite functions, and utilize a bound on one-dimensional Hermite functions due to [@szasz51]: $\frac{1}{n!}|h_n(x)| \leq
\frac{2^{\frac{n}{2}}}{\sqrt{n!}} e^{\frac{-x^2}{2}}, n \geq 0, x \in
\mathbb{R}^1$. [$$\begin{aligned}
u_{p_d}(q[d], r_{j_n}[d], R.c[d]) &= \sum\limits_{n_i = 0}^{p - 1}
\frac{1}{n_i!} \left( \frac{r_{j_n}[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{n_i} h_{n_i} \left( \frac{q[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)\\ v_{p_d}(q[d], r_{j_n}[d], R.c[d]) &= \sum\limits_{n_i =
p}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n_i!} \left( \frac{r_{j_n}[d] -
R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{n_i} h_{n_i} \left( \frac{q[d] -
R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\\ e^{\frac{-||q - r_{j_n}||^2}{{2h^2}}}
&= \prod\limits_{d = 1}^D \left( u_{p_d}(q[d], r_{j_n}[d], R.c[d]) +
v_{p_d}(q[d], r_{j_n}[d], R.c[d]) \right)\end{aligned}$$ ]{} We obtain for $1 \leq d \leq D$: [$$\begin{aligned}
& u_{p_d}(q[d], r_{j_n}[d], R.c[d]) \leq \sum\limits_{n_i = 0}^{p - 1}
\frac{1}{n_i!} \left| \frac{r_{j_n}[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right|^{n_i} \left| h_{n_i} \left( \frac{q[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right) \right|\\ \leq & \sum\limits_{n_i = 0}^{p - 1} \left|
\frac{rh}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right|^{n_i}
\frac{2^{\frac{n_i}{2}}}{\sqrt{n_i!}} \left(e^{-\frac{(q[d] -
R.c[d])^2}{4h^2}} \right) \leq \sum\limits_{n_i = 0}^{p - 1}
r^{n_i} \leq \frac{1 - r^p}{1 - r}\\ & v_{p_d}(q[d], r_{j_n}[d], R.c[d])
\leq \sum\limits_{n_i = p}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n_i!} \left|
\frac{r_{j_n}[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right|^{n_i} \left| h_{n_i}
\left( \frac{q[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \right|\\ \leq &
\sum\limits_{n_i = p}^{\infty} \left| \frac{rh}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right|^{n_i} \frac{2^{\frac{n_i}{2}}}{\sqrt{n_i!}}
\left(e^{-\frac{(q[d] - R.c[d])^2}{4h^2}} \right) \leq
\frac{1}{\sqrt{p!}}\sum\limits_{n_i = p}^{\infty} r^{n_i} \leq
\frac{1}{\sqrt{p!}}\frac{r^p}{1 - r}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Therefore, [$$\begin{aligned}
& \left|\prod\limits_{d = 1}^D u_{p_d}(q[d], r_{j_n}[d], R.c[d]) -
e^{\frac{-||q - r_{j_n}||^2}{2h^2}} \right| \\ \leq & (1-r)^{-D}
\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{D - 1}\binom{D}{k} (1 - r^p)^k \left(
\frac{r^p}{\sqrt{p!}} \right)^{D - k}\\ & \left|\sum\limits_{\alpha <
p} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) h_{\alpha} \left( \frac{q - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right) - \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} e^{\frac{-||q -
r_{j_n}||^2}{2h^2}} \right| \\ \leq & \frac{|R|}{(1-r)^{D}} \sum\limits_{k
= 0}^{D - 1}\binom{D}{k} (1 - r^p)^k \left( \frac{r^p}{\sqrt{p!}}
\right)^{D - k}\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
Intuitively, this theorem implies that evaluating a truncated far-field expansion for a query point (regardless of its location) requires that the reference points used to form the expansion are within the bandwidth $h$ in each dimension from the centroid $R.c$ (i.e. the reference node has a maximum side length of $2h$).
The following gives the truncation bound for the local expansion formed inside a query node whose bound is within a hypercube of some side length.
\[lem:truncating\_local\] [**Error bound for evaluating a truncated local expansion:**]{} Suppose we are given the local expansion about the centroid $Q.c$ of the given query node $Q$ accounting for the kernel sum contribution of the given reference node $R$: $\widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \{ (R, D(Q.c, p)) \}) =
\sum\limits_{\beta < p} L_{\beta}(\{(R, D(Q.c, p)) \}) \left(
\frac{q_{i_m} - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) ^{\beta}$ where $q_{i_m} \in
Q$ and $L_{\beta}(Q, \{(R, D(p)) \}) = \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R}
\frac{(-1)^{|\beta|}}{\beta!} h_{\beta} \left( \frac{Q.c -
r_{j_n}}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)$
If $\forall q_{i_m} \in Q$ satisfies $||q_{i_m} - Q.c||_{\infty} < rh$ for $r < 1$, then for any $q_{i_m} \in Q$: [$$\left| \widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \{(R, D(Q.c, p)) \}) - G(q_{i_m}, R)
\right| \leq \frac{|R|}{(1 - r)^D} \sum\limits_{k = 0}^ {D - 1}
\binom{D}{k} (1 - r^p)^k \left( \frac{r^p}{\sqrt{p!}} \right)^{D - k}
\label{eq:error_bound_local}$$ ]{}
Taylor expansion of the Hermite function yields: [$$\begin{aligned}
& e^{\frac{-||q_{i_m} - r_{j_n}||^2}{2h^2}} = \sum\limits_{\beta
\geq 0} \frac{(-1)^{|\beta|}}{\beta!} \sum\limits_{\alpha \geq 0}
\frac{1}{\alpha!} \left( \frac{r_{j_n} - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\alpha} h_{\alpha + \beta} \left( \frac{Q.c -
R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\left( \frac{q_{i_m} - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right) ^{\beta}\\ =& \sum\limits_{\beta \geq 0}
\frac{(-1)^{|\beta|}}{\beta!} \sum\limits_{\alpha \geq 0}
\frac{1}{\alpha!} \left( \frac{R.c - r_{j_n}}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\alpha}(-1)^{|\alpha|} h_{\alpha + \beta} \left( \frac{Q.c -
R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\left( \frac{q_{i_m} - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right) ^{\beta}\\ =& \sum\limits_{\beta \geq 0}
\frac{(-1)^{|\beta|}}{\beta!} h_{\beta} \left( \frac{Q.c -
r_{j_n}}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_{i_m} - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right) ^{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Use $e^{\frac{-||q_{i_m} - r_{j_n}||^2}{2h^2}} = \prod\limits_{d =
1}^D \left( u_p(q_{i_m}[d], r_{j_n}[d], Q.c[d]) + v_p( q_{i_m}[d],
r_{j_n}[d], Q.c[d] ) \right)$ for $1 \leq d \leq D$, where [$$\begin{aligned}
u_{p_d}(q_{i_m}[d], r_{j_n}[d], Q.c[d]) &= \sum\limits_{n_d = 0}^{p -
1} \frac{(-1)^{n_d}}{n_d!} h_{n_d} \left( \frac{Q.c[d] -
r_{j_n}[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_{m_i}[d] -
Q.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{n_d}\\ v_{p_d}( q_{i_m}[d],
r_{j_n}[d], Q.c[d] ) &= \sum\limits_{n_i = p}^{\infty}
\frac{(-1)^{n_d}}{n_d!} h_{n_d} \left( \frac{Q.c[d] -
r_{j_n}[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_{m_i}[d] -
Q.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{n_d}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} These univariate functions respectively satisfy $
u_{p_d}(q_{i_m}[d], r_{j_n}[d], Q.c[d]) \leq \frac{1 - r^p}{1 - r}$ and $ v_{p_d}( q_{i_m}[d], r_{j_n}[d], Q.c[d] ) \leq
\frac{1}{\sqrt{p!}} \frac{r^p}{1 - r}$, for $1 \leq d\leq D$, achieving the multivariate bound. The proof is similar as in the one given in Lemma \[lem:truncating\_far\_field\].
Lastly, we present the error bound for evaluating a truncated local expansion formed from a truncated far-field expansion, which requires that both the query node and the reference node are “small”:
\[lem:far\_field\_to\_local\_error\] [**Error bound for evaluating a truncated local expansion converted from an already truncated far-field expansion:**]{} A truncated far-field expansion centered about the centroid $R.c$ of a reference node $R$, $$\widehat{G}(q, \{ (R, F(R.c, p)) \}) = \sum\limits_{\alpha < p}
M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) h_{\alpha} \left(\frac{q - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)$$ has the following local expansion about the centroid $Q.c$ of a query node $Q$ for $q_{i_m} \in Q$: $\widehat{G}(q_{i_m}, \{ (R,
F(R.c, p)) \} ) = \sum\limits_{\beta \geq 0} L_{\beta}(\{(R, T(Q.c,
p)) \}) \left( \frac{q_{i_m} - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\beta}$ where: $
L_{\beta}(\{(R, T(Q.c, p)) \}) = \frac{(-1)^{|\beta|}}{\beta!}
\sum\limits_{\alpha < p} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) h_{\alpha + \beta} \left(
\frac{Q.c - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)
$
Let $\widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \{
( R, T(Q.c, p) ) \}) = \sum\limits_{\beta < p} L_{\beta}( \{ (R,
T(Q.c, p)) \}) \left( \frac{q_{i_m} - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{\beta}$, a\
truncation of the local expansion of $\widehat{G}(q_{i_m}, \{ (R, F(R.c, p)) \})$ after $p^D$ terms.
If $\forall q_{i_m} \in Q$ satisfies $||q_{i_m} - Q.c||_{\infty} < rh$ and $\forall r_{j_n} \in R$ satisfies $||r_{j_n} - R.c||_{\infty} <
rh$ for $r < \frac{1}{2}$, then for any $q_{i_m} \in Q$: [$$\begin{aligned}
& \left | \widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \{ (R, T(Q.c, p)) \} ) - G(q_{i_m},
R) \right | \notag \\ \leq & \frac{|R|}{(1-2r)^{2D}} \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{D -
1}\binom{D}{k} ((1 - (2r)^p)^2)^k \left( \frac{((2r)^p)(2 -
(2r)^p)}{\sqrt{p!}} \right)^{D - k}
\label{eq:error_bound_far_to_local}\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
We define for $1 \leq d \leq D$: [$$\begin{aligned}
u_{p_d} &= u_p(q_{i_m}[d], r_{j_n}[d], Q.c[d], R.c[d])\\
v_{p_d} &= v_p(q_{i_m}[d], r_{j_n}[d], Q.c[d], R.c[d])\\
w_{p_d} &= w_p(q_{i_m}[d], r_{j_n}[d], Q.c[d], R.c[d])\end{aligned}$$]{} [$$\begin{aligned}
u_{p_d} =& \sum\limits_{n_i = 0}^{p - 1} \frac{(-1)^{n_i}}{n_i!}
\sum\limits_{n_j = 0}^{p - 1} \frac{1}{n_j!} \left( \frac{R.c[d] -
r_{j_n}[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{n_j} (-1)^{n_j} \\ & h_{n_i + n_j} \left(
\frac{Q.c[d] - R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_{i_m}[d] -
Q.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{n_i} \\
v_{p_d} =& \sum\limits_{n_i =
0}^{p - 1} \frac{(-1)^{n_i}}{n_i!} \sum\limits_{n_j = p}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n_j!} \left( \frac{R.c[d] - r_{j_n}[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{n_j} (-1)^{n_j} \\ & h_{n_i + n_j} \left( \frac{Q.c[d] -
R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_{i_m}[d] -
Q.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{n_i} \\
w_{p_d} =& \sum\limits_{n_i =
p}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{n_i}}{n_i!} \sum\limits_{n_j = 0}^{\infty}
\frac{1}{n_j!} \left( \frac{R.c[d] - r_{j_n}[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)^{n_j} (-1)^{n_j} \\ & h_{n_i + n_j} \left( \frac{Q.c[d] -
R.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \left( \frac{q_{i_m}[d] -
Q.c[d]}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{n_i}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Note that $e^{\frac{-||q_{i_m} - r_{j_n}||^2}{2h^2}} =
\prod\limits_{d = 1}^D \left( u_{p_d} + v_{p_d} + w_{p_d} \right)$ for $1 \leq d \leq D$. Using the bound for Hermite functions and the property of geometric series, we obtain the following upper bounds: [$$\begin{aligned}
u_{p_d} & \leq \sum\limits_{n_i = 0}^{p - 1} \sum\limits_{n_j = 0}^{p
- 1} (2r)^{n_i} (2r)^{n_j} = \left( \frac{1 - (2r)^p)}{1 - 2r}
\right)^2\\ v_{p_d} & \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{p!}} \sum\limits_{n_i =
0}^{p - 1} \sum\limits_{n_j = p}^{\infty} (2r)^{n_i} (2r)^{n_j} =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{p!}} \left( \frac{1 - (2r)^p}{1 - 2r} \right) \left(
\frac{(2r)^p}{1 - 2r} \right)\\ w_{p_d} &\leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{p!}}
\sum\limits_{n_i = p}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{n_j = 0}^{\infty}
(2r)^{n_i} (2r)^{n_j} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{p!}} \left( \frac{1}{1 - 2r}
\right) \left( \frac{(2r)^p}{1 - 2r} \right)\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Therefore, [$$\begin{aligned}
& \left| \prod\limits_{d = 1}^D u_{p_d} - e^{\frac{-||q_{i_m} -
r_{j_n}||^2}{2h^2}} \right| \\ \leq & (1-2r)^{-2D} \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{D -
1}\binom{D}{k} ((1 - (2r)^p)^2)^k \left( \frac{((2r)^p)(2 -
(2r)^p)}{\sqrt{p!}} \right)^{D - k} \\
& \left|\widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \{( R, T(Q.c, p)) \}) - G(q_{i_m}, R)
\right | \\ \leq & \frac{|R|}{(1-2r)^{2D}} \sum\limits_{k = 0}^{D -
1}\binom{D}{k} ((1 - (2r)^p)^2)^k \left( \frac{((2r)^p)(2 -
(2r)^p)}{\sqrt{p!}} \right)^{D - k}\end{aligned}$$ ]{}
[@strain1991fast] proposes an interesting idea of using Stirling’s formula (for any non-negative integer $n$, $\left( \frac{n + 1}{e}
\right)^n \leq n!$) to lift the node size constraint. This could allow approximation of larger regions that possibly contain more points. Unfortunately, the error bounds derived in [@strain1991fast] were also incorrect. We have derived the necessary corrected error bounds based on the techniques in [@baxter2002new]. However, we do not include the derivations here since using these bounds actually degraded performance in our algorithm.
\[alg:determine\_far\_field\_order\]
Determining the Approximation Order
-----------------------------------
Note that Lemma \[lem:truncating\_far\_field\], Lemma \[lem:truncating\_local\], and Lemma \[lem:far\_field\_to\_local\_error\] answer the question of the following form: given that we use $p^D$ terms in the appropriate expansion type, what is the upper bound on the approximation error, $\left| \widetilde{G}(q, R) - G(q, R) \right |$? Nevertheless, all three lemmas can be re-phrased to answer the question in reverse: given the maximum user-desired absolute error, what is the order of approximation/number of terms required to achieve it? This question rises naturally within our dual-tree based algorithm that bounds the kernel sum approximation error on each part in a partition of the reference dataset $\mathcal{R}$.
Algorithm \[alg:determine\_far\_field\_order\] shows how to determine the necessary order of the far-field expansion for the given reference node $R$ such that $\left | \widetilde{G}(q, R) - G(q, R) \right |
\leq \tau$. That is, the approximation error due to the far-field expansion of $R$ is bounded by the error allocated for approximating the contribution of the reference node $R$. Using far-field expansion based approximation requires a “small” reference node. Thus, the algorithm first computes the ratio of the maximum side length of $R$ to twice the bandwidth $h$, and determines the least order required for achieving the maximum absolute error $\tau$ by evaluating the right-hand side of Equation iteratively on different values of $p$.
Algorithm \[alg:determine\_local\_order\] shows how to determine the necessary order of the local expansion formed by directly accumulating the contribution of the given reference node $R$ onto the given query node $Q$. This approximation method requires the query node $Q$ to have the maximum side length within twice the bandwidth. The algorithm determines the least order required for achieving the maximum absolute error $\tau$ by evaluating the right-hand side of Equation iteratively on different values of $p$.
\[alg:determine\_local\_order\]
Finally, Algorithm \[alg:determine\_f2l\] determines the necessary order of local expansion formed by converting a truncated far-field expansion of the given reference node $R$. In contrast to the two previous algorithms, this one requires both the query node $Q$ and the reference node $R$ to have a maximum side length less than the bandwidth $h$. After the node size requirements are satisfied, the least order required for achieving the maximum absolute error $\tau$ is obtained by evaluating the right-hand side of Equation iteratively on different values of $p$.
\[alg:determine\_f2l\]
Deriving the Hierarchical FGT
-----------------------------
Until now, we have discussed the approximation methods developed for a non-hierarchical version of fast Gauss transform described in [@greengard1991fgt]. In this section, we derive the two additional translation operators that extend the original fast Gauss transform to use a hierarchical data structure.
Here we consider the reference tree, which enables the consideration of the different portions of the reference set $\mathcal{R}$ at a different granularity. Given the computed far-field moments of $R^L$ and $R^R$, each centered at $R^L.c$ and $R^R.c$, how can we efficiently compute the far-field moments of $R$ centered at $R.c$, the parent of $R^L$ and $R^R$? The first operator allows the efficient bottom-up pre-computation of the Hermite moments in the reference tree.
\[H2HTranslationOperator\] [**Shifting a far-field expansion of a reference node to a new center (F2F translation operator for the Gaussian kernel):**]{} Given the far-field expansion centered at $R.c$ in a reference node $R$: [$$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{G}(q, \{ ( R, F(R.c, p)) \}) = \sum\limits_{\alpha < p}
M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) h_{\alpha} \left( \frac{q - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)\end{aligned}$$]{} this same far-field expansion shifted to a new location $c'$ is given by: [$$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{G}(q, \{ (R, F(R.c, p)) \} ) =
\widetilde{G}(q, \{ (R, F(c', p)) \}) = \sum\limits_{\gamma \geq 0}
M_{\gamma}(R, c') h_{\gamma} \left( \frac{q - c'}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right)\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where [$$M_{\gamma}(R, c') = \sum\limits_{0 \leq \alpha \leq \gamma}
\frac{1}{\left( \gamma - \alpha \right)!} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) \left(
\frac{R.c - c'}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\gamma - \alpha}
\label{eq:far_to_far_translation}$$ ]{}
Replace the Hermite part of the expansion by a new Taylor series: [$$\begin{aligned}
& \widetilde{G}(q, \{ (R, F(R.c, p)) \}) \\
=& \sum\limits_{\alpha < p}
M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) h_{\alpha} \left( \frac{q - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}}
\right) \end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
=& \sum\limits_{\alpha < p} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c)
\sum\limits_{\beta \geq 0} \frac{1}{\beta!} \left( \frac{c' -
R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\beta} (-1)^{|\beta|} h_{\alpha + \beta}
\left( \frac{q - c'}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \\
=& \sum\limits_{\alpha <
p} \sum\limits_{\beta \geq 0} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c) \frac{1}{\beta!}
\left( \frac{c' - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\beta} (-1)^{|\beta|}
h_{\alpha + \beta} \left( \frac{q - c'}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\\
=&
\sum\limits_{\alpha < p} \sum\limits_{\beta \geq 0} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c)
\frac{1}{\beta!} \left( \frac{R.c - c'}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\beta}
h_{\alpha + \beta} \left( \frac{q - c'}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) \\
=&
\sum\limits_{\gamma < p} \left[ \sum\limits_{0 \leq \alpha \leq
\gamma} \frac{1}{\left(\gamma - \alpha \right)!} M_{\alpha}(R, R.c)
\left( \frac{R.c - c'}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\gamma - \alpha} \right]
h_{\gamma} \left( \frac{q - c'}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where $\gamma = \alpha + \beta$.
Using Lemma \[H2HTranslationOperator\], we can compute the far-field moments of $Q$ centered at $Q.c$ by translating the moments $\{
M_{\gamma}(R^L, R^L.c) \}_{\gamma < p}$ and $\{ M_{\gamma}(R^R, R^R.c)
\}_{\gamma < p}$ to form the moments $\{ M_{\gamma}(R^L, R.c)
\}_{\gamma < p}$ and $\{ M_{\gamma}(R^R, R.c) \}_{\gamma < p}$. Then, the far-field moments of $R = R_1 \cup R_2$ are $\{ M_{\gamma}(R^L,
R.c) + M_{\gamma}(R^R, R.c) \}$ and [$$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{G}(q, \{ (R, F(R.c, p)) \} ) = \sum\limits_{\gamma < p} (
M_{\gamma} (R^L, R.c) + M_{\gamma} (R^R, R.c) ) h_{\gamma} \left(
\frac{q - R.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)\end{aligned}$$]{} Computing each $M_{\gamma}(R^L,
R.c)$ from $M_{\gamma}(R^L, R^L.c)$ (and each $M_{\gamma}(R^R, R.c)$ from $M_{\gamma}(R^R, R^R.c)$) requires iterating over at most $p^D$ terms. This operation runs in $O(D p^{2D})$, which can be more efficient than computing the far-field moments of $R$ centered at $R.c$ from scratch (which is $O(|R| D p^D)$).
The next translation operator acts as a “clean-up” routine in a hierarchical algorithm. Since we can approximate at different scales in the query tree, we must somehow combine all the approximations at the end of the computation. By performing a breadth-first traversal of the query tree, the L2L operator shifts a node’s local expansion to the centroid of each child.
\[L2LTranslationOperator\] [**Shifting a combined local expansion of a query node to a new center (L2L translation operator for Gaussian kernel):**]{} Given a combined local expansion centered at $Q.c$ of the given query node $Q$: [$$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{G}(q, \mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q)) =
\sum\limits_{\beta < p} L_{\beta}(Q.c, \mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup
\mathcal{R_T}(Q)) \left( \frac{q - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\beta}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} Shifting this local expansion to the new center $c' \in Q$ yields:[$$\begin{aligned}
& \widetilde{G}(q, \mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup
\mathcal{R_T}(Q)) \\
= &\sum\limits_{\alpha < p} \left[ \sum\limits_{\beta
\geq \alpha} \frac{\beta!}{\alpha! (\beta - \alpha)!}
L_{\beta}(Q.c, \mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q)) \left(
\frac{c' - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) ^{\beta - \alpha} \right]
\left( \frac{q - c'}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\alpha}\end{aligned}$$]{} where we denote [$$L_{\beta}(c', \mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q)) =
\sum\limits_{\beta \geq \alpha} \frac{\beta!}{\alpha! (\beta -
\alpha)!} L_{\beta}(Q.c, \mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q))
\left( \frac{c' - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right) ^{\beta - \alpha}
\label{eq:local_to_local_translation}$$ ]{}
Use the multinomial theorem to expand about the new center $c'$: [$$\begin{aligned}
& \widetilde{G}(q, \mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q)) =
\sum\limits_{\beta < p} L_{\beta}(Q.c, \mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup
\mathcal{R_T}(Q)) \left( \frac{q - Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\beta}\\
=& \sum\limits_{\beta < p} \sum\limits_{\alpha \leq \beta}
L_{\beta}(Q.c, \mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q))
\frac{\beta!}{\alpha!(\beta - \alpha)!} \left( \frac{c' -
Q.c}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\beta - \alpha} \left( \frac{q -
c'}{\sqrt{2h^2}} \right)^{\alpha}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} whose summation order can be interchanged to achieve the result.
Using Lemma \[L2LTranslationOperator\], we can shift the local moments of $Q$ centered at $Q.c$ to a different expansion center, such as an expansion center of one of the child nodes of $Q$. Let $p$ be the maximum approximation order used among the reference nodes pruned via far-to-local translation ($\mathcal{R_T}(Q)$) and direct local accumulation ($\mathcal{R_D}(Q)$). The local moment propagation to both child nodes of $Q$ is achieved by the following operations: [$$\begin{aligned}
\{ L_{\beta}(Q^L.c, \mathcal{R_D}(Q^L) \cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q^L))
\}_{\beta < p} \leftarrow & \{ L_{\beta}(Q^L.c, \mathcal{R_D}(Q^L)
\cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q^L)) \}_{\beta < p} +\\ & \{ L_{\beta}(Q^L.c,
\mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q)) \}_{\beta < p}\\ \{
L_{\beta}(Q^R.c, \mathcal{R_D}(Q^R) \cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q^R)) \}_{\beta
< p} \leftarrow & \{ L_{\beta}(Q^R.c, \mathcal{R_D}(Q^R) \cup
\mathcal{R_T}(Q^R)) \}_{\beta < p} +\\ & \{ L_{\beta}(Q^L.c,
\mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup \mathcal{R_T}(Q)) \}_{\beta < p}\end{aligned}$$ ]{} where the addition operation is an element-wise operation that combines the two scalars with the same multi-index position.
Choosing the Best Approximation Method
--------------------------------------
Suppose we are given a query node $Q$ and a reference node $R$ pair during the invocation of Algorithm \[alg:dtkde\]. $\mbox{{\textsc{CanSummarize}}}$ function for the higher-order DFGT algorithm has four approximation methods available: $A \in \{E, T(c, p), F(c, p),$ $D(c, p) \}$ (see Section \[sec:algorithmic\_notations\]). Because we would like to avoid exhaustive computations, the higher-order DFGT algorithm uses only three of the approximation methods and defers exhaustive computations until query/reference leaf pairs are encountered. Algorithm \[alg:choose\_best\_method\] tests whether the given query node and reference node pair can be approximated by evaluating the far-field moments of $R$, computing direct local accumulation due to $R$, and translating some of the terms that constitute the far-field moments of $R$ (far-field-to-local translation operator) and evaluates the asymptotic cost of each approximation. Algorithm \[alg:choose\_best\_method\] then determines the approximation method with the lowest asymptotic cost. This idea was originally introduced in [@greengard1991fgt] in the description of the original fast Gauss transform algorithm. The key difference is that even if Algorithm \[alg:choose\_best\_method\] returns $E$ (when none of the other approximation methods can beat the cost of the exhaustive method), our hierarchical algorithm will not default to exhaustive evaluations and will consider the query points and reference points at a finer granularity, as shown in Algorithm \[alg:dtkde\].
\[alg:choose\_best\_method\]
Hierarchical FGT
----------------
Given the analytical machinery developed in the previous section, we now describe how to extend the centroid-based dual-tree [@gray2003vfm; @gray2003nde] to do higher-order approximations. The main structure of the algorithm is shown in Algorithm \[alg:dtkdemain\]. We provide only a high-level overview of our algorithm and defer the discussion on the implementation details to Appendix.
\[alg:dtkdemain\]
\
[**Initialization of the query tree.** ]{}Each query node maintains a vector storing $\left( p_{\mathit{max}} \right)^D$ terms, where $p_{\mathit{max}}$ is a pre-determined limit on the approximation order[^1] depending on the dimensionality of the query set $\mathcal{Q}$ and the reference set $\mathcal{R}$. For the experimental results, we have fixed $p_{\mathit{max}} = 6$ for $D = 2$, $p_{\mathit{max}} = 4$ for $D =
3$, $p_{\mathit{max}} = 2$ for $D = 4$ and $D = 5$, $p_{\mathit{max}}
= 1$ for $D \geq 6$.
\[alg:higher\_order\_dtkde\_init\_query\_tree\]
\
[**Pre-computation of far-field moments.** ]{}Before the main KDE computation can begin, we pre-compute the far-field moments of each reference node in the reference tree up to $\left( p_{\mathit{max}}
\right)^D$ terms. We show how to efficiently pre-compute the far-field moments of each reference node in the reference tree in Algorithm \[alg:dtkdeinitreferencetree\]. The algorithm uses Equation for the leaf node and Equation for translating the moments of the child nodes for the internal node case. We describe the implementation details in Appendix.
\[alg:dtkdeinitreferencetree\]
\
[**Determining the prunability of the given query and reference pair**]{} (shown in Algorithm \[alg:higher\_order\_dfgt\_summarize\_functions\]). Note that the function $\mbox{{\textsc{Summarize}}}$ includes calls to the following functions (see Appendix):
1. [$\mbox{{\textsc{EvalFarFieldExpansion}}}$: evaluates the far-field moments stored in $R$ at each query point in $Q$ up to $(p_F)^D$ terms. See Algorithm \[alg:evaluate\_far\_field\_expansion\].]{}
2. [$\mbox{{\textsc{AccumulateDirectLocalMoment}}}$: computes direct local moment contribution of $R$ centered at $Q.c$ in $Q$. See Algorithm \[alg:accumulate\_direct\_local\_moment\].]{}
3. [$\mbox{{\textsc{TransFarToLocal}}}$: translates the far-field moments of $R$ up to $(p_T)^D$ terms to the local moment centered $Q.c$ in $Q$. See Algorithm \[alg:translate\_far\_to\_local\].]{}
\[alg:higher\_order\_dfgt\_summarize\_functions\]
$\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTBase}}}(Q, R)$
\[alg:dtkde\]
\
[**Dual-tree Recursion.** ]{}Algorithm \[alg:dtkde\] shows the basic structure of the dual-tree based KDE computation (see Figure \[fig:dualtree\]). This procedure is first called with $Q$ and $R$ as the root nodes of the query and the reference tree respectively. $\mbox{{\textsc{CanSummarize}}}$ takes three parameters: the current query node $Q$, the current reference node $R$, and the global relative error tolerance $\epsilon$. This function tests whether the the contribution of the given reference node for each query point in the given query node can be approximated within the error tolerance. If the approximation is not possible, then the algorithm continues to consider the query and the reference data at a finer granularity. The basic idea is to terminate the recursion as soon as possible by considering large “chunks” of the query data and the reference data and avoiding the number of exhaustive leaf-leaf computations. We can achieve this if we utilize approximation schemes that yield high accuracy and have cheap computational costs.
Each prune made for a pair of a query and a reference node is summarized in the given query node by incorporating the lower and the upper bound changes $\delta^l(Q, R)$ and $\delta^u(Q, R)$ contributed by the reference node into $Q.\Delta^{l}$ and $Q.\Delta^{u}$. These two bound updates due to a prune can be regarded as a new piece of information which is known only locally to the given query node $Q$. All of the bounds in the entire subtree of $Q$ should reflect this information. One way to achieve this effect is to pass the lower bound and the upper bound changes owned by $Q$ (i.e., $Q.\Delta^l$ and $Q.\Delta^u$) to $Q$’s immediate children, whenever the algorithm needs to consider the query dataset at a finer granularity by recursing to the left and the right child of $Q$.
\[alg:dtkdebase\]
\
[**Base-case Computation.** ]{}If a given leaf query and leaf reference node pair could not be pruned, then $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTBase}}}$ (shown in Algorithm \[alg:dtkdebase\]) is called. Because all kernel evaluations are computed exactly, we can refine the bound summary statistics of the given query node $Q$ (that is, $G^l(Q, \mathcal{R})$ and $G^u(Q, \mathcal{R})$) further and hence we reset them to $\infty$ and $-\infty$ respectively. For each query point $q_{i_m} \in Q$, we first incorporate the postponed bound changes passed down from the ancestor node of $Q$. We loop over each reference point $r_{j_n} \in
R$ and compute the kernel value between $q_{i_m}$ and $r_{j_n}$ and accumulate the lower bound $G^l(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$, the kernel sum computed exhaustively $\widetilde{G}(q_{i_m},
\mathcal{R_E}(q_{i_m}))$, and the upper bound $G^u(q_{i_m},
\mathcal{R})$
Note that we subtract one for updating $G^u(q_{i_m},
\mathcal{R})$ for correcting the prior assumption that $K_h(||q_{i_m}
- r_{j_n}||) = 1$, while the lower bound $G^l(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$ and $\widetilde{G}(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R_E}(q_{i_m}))$ are incremented by $K_h(||q_{i_m} - r_{j_n}||)$. As the contribution of the reference node $R$ is added onto the query point $q_{i_m}$’s sum, we can refine the bound summary statistics owned by $Q$ such that $G^l(Q,
\mathcal{R}) = \min\limits_{q_{i_m} \in Q} G^l(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$ and $G^u(Q, \mathcal{R}) = \max\limits_{q_{i_m} \in Q} G^u(q_{i_m},
\mathcal{R})$. Finally, we reset the postponed bound changes stored in $Q$ to zero.
\
[**Post-processing**]{} (shown in Algorithm \[alg:dtkdepost\]). For the non-leaf case, the local-to-local translation operator ($\mbox{{\textsc{TransLocalToLocal}}}$) is called to re-center the local moments at the current level and passes them down to the child nodes. For the leaf-case, $\mbox{{\textsc{EvalLocalExpansion}}}$ is called to convert local moments to a single scalar that represents the contribution to a given query point.
\[alg:dtkdepost\]
Basic Properties of DFGT Algorithms
-----------------------------------
Lower/upper bounds are maintained properly at all times for each $q
\in \mathcal{Q}$ and each query node $Q$ during the function call $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTMain}}}$.
We show that the bounds are maintained properly for three main parts in the function $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTMain}}}$: $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTInitQ}}}$, $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGT}}}$, and $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTPost}}}$.
The function call $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTInitQ}}}$: It is clear that for all $q_i \in \mathcal{Q}$, $0 = G^l(q_i, \mathcal{R}) \leq G(q_i,
\mathcal{R}) \leq G^u(q_i, \mathcal{R}) = | \mathcal{R}
|$. Furthermore, for each query node $Q$, $0 = G^l(Q, \mathcal{R})
\leq G(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R}) \leq G^u(Q, \mathcal{R}) = | \mathcal{R}
|$ for each $q_{i_m} \in Q$.\
The function call $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTBase}}}$: Let $Q$ and $R$ be the query node and the reference node respectively. For each query point $q_{i_m} \in Q$, $G^l(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$ is incremented by $Q.\Delta^l + \sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} K_h(||q_{i_m} - r_{j_n}||)$, and $G^u(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$ by $Q.\Delta^u + $
$\sum\limits_{r_{j_n} \in R} \left( K_h(||q_{i_m} - r_{j_n}||) - 1
\right)$; this operation incorporates the passed-down contribution for $q_{i_m} \in Q$, and un-does the assumption made during the initialization phase of $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTInitQ}}}$. $G^l(Q,
\mathcal{R})$ and $G^u(Q, \mathcal{R})$ are updated to be the minimum among $G^l(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$ and the maximum among $G^u(q_{i_m},
\mathcal{R})$ respectively. The postponed bound changes $Q.\Delta^l$ and $Q.\Delta^u$ are cleared to avoid double-counting when $Q$ may be visited later.\
The function call $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGT}}}$: We induct on the number of points owned by the query node $Q$ and the reference node $R$ in consideration (i.e. $|Q| + |R|$). The only possible places that change $G^l(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$, $G^u(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$, $G^l(Q,
\mathcal{R})$ and $G^u(Q, \mathcal{R})$ are the call to the base case function $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTBase}}}$ and the last two lines of the function $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGT}}}$. The correctness of $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTBase}}}$ function is proven already, so we consider the second case. The two function calls $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGT}}}(Q^L, R)$ and $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGT}}}(Q^R, R)$ (in case $R$ is a leaf node) and the four function calls\
$\mbox{{\textsc{DFGT}}}(Q^L, R^L)$, $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGT}}}(Q^L, R^R)$, $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGT}}}(Q^R, R^L)$, and $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGT}}}(Q^R, R^R)$ (in case $R$ is an internal node) are smaller subproblems than $(Q, R)$ pair. By the induction hypothesis, these calls maintain the lower and the upper bounds properly. The lower bound is set to the minimum of the “best” lower bound owned by the children of $Q$: $\min\{ G^l(Q^L,
\mathcal{R}) + Q^L.\Delta^l, G^l(Q^R, \mathcal{R}) + Q^R.\Delta^l
\}$. Similarly, the upper bound is set to the maximum of the “best” upper bound owned by the children of $Q$: $\max\{ G^u(Q^L,
\mathcal{R}) + Q^L.\Delta^u, G^u(Q^R, \mathcal{R}) + Q^R.\Delta^u
\}$.
\
The function call $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTPost}}}$: We again induct on the number of points owned by the query node $Q$ passed in as the argument to this function. If the query node $Q$ is a leaf node, each query point $q_{i_m} \in Q$ incorporates the passed-down bound changes $Q.\Delta^l$ and $Q.\Delta^u$. The bounds $G^l(Q, \mathcal{R})$ and $G^u(Q, \mathcal{R})$ are (correctly) set to the minimum among $G^l(q_{i_m}, \mathcal{R})$ and the maximum among $G^u(q_{i_m},
\mathcal{R})$. If $Q$ is not a leaf node: we know the sub-calls $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTPost}}}(Q^L)$ and $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTPost}}}(Q^R)$ maintains correct lower and upper bounds by the induction hypothesis since $Q^L$ and $Q^R$ contain a smaller number of points. Setting the lower and upper bounds for $Q$ by the operations: $G^l(Q, \mathcal{R})
\leftarrow \min \{ G^l(Q^L, \mathcal{R}), G^l(Q^R, \mathcal{R}) \}$, $G^u(Q, \mathcal{R}) \leftarrow \max \{ G^u(Q^L, \mathcal{R}),
G^u(Q^R, \mathcal{R}) \}$ is valid.
After calling $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTPost}}}$ (Algorithm \[alg:dtkdepost\]) in $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTMain}}}$ (Algorithm \[alg:dtkdemain\]), each [*query point*]{} $q_i \in \mathcal{Q}$ accounts for every [*reference point*]{} $r_j \in \mathcal{R}$ in its Gaussian kernel sum approximation $\widetilde{G}(q_i, \mathcal{R})$.
In Algorithm \[alg:dtkde\], for each $q_i \in \mathcal{Q}$, each $r_j \in \mathcal{R}$ is either accounted by an exhaustive computation in $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTBase}}}$ or a prune in $\mbox{{\textsc{Summarize}}}$. All exhaustive computations for $q_i \in Q$ directly update $\widetilde{G}(q_i, \mathcal{R_E}(q_i))$, while any pruned contributions will be incorporated into each $\widetilde{G}(q_i,
\mathcal{R_T}(q_i))$ (hence into $\widetilde{G}(q_i,
\mathcal{R}(q_i))$) and when they are pushed down (to the leaf node to which $q_i$ belongs) during the $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGT}}}$ recursion or $\mbox{{\textsc{DFGTPost}}}$.
\[thm:partition\]
For each query point $q_i \in \mathcal{Q}$, the approximated kernel sum $\widetilde{G}(q_i, \mathcal{R})$ satisfies the global relative error tolerance $\epsilon$.
For simplicity, let us limit the available approximation methods to $A
\in \{ E, T(c, 1) \}$ where $E$ denotes the exhaustive computation and $T(c, 1)$ denotes the centroid-based approximation about $c$.
Given $q_i \in \mathcal{Q}$, let $Q'$ be the (unique) leaf node that owns $q_i$. Let $\{ R_{T_a} \}_{a=1}^{N_a}$ denote the set of reference nodes whose kernel sum contribution were accounted via centroid approximation and $\{R_{E_b}\}_{b=1}^{N_b}$ the set of reference nodes whose kernel sum contribution were computed exhaustively. Then it is clear that $\mathcal{R} = \left(
\bigcup\limits_{a=1}^{N_a} R_{T_a} \right) \cup \left(
\bigcup\limits_{b=1}^{N_b} R_{E_b} \right)$ with $R_{T_{a'}} \cap
R_{T_{a''}} = \emptyset$, $R_{E_{b'}} \cap R_{E_{b''}} = \emptyset$, $R_{T_{a'}} \cap R_{E_{b'}} = \emptyset$ for $1 \leq a', a'' \leq N_a$ and $1 \leq b', b'' \leq N_b$. Let $Q_{T_a}$ be the query node that owns $q_i$ and is considered with the reference node $R_{T_a}$ and pruned. Let $G^{l(a)}(Q_{T_a}, \mathcal{R})$ be a “snapshot” of the running lower bound on the kernel sum for query points owned by $Q_{T_a}$ at the time the query node $Q_{T_a}$ and the reference node $R_{T_a}$ were considered (and subsequently pruned). By the triangle inequality: [$$\begin{aligned}
& \left | \widetilde{G}(q_i, \mathcal{R}) - G(q_i, \mathcal{R}) \right
| \\ =& \Biggl | \widetilde{G}\left (q_i, \left(
\bigcup\limits_{a=1}^{N_a} \left \{ ( R_{T_a}, T(Q.c, 1) ) \right \}
\right) \cup \left( \bigcup\limits_{b=1}^{N_b} \left \{ ( R_{E_b}, E )
\right \} \right) \right ) - \\
& G \left (q_i, \left(
\bigcup\limits_{a=1}^{N_a} R_{T_a} \right) \cup \left(
\bigcup\limits_{b=1}^{N_b} R_{E_b} \right) \right) \Biggr | \\
\leq&
\Biggl | \left( \sum\limits_{a=1}^{N_a} \widetilde{G}\left( q_i, \{ (
R_{T_a}, T(Q.c, 1) )\} \right ) - G(q_i, R_{T_a}) \right) + \\
& \left(
\sum\limits_{b=1}^{N_b} \widetilde{G}\left ( q_i, \{ (R_{E_b}, E ) \}
\right) - G(q_i, R_{E_b}) \right) \Biggr | \\
\leq & \sum\limits_{a=1}^{N_a} \left| \widetilde{G}\left(q_i, \{
(R_{T_a}, T(Q.c, 1)) \} \right) - G(q_i, R_{T_a}) \right| +
\sum\limits_{b=1}^{N_b} \left | \widetilde{G}\left( q_i, \{ (R_{E_b},
E) \} \right ) - G(q_i, R_{E_b}) \right|\\ \leq &
\sum\limits_{a=1}^{N_a} | R_{T_a} | \max \left \{
\begin{array}{c} \left | K_h(d^u(Q_{T_a}, R_{T_a})) - K_h(||Q_{T_a}.c
- R_{T_a}.c||) \right | ,\\ \left | K_h(d^l(Q_{T_a}, R_{T_a})) -
K_h(||Q_{T_a}.c - R_{T_a}.c||) \right |
\end{array} \right \} + \sum\limits_{b=1}^{N_b} | R_{E_b} | \cdot 0\\
\leq & \sum\limits_{a=1}^{N_a} \frac{| R_{T_a} |
\epsilon}{|\mathcal{R}|} G^{l(a)}(Q_{T_a}, \mathcal{R}) +
\sum\limits_{b=1}^{N_b} \frac{| R_{E_b}| \epsilon}{| \mathcal{R} |}
G^{l(b)}(Q', \mathcal{R})\\ \leq & \sum\limits_{a=1}^{N_a} \frac{|
R_{T_a} | \epsilon}{|\mathcal{R}|} G(q_i, \mathcal{R}) +
\sum\limits_{b=1}^{N_b} \frac{| R_{E_b}| \epsilon}{| \mathcal{R} |}
G(q_i, \mathcal{R}) \leq \epsilon G(q_i, \mathcal{R})\end{aligned}$$ ]{} The proof can be easily extended to the case with four available approximation methods $A \in \{ E, T(c, p), F(c, p), D(c, p) \}$.
\[thm:global\_guarantee\]
[|p[0.48in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}]{} Alg$\backslash$Scale & [*0.001*]{} & [*0.01*]{} & [*0.1*]{} & [*1*]{} & [*10*]{} & [*100*]{} & [*1000*]{} & [*$\Sigma$*]{}\
\
& 241 & 241 & 241 & 241 & 241 & 241 & 241 & 1687\
& $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & 1.02 & 0.03 & $\infty$\
& X & X & X & 2.63 & 1.48 & 0.33 & 0.18 & X\
& $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & 155 & 7.26 & 0.40 & 0.03 & $\infty$\
& 1.58 & 1.63 & 2.14 & 4.33 & 39.7 & 29.5 & 1.51 & 80.39\
& 0.43 & 0.47 & 1.00 & 3.48 & 21 & 2.48 & 0.96 & 29.8\
\
& 241 & 241 & 241 & 241 & 241 & 241 & 241 & 1687\
& $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & 0.16 & $\infty$\
& X & X & X & 120 & 10 & 4 & 0.22 & X\
& $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & 0.54 & 0.07 & $\infty$\
& 1.62 & 1.76 & 2.36 & 12.5 & 102 & 17.0 & 2.41 & 139.65\
& 0.44 & 0.60 & 1.21 & 15.6 & 20 & 4.20 & 0.67 & 42.7\
\
& 1310 & 1310 & 1310 & 1310 & 1310 & 1310 & 1310 & 9170\
& X & X & X & X & X & X & X & X\
& X & X & X & X & X & X & X & X\
& $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & $\infty$ & 1.04 & $\infty$\
& 0.34 & 0.36 & 0.92 & 6.31 & 113 & 643 & 125 & 888.93\
& 0.35 & 0.37 & 0.94 & 6.51 & 102 & 304 & 121 & 535.17\
Experimental Results {#sec:experimental_results}
====================
We evaluated empirical performance of six algorithms:
- [Naive: the brute-force algorithm (Algorithm \[alg:bruteforce\_alg\]).]{}
- [FFT: Fast fourier transform based kernel density estimate [@wand94].]{}
- [FGT: Fast Gauss transform [@greengard1991fgt].]{}
- [IFGT: improved fast Gauss transform [@yang2003improved; @raykar2005fast].]{}
- [DFD: the dual-tree centroid-based approximation method [@gray2003vfm; @gray2003nde].]{}
- [DFGT: our new algorithm (Algorithm \[alg:dtkdemain\]).]{}
[|p[0.48in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}|p[0.35in]{}]{} Alg$\backslash$Scale & [*0.001*]{} & [*0.01*]{} & [*0.1*]{} & [*1*]{} & [*10*]{} & [*100*]{} & [*1000*]{} & [*$\Sigma$*]{}\
\
& 2.2e5 & 2.2e5 & 2.2e5 & 2.2e5 & 2.2e5 & 2.2e5 & 2.2e5 & 1.5e6\
& 4.9e1 & 4.9e1 & 6.3e1 & 1e2 & 1.5e3 & 2e4 & 1.3e3 & 2.3e4\
& 6.8e0 & 7.4e0 & 2.1e1 & 5.9e1 & 1.7e3 & 3.5e3 & 1.4e2 & 5.4e3\
\
& 9.6e4 & 9.6e4 & 9.6e4 & 9.6e4 & 9.6e4 & 9.6e4 & 9.6e4 & 6.7e5\
& 2.4e0 & 2.4e0 & 2.6e0 & 1.5e1 & 9.7e1 & 1.7e2 & 4.4e3 & 4.7e3\
& 2.4e0 & 2.4e0 & 2.6e0 & 1.5e1 & 1.1e2 & 2.1e2 & 4e3 & 4.3e3\
\
& 9e5 & 9e5 & 9e5 & 9e5 & 9e5 & 9e5 & 9e5 & 6.3e6\
& 1.1e2 & 1.5e2 & 1.2e3 & 2.2e4 & 3.9e4 & 2.9e3 & 1.1e2 & 6.5e4\
& 3.9e1 & 8.1e1 & 1.4e3 & 1.6e4 & 2.3e3 & 1.9e2 & 4.2e1 & 1.9e4\
We used the following six real-world datasets:
- [[*sj2-50000-2*]{}: two-dimensional astronomy position dataset.]{}
- [[*colors50k*]{}: two-dimensional astronomy color dataset.]{}
- [[*bio5*]{}: five-dimensional pharmaceutical dataset.]{}
- [[*edgsc-radec*]{}: two-dimensional astronomy angle dataset.]{}
- [[*mockgalaxy-D-1M*]{}: three-dimensional astronomy position dataset.]{}
- [[*psf1-psf4-stargal-2d-only*]{}: two-dimensional astronomy dataset.]{}
Note that the last three datasets contain over 1 million points and demonstrate the scalability of our fast algorithm. For each dataset, we evaluated the empirical performance on computing kernel density estimates at seven different bandwidths ranging from $10^{-3}$ to $10^3$ times the optimal bandwidths according to the standard least-squares cross-validation score [@silverman1986des]. We measured the time required for computing KDE estimates that guarantee the global relative error criterion: $\left | \widetilde{G}(q_i,
\mathcal{R}) - G(q_i, \mathcal{R}) \right | \leq \epsilon G(q_i,
\mathcal{R})$. We used $\epsilon = 0.01$. Each entry in the table has a timing number (if finite), $\infty$ symbol (if no parameter tweaking could achieve the error tolerance), $X$ symbol (if the algorithm segfaulted; this is common in grid-based algorithms in higher dimension). The entries under $\Sigma$ symbol denote the total time for least-squares cross-validation.
Note that the FGT ensures: $\left |
\widetilde{G}(q_i, \mathcal{R}) - G(q_i, \mathcal{R}) \right | \leq
\tau$. Therefore, we first set $\tau = \epsilon$, halving $\tau$ until the error tolerance $\epsilon$ was met; the time for verifying the global error guarantee (which includes comparison against the naively computed results) was not included in the timing. For the FFT, we started with 16 grid points along each dimension, and doubled the number of grid points until the error guarantee was met. For the IFGT, we took the most recent version of the algorithm that does automatic parameter tuning described in [@raykar2005fast]. Our algorithms based on dual-tree methods guarantees the error bound automatically via a direct parameter $\epsilon$.
The naive timings for the last datasets have been extrapolated from the performances on the smaller datasets. Our results demonstrate that our new algorithm can be as 15 times as fast as the original dual-tree algorithm. As expected, the grid-based original fast Gauss transform and the fast Fourier transformed based method fails in dimensions above two.
Conclusion
==========
In this paper, we combined the two methods: the dual-tree KDE [@gray2001nbp] and the original fast Gauss transform [@greengard1991fgt] to form the hierarchical form of the fast Gauss transform, the Dual-tree Fast Gauss Transform. Our results demonstrate that the $O(p^D)$ expansion helps reduce the computational time on datasets of dimensionality up to 5.
Appendix: Implementing the Gaussian Series-expansion {#appendix-implementing-the-gaussian-series-expansion .unnumbered}
====================================================
This section explains how to implement the series-expansion mechanisms in computer languages such as C/C++. \
[**Storing the far-field/local moments as a linear array.** ]{}Although the moments are inherently multi-dimensional, we store all coefficients in a C-style one-dimensional array. Each query node stores $\left( p_{\mathit{max}} \right)^D$ local moment terms. Similarly, each reference node stores $\left(
p_{\mathit{max}} \right)^D$ far-field moment terms. These are allocated as a linear array during the construction of the two trees, as shown in Figure \[fig:linear\_array\_layout\] which implies a bijective mapping between $D$-digit radix-$p_{\mathit{max}}$ numbers and decimal numbers between 0 and $p_{\mathit{max}}^D$ - 1 inclusive.
\
[**Converting between a position and a multi-index in the linear array.** ]{}Algorithm \[alg:position\_to\_multiindex\] shows the mapping from a position in the linear array of $\left( p_{\mathit{max}}
\right)^D$ terms to its corresponding multi-index. The algorithm converts the given position (given in base 10) to a number in base $p$.
\[alg:position\_to\_multiindex\]
Algorithm \[alg:multiindex\_to\_position\] converts the given multi-index to its corresponding position in the linear array of length $\left( p_{\mathit{max}} \right)^D$. It is basically an algorithm to convert a radix-$p_{\mathit{max}}$ number to its decimal representation.
\[alg:multiindex\_to\_position\]
\
[**Computing a multi-index expansion of a vector.** ]{}A multi-index expansion of a vector $x \in \mathbb{R}^D$ up to $p^D$ terms is basically the set of coefficients $\{ x^{\alpha} \}_{\alpha <
p}$. See Figure \[fig:multi\_index\_expansion\]. This is used in the process of forming a far-field moment contribution of a single reference point in $\mbox{{\textsc{AccumulateFarFieldMoment}}}$ and evaluating a local expansion in $\mbox{{\textsc{EvalLocalExpansion}}}$.
\[alg:compute\_multi\_index\_expansion\]
\
[**Implementing the far-field moment accumulation (Equation ).** ]{}This is straightforward given the implementation of the function\
$\mbox{{\textsc{MultiIndexExpansion}}}$. Basically, it computes the multi-index of each reference point in the given reference node and accumulates each contribution and normalizes the sum. See Algorithm \[alg:accumulatefarfieldmoment\].
\[alg:accumulatefarfieldmoment\]
\
[**Implementing the far-to-far translation operator**]{} (shown in Algorithm \[alg:translatefartofarfield\]). This consists of a doubly-nested for-loop over accumulated far-field moments.
\[alg:translatefartofarfield\]
\
[**Computing the multivariate Hermite functions.** ]{}We exploit the fact that the multivariate Hermite functions is a product of $D$ univariate Hermite functions. Algorithm \[alg:compute\_partial\_derivatives\] computes partial derivatives of the Gaussian kernel evaluated at the given point $x$ along each dimension up to $p$-th order. $h_{\alpha}(x) =
\prod\limits_{d=1}^D h_{\alpha[d]}(x)$ is a simple product of the univariate functions (see Algorithm \[alg:compute\_hermite\_function\]).
\[alg:compute\_partial\_derivatives\]
\[alg:compute\_hermite\_function\]
\
[**Evaluating a far-field expansion.** ]{}Once the functions for computing the Hermite functions (Algorithm \[alg:compute\_partial\_derivatives\] and Algorithm \[alg:compute\_hermite\_function\]), we can implement the function for evaluating a far-field expansion up to $p^D$ terms, as shown in Algorithm \[alg:evaluate\_far\_field\_expansion\]. The basic structure is one outer-loop over each query point and the inner loop iterating over each far-field moment. The contribution to each query point is computed as a dot-product between the far-field moment and the computed Hermite functions (see Figure \[fig:far\_field\_coeffs\]).
\[alg:evaluate\_far\_field\_expansion\]
\
[**Implementing the far-to-local translation operator.** ]{}The basic structure of the algorithm is a doubly nested for-loop, each over the coefficients. The doubly-nested for-loop first translate a portion of the accumulated far-field moments of $R$ up to $p^D$ terms into the local moments. The final step of the algorithm is to add the translated moments $\{ L_{\beta} ( \{ (R, T(Q.c, p)) \} ) \}$ to the local moments stored in $Q$, $L_{\beta} (Q.c, \mathcal{R_D}(Q) \cup
\mathcal{R_T}(Q) )$. See Algorithm \[alg:translate\_far\_to\_local\].
\[alg:translate\_far\_to\_local\]
\
[**Implementing the direct local accumulation operation.** ]{}The basic structure is a doubly-nested for-loop, the outer-loop over the reference points whose moments are to be accumulated as local moments and the inner loop over the coefficient positions. See Algorithm \[alg:accumulate\_direct\_local\_moment\].
\[alg:accumulate\_direct\_local\_moment\]
\
[**Implementing the local-to-local translation operator.** ]{}We direct readers’ attention to the first step of the algorithm, which retrieves the maximum order among used in local moment accumulation/translation. Then the algorithm proceeds with a doubly-nested for-loop over the local moments applies Equation . See Algorithm \[alg:translate\_local\_to\_local\].
\[alg:translate\_local\_to\_local\]
\
[**Evaluating the local expansion of the given query node.** ]{}This function (see Algorithm \[alg:evaluate\_local\_expansion\]) is consisted of one outer-loop over reference points and the inner-loop over the local moments up to $p^D$ terms, where $p$ is the maximum approximation order used among the reference nodes pruned via far-to-local and direct local accumulations for $Q$.
\[alg:evaluate\_local\_expansion\]
[^1]: We impose this limit because the number of terms scales exponentially with the dimensionality $D$, $O(p^D)$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the monodromy of Klassen’s genus two open book for $P^2 \times S^1$ is the $Y$-homeomorphism of Lickorish, which is also known as the crosscap slide. Similarly, we show that $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ admits a genus two open book whose monodromy is the crosscap transposition. Moreover, we show that each of $P^2 \times S^1$ and $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ admits infinitely many isomorphic genus two open books whose monodromies are mutually nonisotopic. Furthermore, we include a simple observation about the stable equivalence classes of open books for $P^2 \times S^1$ and $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$. Finally, we formulate a version of Gabai’s theorem about the Murasugi sum of open books, without imposing any orientability assumption on the pages.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey'
author:
- Burak Ozbagci
title: 'On open books for nonorientable $3$-manifolds'
---
[^1]
Introduction {#sec: intro}
============
It is a classical theorem of Alexander [@a] that there is an open book for any closed orientable $3$-manifold, which can be obtained by pulling back the standard open book for $S^3$ via some branched covering, where the branch set is braided about the binding. In the nonorientable case, an analogous result was obtained by Berstein and Edmonds [@be], who first proved that every closed nonorientable $3$-manifold is a branched cover of $P^2 \times S^1$ and then showed as a corollary that an open book for $P^2 \times S^1$ can be pulled back to the cover, where $P^2$ denotes the real projective plane. In their work, however, Berstein and Edmonds used the Stallings’ fibration theorem [@s] to show the existence of a genus two open book with connected binding (meaning that its page is a Klein bottle with one hole) for $P^2 \times S^1$, rather than describing the open book explicitly. Note that the pages of an open book for a closed $3$-manifold are orientable if and only if the manifold itself is orientable and the genus of an open book is defined as the genus of its page as a (not necessarily orientable) surface with boundary.
In a two-page note, Klassen [@k] described an explicit genus two open book with connected binding for $P^2 \times S^1$, [*without discussing its monodromy*]{}. In this paper, we prove that the monodromy of Klassen’s open book for $P^2 \times S^1$ is the $Y$-homeomorphism of Lickorish [@l], which is a primary example of a surface homeomorphism that cannot be factorized into Dehn twists. We also show that $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$, the nonorientable $S^2$-bundle over $S^1$, admits a genus two open book with connected binding, whose monodromy is the crosscap transposition—another example of a surface homeomorphism that cannot be factorized into Dehn twists. As a matter of fact, we show that each of $P^2 \times S^1$ and $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ admits infinitely many isomorphic genus two open books with connected bindings, whose monodromies are mutually nonisotopic.
The reader should compare our result with a recent result of Ghanwat, Pandit and Selvakumar [@gps], who proved that every closed nonorientable $3$-manifold admits a genus one open book (meaning that its page is a projective plane with holes), which is analogous to the fact that every closed orientable $3$-manifold admits a planar open book (cf. [@r], see also [@o]). A notable common feature of the planar open books constructed in [@o] for the orientable $3$-manifolds and the genus one open books constructed in [@gps] for the nonorientable $3$-manifolds is that the monodromy of each one of them is a product of Dehn twists along two-sided curves on the page.
Giroux showed that on a closed orientable $3$-manifold, the coorientable contact structures up to isotopy are in one-to-one correspondence with the open books up to positive stabilization. In contrast, there is no contact structure on a [*nonorientable*]{} $3$-manifold even if one drops the usual coorientability assumption on the contact structures. Nevertheless, one can still consider an equivalence relation on the set all open books on a closed nonorientable $3$-manifold, induced by stabilizations. According to [@gps], $P^2 \times S^1$ admits a genus one open book whose monodromy is a product of Dehn twists along two-sided curves. On the other hand, as we show here, the monodromy of Klassen’s genus two open book for $P^2 \times S^1$ is the $Y$-homeomorphism. As a consequence, we conclude that these two open books for $P^2 \times S^1$ cannot be in the same equivalence class. By a similar argument we show that the genus two open book with connected binding for $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ whose monodromy is the crosscap transposition is not stably equivalent to the standard genus one open book with connected binding, whose monodromy is the identity map.
Gabai [@g] proved that the result of a Murasugi sum (a.k.a. plumbing) of the [*oriented*]{} pages of two open books is the oriented page of another open book whose total space is the connected sum of these open books. Here, we formulate a version of Gabai’s theorem without imposing the orientability of the pages of the open books, and give some applications.
We also provide a method to find a presentation of the fundamental group of the total space of any given nonorientable open book (in dimension three) based on the fundamental group of its page and its monodromy, similar to the one given in [@eo] for the orientable case.
$Y$-homeomorphism of Lickorish {#sec: yhomeo}
==============================
Throughout the paper, we denote by $K$ the [*Klein bottle with one hole*]{}, i.e., a nonorientable genus two surface with one boundary component. A model for $K$ is given in Figure \[fig: kleinbottle\], where the edges of the octagon are identified as indicated by the arrows and the union of the red arcs is the boundary $\partial K$ after the identifications.
![Klein bottle with one hole[]{data-label="fig: kleinbottle"}](kleinbottle)
Let $r$ denote the self-homeomorphism of $K$ induced by the reflection of this octagon through the circle $\a$. Since $r$ does not fix $\partial K$ pointwise, it is not an element of the mapping class group $Map(K)$ of $K$. However, the homeomorphism $y: K \to K $ obtained by post-composing $r$ with a half twist around $\partial K$ fixes $\partial K$ pointwise and hence it is an element of $Map(K)$, which is a $Y$-homeomorphism of Lickorish [@l]. The two possible half twists around $\partial K$ induces two $Y$-homeomorphisms of $K$ which are inverses of each other. By definition, $r^2$ is the identity, but this is no longer true for $y$. It can be easily verified that $ y^2$ is isotopic to a Dehn twist around $\partial K$.
In fact, Lickorish defined a $Y$-homeomorphism on any nonorientable surface $N$ of genus at least two as follows. Suppose that $\a$ is a two-sided and $\b$ is a one sided simple closed curve on $N$ intersecting transversely at one point. Then a regular neighborhood of $\a \cup \b$ is homeomorphic to $K$. A $Y$-homeomorphism of $N$ is obtained simply by extending the homeomorphism $y$ to the surface $N$ by the identity map. A $Y$-homeomorphism is also called a [*crosscap slide*]{} in the literature [@ko], especially when the nonorientable surface at hand is described by crosscaps. Note that a $Y$-homeomorphism on $N$ cannot be expressed as a product of Dehn twists along two-sided curves [@l].
Klassen’s genus two open book {#sec: cotlef}
=============================
In this section, we describe Klassen’s genus two open book for $P^2 \times S^1$ (cf. [@k]) and prove that its monodromy is the $Y$-homeomorphism of Lickorish. We view the real projective plane $P^2$ as the unit disk $D^2$ in the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$ whose boundary is identified with itself by the antipodal map. Note that the homeomorphism $\varphi' : D^2 \to D^2 $ given by $\varphi' (z) = -z$ descends to a homeomorphism $\varphi : P^2 \to P^2 $, which is isotopic to the identity. As a matter of fact, any self-homeomorphism of $P^2$ is isotopic to the identity [@e]. Let $I$ denote the unit interval $[0,1]$. It follows that the quotient $P^2 \times I / \big((x, 1) \sim (\varphi(x), 0)\big)$, is homeomorphic to $P^2 \times S^1$.
Next, we consider the map $p: \big( D^2 - \{-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}\}\big) \times I \to S^1$ which is given by $$p(z,t) = \dfrac{z^2 -\frac{1}{4}}{|z^2 -\frac{1}{4}|} e^{2\pi i t}.$$ Note that $\big(\{-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}\} \times I\big)/\sim$ is a knot in $P^2 \times S^1$, which we denote by $B$. The map $p$ induces a fibration of the complement of $B$ in $P^2 \times S^1$ over the unit circle in the complex plane. This construction yields an open book for $P^2 \times S^1$ whose binding $B$ winds twice around the $S^1$ factor.
Now we consider the page $F_0 \subset P^2 \times S^1$ which is defined as the union of the binding $B$ and the fiber $p^{-1}(e^{2\pi i 0})$ under the identifications described above. We claim that $F_0$ is a Klein bottle with one hole, whose boundary is $B$. By definition, the interior of $F_0$ is the solution set of the equation $p(z,t)=1$, or equivalently, the equation $$\label{eq: map}
(z^2 -\frac{1}{4}) e^{2\pi i t} =|z^2 -\frac{1}{4}|.$$ To visualize this solution set, which is a surface, we compute its cross sections for each $ t \in I$ in the cylinder $\big( D^2 - \{-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}\}\big) \times I$, keeping in mind that the points on $\partial D^2$ are identified by the antipodal map. Since the right-hand side of Equation \[eq: map\] is real and poistive, by plugging in $z=x+iy$, we conclude that $$\label{eq: pos} (x^2 +2xyi -y^2 -\frac{1}{4})\big(\cos (2 \pi t) + i \sin (2\pi t)\big) > 0$$ which, in turn, implies that $$\label{eq: real} (x^2 -y^2 -\frac{1}{4})\sin (2\pi t) + 2xy \cos (2 \pi t) =0.$$ Moreover, it implies that $$\label{eq: part} xy <0 \; \mbox{if} \; t \in (0, \frac{1}{2}) \; \mbox{and} \; xy >0 \; \mbox{if} \; t \in (\frac{1}{2}, 1).$$
![The hyperbolas $ (x^2 -y^2 -\frac{1}{4})\sin (2\pi t) + 2xy \cos (2 \pi t) =0$ for $t \in (0,1)$ and $t \neq \frac{1}{2}$. []{data-label="fig: hyperbolas"}](hyperbolas)
We observe that, for each $ t \in (0, \frac{1}{2}) \cup (\frac{1}{2}, 1)$, the solution of Equation \[eq: real\] is a hyperbola whose axis is rotated by the angle $(\frac{1}{4} - t)\pi$ as depicted in Figure \[fig: hyperbolas\]. Note that each of these hyperbolas pass through the points $\pm \frac{1}{2}$ in the plane. Therefore, by Inequality \[eq: part\], the cross section at any $t \in (0, \frac{1}{2})$ is the part of the corresponding hyperbola that belongs to the region $xy <0$ in the plane, which becomes the interior of an arc connecting two points in $B$ via the identification of $\partial D^2$ under the antipodal map. Similarly, the cross section at $t \in (\frac{1}{2}, 1)$ is the part of the corresponding hyperbola that belongs to the region $xy >0$ in the plane, which becomes the interior of an arc connecting two points in $B$ via the identification of $\partial D^2$ under the antipodal map.
When $t=0$, Inequality \[eq: pos\] implies that the cross section is the union $(-1, -\frac{1}{2}) \cup (\frac{1}{2}, 1)$ on the real line in $D^2 \subset \mathbb{C}$ as depicted on the left in Figure \[fig: twolevel\], which becomes the interior of an arc connecting two points in $B$ via the identification of $\partial D^2$ under the antipodal map. The cross section for $t=1$ is the same as the cross section for $t=0$ and these arcs are identified in $P^2 \times S^1$ under the map $\varphi$ via reversing the orientation.
![On the left: Cross section at $t=0$, and on the right: Cross section at $t =\frac{1}{2}$[]{data-label="fig: twolevel"}](twolevel)
When $t=\frac{1}{2}$, Inequality \[eq: pos\] implies that the cross section is the union of the arc $(-i,i)$ on the imaginary axis and the arc $(-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2})$ on the real axis as depicted on the right in Figure \[fig: twolevel\], which becomes the union of a circle and the interior of an arc connecting two points in $B$ via the identification of $\partial D^2$ under the antipodal map.
![The page $F_0$ is depicted in $P^2 \times S^1$. Here each horizontal disk is a copy of the unit disk in $\mathbb{C}$ that represents a $P^2$. The top ($t =1$) and the bottom ($t=0$) $P^2$ is identified by the homeomorphism $\varphi$ to obtain $P^2 \times S^1$. There is a saddle of the surface $F_0$ at the level $t=\frac{1}{2}$. The union of the red arcs is the binding $B =\partial F_0 \subset P^2 \times S^1$. []{data-label="fig: cylinder"}](cylinder)
To summarize, for each $t \in [0, \frac{1}{2}) \cup (\frac{1}{2}, 1]$ the cross section is an arc connecting two points on the binding $B$ and for $t=\frac{1}{2}$ the cross section is the union of a circle and an arc connecting two points in $B$. The cross section at the critical level $t=\frac{1}{2}$ can be viewed as the limit of the hyperbolas depicted in Figure \[fig: hyperbolas\] as $ t \to \frac{1}{2}$. The cross section for $t=0$ (which is the same as $t=1$) can also be seen in Figure \[fig: hyperbolas\] as the limit of the hyperbolas as $t \to 0$ (or equivalently as $t \to 1$). We claim that the page $F_0$, which is the union of the binding $B$ and all the cross sections for $t \in [0,1]$ under the identification $\varphi$ is homeomorphic to $K$, the Klein bottle with one hole, whose boundary is $B$. To see that $F_0$ depicted in Figure \[fig: cylinder\] is homeomorphic to $K$, we simply redraw it as an octagon on the plane with appropriate identification of its edges as shown in Figure \[fig: identify\].
![After identifying the edges as indicated, the result is homeomorphic to $K$. The union of the red arcs gives $\partial K$. []{data-label="fig: identify"}](identify)
Next, we observe that, for any $s \in (0,1)$, the page $F_s = B \cup p^{-1} (e^{2\pi i s})$ of this open book is obtained by a vertical translation of the page $F_0$ depicted in Figure \[fig: cylinder\]. This follows from the the fact that the interior of the page $F_s$ is the solution set of the equation $$P(z,t) = \frac{z^2 - \frac{1}{4}}{|z^2- \frac{1}{4}|} e^{2\pi i t} = e^{2 \pi i s}$$ which is equivalent to $$\frac{z^2 - \frac{1}{4}}{|z^2- \frac{1}{4}|} e^{2\pi i (t-s)} = 1.$$ Therefore, the cross section of the page $F_s$ at the level $t$ is exactly the cross section of $F_0$ at the level $t-s$.
\[thm: main\] The monodromy of Klassen’s open book for $P^2 \times S^1$, whose page is a Klein bottle with one hole, is given by the $Y$-homeomorphism of Lickorish.
Using the description of $P^2 \times S^1$ as in Figure \[fig: cylinder\], one can see that the vertical vector field $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}$ is transverse to the (interior) of each page of the open book and tangent to the binding $B=\partial F_0$. Now we consider the homeomorphism $h$ of the page $F_0$ induced by the time $1$-map of the flow of this vector field. Note that $h$ interchanges the two red arcs in Figure \[fig: cylinder\]. In other words, although it does not fix the binding $B$ pointwise, it takes $B$ to itself by half twist (a rotation of $\pi$ degrees).
The solid green arc appearing at the front face of the cylinder in Figure \[fig: cylinder\] is mapped by $h$ to the dashed green arc at the back of the cylinder and vice versa. But the solid green arc and the dashed green arc (which are in fact both circles after identifications) are identified with each other on the page $F_0$. This means that the homeomorphism $h$ takes the green circle to itself. The flow of the vertical vector field preserves the blue circle shown at the critical level $t = \frac{1}{2}$ in Figure \[fig: cylinder\], except that its orientation gets reversed (via a reflection through its midpoint) while identifying the top and the bottom $P^2$ by the map $\varphi$.
![Two models of $K$. The one on the right (which is a copy of Figure \[fig: identify\]) is obtained by cutting the one on the left (which is a copy of Figure \[fig: kleinbottle\]) along $\a$ and gluing back the resulting pieces as indicated. []{data-label="fig: kb"}](kb)
We conclude that, in the model of $K$ depicted in Figure \[fig: identify\], the homeomorphism $h$ is a reflection of $K$ that interchanges the region $R_1$ with the region $R_2$, and the region $R_3$ with the region $R_4$. This reflection in the model of $K$ in Figure \[fig: identify\] is equivalent to the reflection through $\a$ in Figure \[fig: kleinbottle\], as illustrated in Figure \[fig: kb\].
Hence the homeomorphism $h$ on $F_0 = K$ induced by the vertical vector field is equivalent to the reflection homeomorphism $r$ defined in Section \[sec: yhomeo\]. Therefore, by perturbing the vector field near the binding $B$ so that it is meridional (and hence its flow fixes $B$ pointwise), we conclude that the monodromy as an element of $Map(K)$, is the $Y$-homeomorphism $y: K \to K$ of Lickorish.
Another proof of Theorem \[thm: main\]
======================================
In this section, we provide an alternative proof of Theorem \[thm: main\]. We denote by $OB(N,\phi)$ the closed $3$-manifold which is the [*total space*]{} of an abstract open book whose page is a surface $N$, and whose monodromy is $\phi \in Map (N)$.
\[thm: openb\] If $y \in Map (K)$ is the $Y$-homeomorphism of Lickorish, then $OB(K, y)= P^2 \times S^1$.
If $p$ is a point in $\partial K$, then $\pi_1 (K, p)$ is freely generated by the oriented loops $a$ and $b$ depicted in Figure \[fig: fund\]. First we compute the fundamental group of the mapping torus $K_y= K \times [0,1] / \sim$ based at the point $p$, where $(x, 1) \sim (y(x), 0)$. Let $\t$ denote the loop $[0,1] / \sim$ based at $p$ and let $y_*$ denote the action of $y$ on $\pi_1 (K_y, p)$. Then $$\pi_1(K_ y, p) = \langle a,b, \t \;|\; \t a \t ^{-1}= y_*a, \t b \t ^{-1}=y_*b \rangle.$$
![ $\pi_1 (K, p)$ is freely generated by the oriented loops $a$ and $b$.[]{data-label="fig: fund"}](fund)
![The loop $y_*a$ (left) is homotopic to $bab^{-1}$ (right). []{data-label="fig: ima"}](ima)
![The loop $y_*b$ (left) is homotopic to $hb^{-1}h^{-1}$ (right). []{data-label="fig: imb"}](imb)
It can be verified that $y_*a$ is homotopic to $bab^{-1}$ (see Figure \[fig: ima\]) and $y_*b$ is homotopic to $ hb^{-1}h^{-1}$ (see Figure \[fig: imb\]), for some loop $h$ based at $p$. To obtain $OB(K, y)$ from the mapping torus $K_y$, we just glue a solid torus (a neighborhood of the binding) where the loop $\t$ is null-homotopic. Therefore, the fundamental group of $OB(K, y)$ based at $p$ has the following presentation $$\langle a, b \; | \; a=bab^{-1} , \; b= hb^{-1}h^{-1} \rangle.$$ This group is abelian because of the first relation and the second relation gives $b^2=1$. Hence $\pi_1 (OB(K, y), p)$ is isomorphic to $ \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}_2 $. It is well-known that a closed $3$-manifold whose fundamental group is isomorphic to $ \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}_2 $ is homeomorphic to $P^2 \times S^1$ (see, for example, Table 1.2 in [@afw]). Here, the [*Poincaré conjecture*]{} is needed to rule out the case of connected sum with a homotopy sphere. There is, however, an alternative proof avoiding the use of the Poincaré conjecture as follows: The $3$-manifold $OB(K, y)$ has a (nonorientable) Heegaard splitting of genus two obtained from the genus two open book and Ochiai [@oc] proved that any closed nonorientable $3$-manifold with fundamental group $ \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}_2 $, which admits a Heegaard splitting of genus two, is homeomorphic to $P^2 \times S^1$.
Fundamental group of a nonorientable open book
==============================================
The total space of an open book is orientable if and only if the pages of the open book are orientable. Therefore, we will refer to an open book with nonorientable pages as a [*nonorientable open book*]{}, in short.
In the following, we briefly review a method to calculate the fundamental group of the total space of any abstract nonorientable open book in dimension three. The discussion below is similar to the orientable case described in [@eo Section 2.1]. Suppose that $N$ is a nonorientable surface of genus $k$ with $r$ boundary components, and let $\phi \in Map (N)$. Then the total space of the abstract open book with page $N$ and monodromy $\phi$, is denoted by $OB(N,\phi)$, which is a closed nonorientable $3$-manifold.
For all $1 \leq j \leq r$, let $p_j$ be a point on the $j$-th boundary component of $\partial N$. Let $a_1,\ldots, a_k, c_1, \ldots, c_r$ be the standard generators of $\pi_1(N, p_1)$, where $c_i$’s correspond to loops around the boundary components. Let $\phi_*$ denote the action induced by $\phi$ on $\pi_1(N, p_1)$ and let $\t_j$ be the loop $[0,1] / \sim$ based at $p_j$ in the mapping torus $N_\phi = N \times [0,1] / \sim$, where $(x, 1) \sim (\phi(x), 0)$. Then the fundamental group of $N_\phi$ based at $p_1$ has the following presentation: $$\langle a_1,\ldots, a_k, c_1, \ldots, c_r, \t_1 \;|\; \prod_{i=1}^k a_i^2 \prod_{j=1}^r c_j =1,\; \t_1 a_i \t_1 ^{-1}= \phi_*a_i, \; \t_1 c_j \t_1 ^{-1}=\phi_*c_j \rangle.$$ For each $1 \leq j \leq r$, let $\d_j \subset N$ be an arc connecting the base point $p_1$ to $p_j$. It follows that $\t_1 \d_j \t_j^{-1} \phi_* (\d_j^{-1})$ bounds a disk in $N_\phi$. To obtain $OB(N, \phi)$ from $N_\phi$, we glue in $r$ copies of the solid torus where $\t_j$ becomes null-homotopic for all $j =1, \ldots, r$. Consequently, we get a presentation of $\pi_1(OB(N, \phi), p_1)$ as follows: $$\langle a_1, \ldots, a_k, c_1, \ldots, c_r \; \vert \; \prod_{i=1}^k a_i^2 \prod_{j=1}^r c_j=1, \;a_i =\phi_*(a_i),\; \; \d_j=\phi_*(\d_j) \rangle.$$ One can, of course, calculate the first homology group $H_1(M)$ by abelianizing $\pi_1(M)$.
Murasugi Sum of nonorientable open books
========================================
Suppose that $M_i = OB(\Sigma_i, \phi_i)$ where $\Sigma_i$ is an [*oriented*]{} surface and $\phi_i \in Map(\Sigma_i)$ for $i=1,2$. Gabai [@g Theorem 3] proved that $M_1 \# M_2 = OB(\Sigma_1 * \Sigma_2, \phi_1 \circ \phi_2)$, where $\Sigma_1 * \Sigma_2$ denotes the Murasugi sum (a.k.a. plumbing) of the pages $\Sigma_1 $ and $\Sigma_2$. In the following, we state Gabai’s theorem without any assumption on the orientability of the pages but his proof holds true as long as the Murasugi sum is performed along two-sided arcs on the pages.
\[prop: gabai\] Suppose that $M_i = OB(N_i, \phi_i)$ where $N_i$ is a surface which is not necessarily orientable and $\phi_i \in Map(N_i)$ for $i=1,2$. Then $M_1 \# M_2 = OB(N_1 * N_2, \phi_1 \circ \phi_2)$, provided that the Murasugi sum $N_1 * N_2$ is performed along two-sided arcs on $N_1$ and $N_2$.
A proof of Proposition \[prop: gabai\] can be obtained by adapting the proof in the orientable case described in Etnyre’s notes [@et]. One can also consult [@op], for a more general approach. Based on Proposition \[prop: gabai\], below we identify the total spaces of some open books with page $K$, but first we prove a simple result for an arbitrary nonorientable surface with boundary.
\[lem: mob\] Let $N_{g,k}$ denote a nonorientable surface of genus $g$ with $k \geq 1$ boundary components. Then $$OB(N_{g, k}, id)= \#_g S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1
\#_{k-1} S^2 \times S^1 = \#_{g+k-1} S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$$ where $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ denotes the nonorientable $S^2$-bundle over $S^1$. In particular, if ${\mathcal{M}}$ denotes the Möbius band, then $OB({\mathcal{M}}, id)= S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$.
The $4$-manifold $D^2\times N_{g,k}$ is obtained by attaching $g$ nonorientable and $k-1$ orientable $1$-handles to $D^4$ and hence it is diffeomorphic to $\natural_{g} D^3 \widetilde{\times} S^1 \natural_{k-1} D^3 \times S^1$, where $D^3 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ denotes the nonorientable $D^3$-bundle over $S^1$. Therefore, we obtain a diffeomorphism between their boundaries $$\#_g S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1
\#_{k-1} S^2 \times S^1 = \partial (\natural_{g} D^3 \widetilde{\times} S^1 \natural_{k-1} D^3 \times S^1) = \partial (D^2\times N_{g,k} ) = OB(N_{g,k}, id).$$
\[prop: lens\] For any $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we have $$OB(K, t_\a^n) = L(|n|, 1) \# S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1.$$ In particular, $OB(K, id) = S^2 \times S^1 \# S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1= \#_2 S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$, and $ OB(K, t^{\pm 1}_\a)= S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1.$
If ${\mathcal{A}}$ denotes the annulus, then it is clear that $K$ can be obtained by the Murasugi sum of ${\mathcal{A}}$ and ${\mathcal{M}}$ as depicted in Figure \[fig: plumb\].
![ $K$ viewed as a Murasugi sum of an annulus ${\mathcal{A}}$ and a Möbius band ${\mathcal{M}}$. []{data-label="fig: plumb"}](plumb)
Note that we have $OB({\mathcal{A}}, t_\a^n) =L(n, n-1)$ for $n \geq 0$ and $OB({\mathcal{A}}, t_\a^n) =L(|n|, 1)$ for $n < 0$, as [*oriented*]{} $3$-manifolds (cf. [@eo Lemma 5.1]). We also have $OB({\mathcal{M}}, id) = S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ by Lemma \[lem: mob\]. Hence, by Proposition \[prop: gabai\], we conclude that $OB(K, t_\a^n) = L(|n|, 1) \# S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ for all $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, since there is an orientation-reversing homeomorphism between the lens spaces $L(n,1)$ and $L(n, n-1)$ for $n >0$.
Infinitely many isomorphic nonorientable open books
===================================================
Stukow [@st] showed that the mapping class group $Map(K)$ has a presentation with two generators: the $Y$-homeomorphism $y$, and the Dehn twist $t_{\a}$ about the two-sided curve $\a$ in Figure \[fig: plumb\], with only one relation: $ t_{\a} y t_{\a} = y.$ It follows that any element of $Map(K)$ can be uniquely expressed as $t_{\a}^m y^n$ for some integers $m, n$.
The homeomorphism $u=t_\a^{-1} y \in Map(K)$ is called a crosscap transposition [@ps].
\[prop: cross\] For $u \in Map(K)$, we have $OB(K, u)= S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1.$
The fundamental group of $OB(K, u)$ based at a point $p \in \partial K$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbb{Z}}$, which can be verified by a calculation similar to the one given in the proof of Theorem \[thm: openb\]. Hence it follows that $OB(K, u)= S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$, as a consequence of the Poincaré conjecture. There is, however, an alternative proof avoiding the use of the Poincaré conjecture as follows: The $3$-manifold $OB(K, u)$ has a (nonorientable) Heegaard splitting of genus two obtained from the genus two open book and Ochiai [@oc] proved that any closed nonorientable $3$-manifold with fundamental group $ \mathbb{Z}$, which admits a Heegaard splitting of genus two, is homeomorphic to $ S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1.$
\[lem: par\] For any $m, n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, the homeomorphism $t_\a^{2m} y^{2n+1} $ is conjugate to $y^{2n+1}$ and the homeomorphism $t_\a^{2m+1} y^{2n+1} $ is conjugate to $uy^{2n}$ in $Map(K)$.
For any $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, using the relation $t_\a y t_\a = y$, we get $$t^{-m}_\a (t_\a^{2m} y) t^{m}_\a = t^{m}_\a y t^{m}_\a = t^{m-1}_\a y t^{m-1}_\a = \cdots = t_\a y t_\a = y .$$ Similarly, for any $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we have $$t_a^{-(m+1)} (t_\a^{2m+1}y) t_\a^{m+1} = t_\a^m y t_\a^{m+1} =\cdots= y t_\a=u.$$ Next, we use the facts that $y^2 = t_\partial$ (the boundary Dehn twist), and $t_\a$ commutes with $t_\partial$, to finish the proof. For any $m, n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we have $$t^{-m}_\a (t_\a^{2m} y^{2n+1}) t^{m}_\a = t^{-m}_\a (t_\a^{2m} y t_\partial^{n}) t^{m}_\a = y t_\partial^{n} = y^{2n+1}.$$ Similarly, $$t^{-(m+1)}_\a (t_\a^{2m+1} y^{2n+1}) t^{m+1}_\a = t^{-(m+1)}_\a (t_\a^{2m} y t_\partial^{n}) t^{m+1}_\a = u t_\partial^{n} = u y^{2n}.$$
\[cor: conj\] For any $m \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, we have
- $OB(K, t_\a^{2m} y )=OB(K, y)= P^2 \times S^1 $, and
- $OB(K, t_\a^{2m+1} y )=OB(K, u)= S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$.
The total spaces of two open books with fixed page are homeomorphic, provided that the monodromies of these open books are conjugate in the mapping class group of the page. Therefore, Corollary \[cor: conj\] follows by combining Theorem \[thm: openb\], Proposition \[prop: cross\], and Lemma \[lem: par\].
The next result immediately follows from Corollary \[cor: conj\].
The product $P^2 \times S^1$ admits infinitely many isomorphic open books with page $K$ whose monodromies $\{t_\a^{2m} y \;| \; m \in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$ are mutually nonisotopic in $Map(K)$. Similarly, $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ admits infinitely many isomorphic open books with page $K$ whose monodromies $\{t_\a^{2m+1} y \;| \; m \in {\mathbb{Z}}\}$ are mutually nonisotopic in $Map(K)$.
Let $\widehat{K}$ denote the (closed) Klein bottle and $ \widehat{K} \widetilde{\times} S^1$ the twisted Klein bottle bundle over $S^1$ with monodromy $t_\a$. Recall that $t_{\partial}$ denotes the boundary Dehn twist in $Map(K)$.
For any $n \in {\mathbb{Z}}$, with $|n| \geq 1$, the $3$-manifold $OB(K, t^{\pm n}_\partial)$ is Seifert fibered over $\widehat{K}$. Moreover, we have $OB(K, t^{\pm 1}_\partial)=\widehat{K} \widetilde{\times} S^1$.
The $\pm n$ surgery on a circle fiber of the bundle $\widehat{K} \times S^1$, yields an open book for the resulting $3$-manifold with page $K$ and monodromy $ t^{\pm n}_\partial$, similar to the orientable case discussed in [@oz]. For $|n| \geq 2$, the resulting nonorientable $3$-manifold admits a Seifert fibration over $\widehat{K}$ with one singular fiber, while for $|n|=1$, it is a circle bundle over $S^1$, which is homeomorphic to $ \widehat{K} \widetilde{\times} S^1$.
Stable equivalence classes of nonorientable open books
======================================================
In the following, we assume that the $3$-manifolds are closed and connected but not necessarily orientable.
A stabilization of an open book is defined as a finite sequence of Hopf plumbings and two open books are called stably equivalent if they have isotopic stabilizations. Every open book on a $3$-manifold induces a Heegaard splitting, where the Heegaard surface is the union of two distinct pages. Moreover, if an open book is stabilized, then the associated Heegaard splitting is also stabilized. Reidemeister and Singer showed that any two Heegaard splittings of a $3$-manifold admit isotopic stabilizations. Consequently, it is natural to ask whether any two open books for a given $3$-manifold are stably equivalent.
Using the celebrated Giroux correspondence between contact structures and open books, as an essential ingredient, Giroux and Goodman [@gg] gave a complete solution to this question in the orientable case: “Two open books for an oriented $3$-manifold admit isotopic stabilizations if and only if their associated oriented plane fields are homologous."
Although there is no contact structure on a [*nonorientable*]{} $3$-manifold, one can still consider an equivalence relation on the set of all open books for a nonorientable $3$-manifold, induced by stabilizations.
Each of $P^2 \times S^1$ and $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ admits a genus one open book and a genus two open book, which are not stably equivalent.
According to [@gps], $P^2 \times S^1$ admits a nonorientable genus one open book whose monodromy is a product of Dehn twists along two-sided curves. On the other hand, as we showed in Theorem \[thm: main\], the monodromy of Klassen’s genus two open book for $P^2 \times S^1$ is the $Y$-homeomorphism of Lickorish. In addition, the monodromy of any stabilization of Klassen’s open book will be the composition of the $Y$-homeomorphism with a product of Dehn twists on two-sided curves. But since a $Y$-homeomorphism cannot be expressed as a product of Dehn twists, we conclude that Klassen’s open book for $P^2 \times S^1$ cannot be in the same stable equivalence class with any open book whose monodromy is a product of Dehn twists, such as those described in [@gps]. Therefore, the aforementioned genus one open book and Klassen’s genus two open book are not stably equivalent.
As we discussed in Lemma \[lem: mob\], there is a genus one open book for $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ with page the Möbius band and monodromy the identity map. On the other hand, by Proposition \[prop: cross\], $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ also admits a genus two open book whose monodromy is the crosscap transposition. Therefore, these two open books cannot be stable equivalent, by an argument similar to that given in the first paragraph of the proof.
Both Klassen’s genus two open book for $P^2 \times S^1$ and the genus two open book for $S^2 \widetilde{\times} S^1$ with monodromy the crosscap transposition cannot be destabilized.
We observe that the genus two open books mentioned in the theorem cannot be obtained by stabilizing a genus one open book, since a $Y$-homeomorphism and hence a crosscap transposition only exist on a nonorientable surface of genus at least two.
We would like to point out that the “only if" part of the Giroux-Goodman theorem holds true for nonorientable $3$-manifolds as well. Note that two oriented plane fields on an orientable $3$-manifold are homologous if and only if they are homotopic outside of a ball. Similar to the orientable case, there is a plane field associated to a nonorientable open book obtained by extending the tangent planes to the pages over the neighborhood of the binding, which is well-defined up to homotopy. Moreover, Hopf plumbing yields an open book that coincides with the original one in the complement of a ball and thus the associated plane field remains the same outside of a ball. We conclude that the associated plane fields of stably equivalent (orientable or nonorientable) open books are homotopic outside of a ball. The proof of the converse direction of the Giroux-Goodman theorem, however, relies heavily on contact geometry using in particular the isotopy classes of contact structures adapted to open books, rather than just the homotopy classes of the associated plane fields. So, it is not immediately clear how to modify the proof for nonorientable $3$-manifolds.
[10]{}
M. Aschenbrenner, S. Friedl, and H. Wilton, *$3$-manifold groups.* EMS Series of Lectures in Mathematics. European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2015.
J. W. Alexander, *A lemma on systems of knotted curves.* Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 9 (1923), 93-95.
I. Berstein and A. L. Edmonds, *On the construction of branched coverings of low-dimensional manifolds.* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 247 (1979), 87-124.
D. B. A. Epstein, *Curves on 2-manifolds and isotopies.* Acta Math. 115 (1966), 83-107.
J. B. Etnyre, *Lectures on open book decompositions and contact structures.* Floer homology, gauge theory, and low-dimensional topology, 103-141, Clay Math. Proc., 5, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2006.
J. B. Etnyre and B. Ozbagci, *Invariants of contact structures from open books.* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 360 (2008), no. 6, 3133-3151.
D. Gabai, *The Murasugi sum is a natural geometric operation.* In *Low-dimensional topology.* (San Francisco, Calif., 1981), 131-143, Contemp. Math., 20, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI (1983).
A. Ghanwat, S. Pandit and A Selvakumar, *Open books for closed nonorientable $3$-manifolds.* Glasg. Math. J. 2019
E. Giroux and N. Goodman, *On the stable equivalence of open books in three-manifolds.* Geom. Topol. 10 (2006), 97-114.
E. Klassen, *An open book decomposition for $\mathbb{R}P^2 \times S^1$.* Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 96 (1986), no. 3, 523-524.
M. Korkmaz, *Mapping class groups of nonorientable surfaces.* Geom. Dedicata 89 (2002), 109-133.
W. B. R. Lickorish, *Homeomorphisms of non-orientable two-manifolds.* Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 59 (1963), 307-317.
M. Ochiai, *$2$-sided embeddings of projective planes into $3$-manifolds.* Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 274 (1982), no. 2, 641-650.
S. Onaran, *Planar open book decompositions of 3-manifolds.* Rocky Mountain J. Math. 44 (2014), no. 5, 1621-1630.
B. Ozbagci, *Explicit horizontal open books on some Seifert fibered 3-manifolds.* Topology Appl. 154 (2007), no. 4, 908-916.
B. Ozbagci and P. Popescu-Pampu, *Generalized plumbings and Murasugi sums.* Arnold Math. J. 2 (2016), no. 1, 69-119.
L. Paris and B. Szepietowski, *A presentation for the mapping class group of a nonorientable surface.* Bull. Soc. Math. France 143 (2015), no. 3, 503-566.
D. Rolfsen, *Knots and links.* Mathematics Lecture Series, No. 7. Publish or Perish, Inc., Berkeley, Calif., 1976.
J. Stallings, *On fibering certain 3-manifolds.* 1962 Topology of 3-manifolds and related topics (Proc. The Univ. of Georgia Institute, 1961) pp. 95-100 Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
M. Stukow, *Dehn twists on nonorientable surfaces.* Fund. Math. 189 (2006), no. 2, 117-147.
[^1]:
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Successful network deployment of the Internet of Things (IoT) requires many critical system design considerations. This paper highlights how an LTE system supporting Cat-M devices can be engineered to deal with the numerous constraints the 3GPP standard imposes for this new device type. Fundamental changes to the control channels, control and data timing relationships, the need to support half-duplexing, and variable repetition lengths pose non-trivial challenges, particularly when attempting to satisfy the critical coverage KPI for Cat-M devices while at the same time preserving the capacity KPI for legacy LTE devices. In addition, the nature of IoT traffic is fundamentally different than legacy LTE data, requiring changes to existing system parameters and MAC algorithms. Finally, we will touch upon the topic of supporting voice over IP traffic on Cat-M devices and the challenges therin.'
author:
-
-
-
title: 'System Design Considerations For Internet Of Things (IoT) With Category-M Devices In LTE Networks'
---
Introduction
============
The internet of things (IoT) buildup is well underway. The number of M$2$M and Narrowband-IoT devices is expected to reach $1$ billion by $2020$ [@statistica_research]. These devices cover a wide range of applications: wearable devices, connected home appliances, remote sensing for utilities and smart cities to name a few. These massive number of devices communicating without human intervention constitute to what is commonly called as machine type communication (MTC) or referred to as IoT. Modern wireless cellular networks such LTE (Long Term Evolution) based on 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) are aptly placed to be an enabler of massive MTC. This is due to its all-inclusive-all-IP (internet protocol) architecture, built in security, scalable traffic management capabilities and high spectral efficiencies. The traffic profile and requirement of IoT differs vastly from that of traditional mobile devices already supported in LTE cellular networks. Key differences include smaller traffic packet sizes and massive number of such devices. To support this change, $3$GPP standards have been enhanced with new features. See [@alberto; @36_888] for a detailed coverage of the added features.
As we will show, the unique characteristics of IoT devices pose challenges to system design. In this paper, we focus on system design considerations of IoT devices and present some insights into performance based on our simulation results specifically focusing on the CaT-M feature within LTE standards.
Inputs to System Design and Challenges
======================================
There are $3$ main inputs to consider while considering LTE system design support for MTC devices:
1. [Requirements when MTC devices are introduced into the system]{}
2. [Constraints imposed by $3$GPP]{}
3. [New MTC specific features provided by $3$GPP standards]{}
It is important to understand each of the above points before delving into the system design aspects as it will be evident that there are trade-offs to be considered.
Requirements
------------
MTC devices have the following set of requirements:
- [The system should be able to support a massive number of MTC devices. As explained above the number of MTC is expected to jump significantly from the current levels.]{}
- [Introduction of MTC devices into the system should have minimum impact on the operation of legacy devices. Current users expect the quality of service (QoS) to be maintained for the traditional voice and data calls while having access to new MTC related services.]{}
- [MTC devices have a low cost.]{}
- [MTC devices meet appropriate performance targets for each use case. One of the key requirements is enhanced coverage [@alberto] compared to legacy devices. For example, a sensor in the basement of a home monitoring utility use should be able to transmit its reports to a nearby base station by overcoming the associated penetration losses. In another use case where the goal is to support VoIP services, meeting latency requirements also becomes important.]{}
Constraints
-----------
$3$GPP imposes the following key constraints for support of MTC devices in a LTE systems:
- [Half-duplexing]{}
- [Reduced operating bandwidth]{}
- [Reduced maximum transmit power]{}
- [Limit number of radio frequency chains to $1$.]{}
All of the above constraints were introduced for Category $0$ UEs and were extended to also apply to MTC devices with the goal of meeting the “low cost” requirement of MTC devices. There are also a few new features introduced by $3$GPP, which we will discuss later, which will allow lowering the cost further.
Challenges
----------
Some of the key challenges experienced while introducing MTC devices into an LTE system are as follows:
- [It can be observed that while the one of the key requirements is enhanced coverage, the constraint of reduced maximum transmit power makes achieving this more difficult. ]{}
- [Although MTC devices are allocated a small fraction of the bandwidth, minimizing impact on the performance of legacy devices is another challenge given that a massive number of such MTC devices need to be supported.]{}
- [Finally if any latency sensitive services (such as VoIP) are to be supported, then half-duplexing hinders the latency objectives.]{}
We will discuss in more details some of above challenges in a later section.
New features
------------
$3$GPP introduced in Release $13$ new features [@alberto] to enable MTC devices in LTE systems. The key ones are are follows:
- [Narrowband operation: $3$GPP standards allows a MTC device to monitor and process a narrow bandwidth ($1.4$MHz for Cat.M$1$ and $200$KHz for Cat.NB$1$) within the available bandwidth;]{}
- [Rel $13$ introduced a mechanism of repetition (upto $256$) for MTC devices which is similar to transmission time interval (TTI) bundling in Rel $8$ (up to $4$ repeats) intended for voice over IP (VoIP) packets where consecutive TTIs are used to transmit the same packet. ]{}
System Design Guidelines
========================
In this section, we will discuss in more detail the different aspects of the system design to support Cat-M devices.
Narrowband location
-------------------
The location of the narrow bandwidth used for MTC devices and the alignment of this bandwidth with resource block groups (RBGs) used by the scheduler for legacy traffic is important. For example, Figure \[fig\_narrowband\] illustrates the location of narrowbands for $10$MHz. Note that RBG0-15 has 3 PRBs while RBG 16 only has 2 PRBs. Standards requires that MTC devices are allocated $6$ consecutive PRBs which are illustrated as any one of NB$0$ through NB$7$. If we use any of NB$0$ through NB$6$, then a total of $9$ PRB cannot be used for RBG allocation. However, if we use NB$7$, fewer PRBs ($8$) cannot be used for RBG allocation.
![Narrowband reservation for CaT-M devices[]{data-label="fig_narrowband"}](narrowband.png){height="20mm" width="90mm"}
Repetitions and HARQ
--------------------
The hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) transmissions feature has been available in legacy LTE systems while repetitions were introduced in later releases for MTC devices. Both have their benefits and drawbacks.
With HARQ, to improve the coverage, a large number of retransmission may be required. This will consume extra resource on control channel due to the grant and feedback acknowledgment. Further, the half duplexing nature of the Cat-M devices leads to large latencies and makes scheduling multiple HARQ more challenging. The benefit of HARQ is that it is adaptive i.e. there will not be additional transmissions if the packet is successfully decoded at the receiver. Using repetitions for MTC devices uses fewer control resources and does not suffer as much from latency issues compared to using HARQ. However, repetition sizes are fixed once tranmissions for a packet begins resulting in less flexibility.
Dormancy Timer and DRX setting impact on RACH
---------------------------------------------
Since MTC devices are expected to carry very small amounts of data for each device (unlike legacy devices), frequent random access channel (RACH) requests will result in increased overhead especially if large repetitions are required to enhance RACH coverage. While there is no control on the number of initial RACH access requests, proper setting of dormancy time and DRX cycles can provide a good balance between subsequent RACH overhead and UE battery savings.
The dormancy timer aims to remove the radio resource control (RRC) connection of the UE device from the evolved Node B (eNB) and thus, once it has new data to transmit or receive, it has to go through the RACH process again with the benefit of saving more UE battery. DRX, on the other hand, maintains the UE’s Radio Resource Control (RRC) connection and avoids the RACH procedure. It saves battery by turning off some portion of the radio frequency chain during the DRX off cycle and wakes up periodically to monitor the resource allocation. If there are only very small and infrequent packets sent/received by Cat-M devices, setting a smaller dormancy timer may be more desirable than configuring a DRX on/off pattern.
Channel State Information (CSI) and Scheduling Request (SR)
-----------------------------------------------------------
In legacy LTE systems, one mechanism for eNB to acquire downlink channel statistics of UEs is through channel quality indicator (CQI) reporting. However Cat-M devices due to the constraint of half duplexing, during the TTIs that a UE reports CQI on uplink control channel (PUCCH), this UE will not be eligible to receive any information on the downlink data and control channels. This will impact downlink throughput, especially when PUCCH has to use a large number of repetitions in a coverage limited scenario. There is a similar impact when the UE reports SR on PUCCH. Thus it may be better to configure either a relatively large CQI period to reduce downlink impact or use aperiodic CQI multiplexed with uplink data to reduce grant impact.
HARQ process management
-----------------------
Like legacy LTE devices, Cat-M devices can support multiple HARQ process at the same time independently but are subject to the constraints of half-duplexing which limits the number of HARQ processes. For example, Figure \[fig\_harq\_timing\] shows that due to the constraints and configured repetition lengths (RLi=1), in UL a maximum of $3$ HARQ processes only may be possible if the goal is to have HARQ transmissions every $8$ms.
![HARQ Timing[]{data-label="fig_harq_timing"}](harq_timing.png){height="30mm" width="80mm"}
Grant Channel (MPDCCH) Configuration
------------------------------------
In legacy LTE, the maximum aggregation level (AGL) of PDCCH is $8$ while it has been increased to $24$ for Cat-M devices. As a result, the number of grants that can be supported per TTI is smaller. Thus, there is a trade off of coverage of MPDCCH and the number of grants can be sent per TTI. For example if a high AGL (e.g. $24$) is used for a coverage limited UE, only one user can be served in a given TTI either in the uplink or downlink direction.
Use of Closed Loop Algorithms
-----------------------------
As illustrated in [@36_888], the traffic pattern of Cat-M is very unique in the sense that Cat-M devices wake up very infrequently and then send/receive a very small amount of data. As such, Cat-M devices are expected to wake from RRC IDLE state when new data arrives and as a result it is very difficult for any closed loop algorithms to converge and so open loop algorithms may suffice.
Results
=======
In this section, we present some sample simulation results aimed at providing insight into how system design and configuration can affect performance of MTC devices.
Assumptions and Simulation Tool
-------------------------------
We focus here on the use case where MTC devices are being served using the Cat.M$1$ feature support in LTE. Further it is assumed here that $1.4$MHz bandwidth is allocated and is at a fixed location. Table \[table\_assump\] lists some of key assumptions that are applicable to the results discussed.
[**Parameter**]{} [**Assumption**]{}
--------------------------- -------------------------------------------------
Frequency Bands $2$GHz
Macro inter-site distance $500$m
Shadow model Shadow fading std. dev = $8$ dB
Cat-M UE traffic $1$K bits, mean/min reading time = $10$s/$2.5$s
Dormancy timer $2$ seconds
Fading Channel ETU $3$km/hr
Macro eNB antenna $17$ dBi gain
Vertical pattern: $10^{\circ}$@$3$dB beamwidth
SLA = $20$ dB, downtilt =$15^{\circ}$
Body and cable loss $1$ dB (data terminal)
Mobile antenna Omnidirection; -3 dBi gain
eNB Tx power $2 \times 20$W
: Assumptions For Simulation Results[]{data-label="table_assump"}
The results presented in this section were generated using a C++ system level simulator, based on $3$GPP LTE standard, which can simulate a multi-eNB layout including effects of the wireless fading channel, propagation environment and antennas. Algorithm focus is on the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer and specifically on scheduling and HARQ management. The physical layer is abstracted (to reduce simulation run time) and the simulator supports both legacy LTE devices and CaT-M devices. For the traffic profile, full buffer, VoIP and burst traffic profiles are supported. Key performance metrics such as throughputs, latencies and statistics on Signal to noise ratio (SINR), resource consumption, number of retransmission and errors rates are available for analysis from the simulator.
Impact of repetition length (RL)
--------------------------------
We consider here the sensitivity of performance to varying the RL for a single user with burst traffic. We keep the RL of MPDCCH and PUCCH fixed at $4$ and $8$ respectively, while the RL of downlink shared channel (PDSCH) is varied. It can be observed in Figure \[fig\_rep\_burst\] that increasing the RL for cell edge users definitely improves the user experienced throughput while for near cell users which have a good SINR, using a smaller repetition number makes more sense.
![Impact of Repetition on User Traffic For Bursty Traffic[]{data-label="fig_rep_burst"}](repetition_impact_on_burst_tp.png){height="50mm" width="80mm"}
Link Adaptation and Power Control
---------------------------------
Figures $4$A shows that the performance is insensitive to the initial block error rate (BLER) setting (e.g. $10$%) and step size chosen (slow implies a small step size). Similarly Figure $4$B shows that closed loop power control (CLPC) provides no benefit compared to the open loop (OLPC) case. In both these cases, the average time between packets is in seconds as a result of which the MTC device transmits only $1$ measurement and then goes back to “sleep” and there is no time for any convergence.
Figure $4$C highlights the importance of setting the correct OLPC setpoint. A lower set point allows multiple PRBs to be used which lowers the code rate and results in improved performance. Finally, Figure $4$D shows the importance of setting the initial modulation and coding scheme (MCS) on coverage.
Note that if the traffic pattern of CaT-M devices changes (for e.g. VoIP), the system should be designed so that link adaptation and power control will improve performance.
![MTC Performance Sensitivity to Design Parameters (uplink, packet size = $1000$bits)[]{data-label="fig_sensitivity"}](sensitivity_to_design.png){height="80mm" width="80mm"}
Coverage, Latency and Interference
----------------------------------
Coverage is expected to be one of the key metrics for MTC devices and maximizing this will drive system design. MTC devices in coverage limited locations are expected to be transmitting at their maximum power. With this resource exhausted, the transport block sizes allocated will impact coverage . Revisiting Figure $4$D, we can observe the sensitivity of coverage to transport block size (TBS) assignment for a packet size of $1000$ bits. Coverage here is defined as the maximum path loss at which residual BLER is below $2$%. Overall a smaller packet size provides the best coverage performance which may suffice for most MTC applications which are not expected to be time critical.
Interference management is expected to play a key role in being able to meet the coverage requirement. One option is to reserve a narrow bandwidth solely for MTC devices in which case the interference can be low. However, if this region is used to support VoIP traffic, the interference could begin to creep up. Another option is to simply share the resources with legacy LTE devices in which case the interference levels could be quite high and meeting coverage requirements of MTC devices could become more challenging. Therefore, a system design consideration could be to consider doing some inter-cell frequency planning to ensure low interference on the reserved MTC narrowbands, which of course comes at the cost of capacity to the legacy LTE devices.
VoIP support using MTC devices
==============================
Supporting voice calls on CaT-M devices (for e.g. wearables) may be very desirable. There will now be constraints on delay on top of the coverage requirements that apply to MTC devices. In this section, we look at different aspects of system design affecting both coverage and latency for VoIP support using CatM devices.
![VoIP scheduling illustration[]{data-label="fig_voip"}](voip.png){height="40mm" width="90mm"}
Repetition Length, Packet Aggregation and Segmentation
------------------------------------------------------
Larger RL for VoIP transmissions will increase the per link coverage but will also result in longer overall time duration for one HARQ transmission as illustrated in Figure \[fig\_voip\]. For the configured RLs, only $2$ HARQ transmissions can complete within $40$ms. As VoIP packets arrive with a fixed pattern (every 20ms at talk spurt and 160ms at silent period), in order to meet delay budgets, a larger RL implies that we may have to aggregate more VoIP packets within one HARQ transmission which requires a larger TBS. The gain achieved by the extra repetition may be offset by the lower decoding efficiency of the enlarged TBS as illustrated in Table \[table\_mcl\] which shows this effect. For a given delay budget of $200$ms, we see the supported MCL (maximum coupling loss) first increasing with higher RL but then gets worse as the RL is further increased. Thus, there is a balance between increasing the repetition number and TBS increasing.
Segmentation is generally used in legacy VoLTE to extend the coverage. However, in the case of Cat-M, again due to the timing constraints caused by half duplexing, it is challenging to transmit multiple HARQ process at the same time especially when we use larger repetition numbers. If we segment a VoIP packets into multiple small segments, the coverage for each segment becomes better but the overall delay could be quite large.
[**PUSCH repetition**]{} [**MCL**]{}
-------------------------- -------------
$8$ $138$
$16$ $140$
$32$ $138$
: Impact Of Repetition On Coverage[]{data-label="table_mcl"}
Impact of iBLER selection and SID packets
-----------------------------------------
In legacy LTE systems, a $10$% iBLER target is generally used. A lower iBLER target (for example to $5$%), will reduce the HARQ retransmission probability but will require more repetitions to support the same TBS at the same SINR. Thus, it is a trade-off between more HARQ versus repetition. As also discussed in [@volte], using HARQ retransmission can achieve higher coverage than without HARQ retransmission and very large repetition. The best combination of iBLER target and RL needs further study.
In a typical voice conversation between $2$ users, during a talk spurt of one user, there will be silence insertion descriptor (SID) packets sent by the other user. Thus, this user has a voice packet to transmit at the same time it has to receive SID packets which is not allowed due to half duplexing. This makes the VoIP scheduling more challenging. Another difficulty is that we may not be able to use the same fixed TBS for VoIP packets anymore as SID packets happen less frequently compared with voice packets and whenever SID packets arrive, more aggregation of voice packets will happen.
Conclusions
===========
We have outlined the numerous system design aspects which must be considered to successfully deploy an LTE network supporting CaT-M MTC devices. The numerous constraints as well as additional coverage/power-saving features the $3$GPP standard has included for such devices poses significant challenges in integrating support for such devices in an LTE network while minimizing the KPI impact to existing smartphone and other high performance data-centric devices. It has been shown that careful selection of system parameters such as the Cat-M dormancy timer, the number of HARQ transmissions and repetition factor involves many different tradeoffs, particularly between coverage and latency and also the capacity impact to the legacy LTE network. We have demonstrated that link adaptation features such as closed loop rate control and closed loop power control need to be revisited based on the nature of MTC traffic. It is important to highlight such considerations so that an operator can tailor the parameters and scheduler design aspects to achieve the desired trade-offs inherent in introducing MTC devices into an existing LTE network.
[1]{}
https://www.statista.com/statistics/671216/global-m2m-and-nb-iot-connections-forecast. Accessed on Sept 23, 2018.
A. M. Maia, D. Vieira†, M. F. de Castro, Y. Ghamri-Doudane, *A Mechanism for Uplink Packet Scheduler in LTE Network in the Context of Machine-to-Machine Communication*, Globecom 2014.
A. Rico-Alvariño, M. Vajapeyam, H. Xu, X. Wang, Y. Blankenship, J. Bergman, T. Tirronen, and E. Yavuz , *An overview of 3GPP enhancements for machine to machine communications*, IEEE Communications magazine, 2016.
J. Jermyn, R. Piqueras Jovery, I. Murynetsy, M. Istominy and S. Stolfo, *Scalability of Machine to Machine systems and theInternet of Things on LTE mobile networks*, IEEE, 2015
E. Soltanmohammadi, K. Ghavami, M. Naraghi-Pour, *A Survey of Traffic Issues in Machine-to-Machine Communications over LTE*, IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 2015
36.888, *Study on provision of low-cost Machine-Type Communications (MTC) User Equipments (UEs) based on LTE*, version 12.0.0, 3GPP Specifications. R1-1610395 VoLTE enhancements, 3GPP RAN1\#86-BIS
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Very recently, PAMELA Collaboration has formally reported two sets of data on positron and antiproton flux measurements done at very high energies and with unprecedented accuracy. The reports reveal a puzzle of great topical interest and importance : it is decisively found that there is a sharp smooth rise of the positron fraction, whereas for antiproton production no such rises occur; rather the fraction either flattens, or shows signs of falling off gradually with increasing energies. The present work is just an attempt to decipher the riddle with the help of a host of radically new ideas about the particle-structure, the multiparticle-production mechanisms and the concept of nucleon break-downs into the constituent partons. The application of these ideas found remarkable successes in the past; exactly similar or more striking are the findings by the present study.
Keywords: Cosmic-ray interactions with the Earth, Positron emission, Cosmic-rays high energy interactions, Dark Matter.\
PACS nos.: 94.94., 79.20.Mb., 13.85.Tp., 95.35.+d.
author:
- |
Goutam Sau$^1$[^1], S. K. Biswas$^2$[^2]$\&$ S. Bhattacharyya$^3$[^3]\
[$^1$ Beramara RamChandrapur High School,]{}\
[South 24-Pgs,743609(WB),India.]{}\
[$^2$ West Kodalia Adarsha Siksha Sadan, New Barrackpore,]{}\
[Kolkata-700131, India.]{}\
[$^3$ Physics and Applied Mathematics Unit(PAMU),]{}\
[Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata - 700108, India.]{}
title: 'Paradigm Shifts and a Possible Resolution of the PAMELA-Paradox in Astroparticle Physics.'
---
=currsize
=currsize
Introduction and Background :
=============================
Since the end of October 2008, there has been a tremendous surge of interest and excitement, and then a consequent flurry of activity among the astroparticle and high energy physicists. The two works that shook the world of Astroparticle and Cosmic Ray physics in the last one fortnight are the startling revelations made by Adriani et al in two consecutive reports[@Adriani1; @Adriani2] : (i) The PAMELA satellite experiment by Adriani et al[@Adriani1] observed and convincingly demonstrated a sharply rising ratio of the positron flux measurements upto the studied 10-100GeV range of (secondary) energy; (ii) conversely, the findings on the antiproton-to-proton flux showed no such similar behaviour; rather the ratio-values showed strong tendencies of flattening in the range of 80-100GeV secondary energy[@Adriani2]. This striking contrast in the nature of antiparticle-to-particle ratios poses a serious puzzle to the theorists and occupies the centre-stage of astroparticle physics domain today, stimulating more than two dozens of works within a very very short span [@Hamed1]-[@Huh1]. In fact, some previous studies[@Brun1; @Picozza1] had already given very careful but strong hints to the possibilities of such discoveries finally reported only very recently, for which the paradox, once formally reported, instantly caught such a large number of physicists to a feverish pitch compelling them to act.
In the domain of astroparticle physics, particularly with regard to the studies on dark matter (DM) and the weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), searches for antimatter cosmic rays comprising positrons and antiprotons constitute a very important corner. Generically, the spectra of both positrons and antiprotons are expected to fall with increasing energy, relative to the corresponding matter particles which are here obviously electrons and protons respectively. Any deviation from such standard expectations might be a strong indication of any new primary cosmic rays[@Serpico1; @Cholis1]. In fact, such discoveries might unravel new windows to the physics of dark matter (DM) and/or provide valuable clues to the sources of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays, both of which are still thoroughly unknown. These factors explain the reasons for being drawn to such intense activities by the physicists on the issue in question which really remains an enigma to the adherents of the Standard Models (SMs) in High Energy Physics, Astroparticle Physics and Cosmology, with all their ramifications and interconnectedness.
In the present work here we will concentrate on understanding the nature of the positron flux ratio alone in the light of some non-standard ideas, hypotheses and ansatzs about the structure of particles, the mechanism for particle interactions and finally the mode of multiple production of hadrons. Very interestingly, the other ratio of $\overline{P}/P$ turns, in the light of the model(s) applied here, to a non-issue. Because, there is an exclusivity on the production of positrons arising out of the putatively novel concepts about the structure of hadrons. This helps us to obtain with some non-standard additional and asymmetric sources for $e^+$-production whereas, for the antiprotons no such asymmetric source exists.
Before digressing, at the very outset, we would like to make a few comments. Most surprisingly, the results are no wonder to us; because we had appreciated and emphasised[@Bhattacharyya1]-[@Bhattacharyya3] the importance and impact of such similar findings through a published work roughly twenty years ago[@Bhattacharyya1] in a chain of related works; based entirely on the same new paradigms which are outlined in the next section in some detail. The present work is just the resurrection of some of our past works[@Bhattacharyya1]-[@Bhattacharyya3] with the latest and newly obtained data from PAMELA collaboration. So neither we build up any new model nor we refurbish the old model. We simply apply an old model built up by one of the authers (SB) to explain the characteristics of the new data produced by PAMELA collaboration on excess production of positrons. By way, PAMELA is the acronym for “Payload for Antimatter-Matter Exploration and Light-nuclei Astrophysics"[@Barger1].
Paradigm Shifts : Brief Outlines
================================
\(i) In the realm of Particle Physics we would introduce the concept integer-charged partonic constituents for hadrons (both mesons and baryons) with an old five-parton model. And the partons, from the viewpoint of these radical works[@Bhattacharyya4]-[@Bhattacharyya5] are identified to be the muonic leptons like positively and negatively charged muons and the muonic neutrinos. So, borrowing the phrase from Baek and Ko[@Baek1], the hadrostructures here are really ‘leptophilic’ or, more precisely, ‘muonophilic’. The details are to be obtained from the works by one of us (SB)[@Bhattacharyya4] and the references therein.
\(ii) In the fields of Astroparticle and Cosmic Ray phenomena we introduced the concept of nucleon-breaking mechanism, while the ultra high energy cosmic rays pass through and collide with intergalactic medium consisting of various light nuclei in highly energised states. This concept is entirely different from the ideas of proton- or neutron-decay. In fact, our previous studies on the nature of positron spectrum and estimation of positron flux fractions were based on these two sets of new ideas which mark a radical departure from the Standard Model(SM)-based points of view.
\(iii) Our approach to the studies on this particular problem of excess production of positron fractions pertains in no way to the existence or annihilation of cosmological dark matter(DM)[@Steffen1] - cold or hot, with spin zero, unity or else. Nor the little Higgs scalars are of any concern to us.
\(iv) Besides, none of the Standard Model-related ideas like weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs), supersymmetric particles (SPs) or supersymmetry, for that matter, and the Kaluza-Klein particles in extra dimensions would be our concern here.
\(v) Regarding our choice on the propagation model for the ultra high energy cosmic rays we will avoid the complicated ones and accept the simplest and most commonly used model, called Simple Leaky Box Model (SLBM).
The Excess Positron Fraction : The Masterformula and The Results
=================================================================
Based on the above-stated assumptions, ansatzs and arguments, we deduced roughly two decades ago the formula for excess production of positrons in one of our previous works[@Bhattacharyya1]-[@Bhattacharyya3]. So, in order to prevent the repetitive presentations of the same calculational steps, we will simply extract[@Bhattacharyya1] for our present purpose the final working expression therefrom given below.
The standard sources for electrons and positrons are given by
$\pi^-$ $\rightarrow$ $\mu^-$ $\rightarrow$ $e^-$
$\pi^+$ $\rightarrow$ $\mu^+$ $\rightarrow$ $e^+$
where the pions shown here are the secondaries abundantly produced in nature by multiple production of hadrons known as multiparticle phenomena. Similarly, secondary protons and antiprotons are also produced by multiparticle mechanism. In fact, this is the only method for production of the proton-antiprotons.
As stated above, the standard source of cosmic electron production is the normal route of negatively charged pion-decays, where pions of all varieties are produced by multiple production of hadron mechanism. There is no other extraneous source of electron production. But for production of cosmic ray positrons the additional, exotic and non-standard source is the proposed nucleon-breaking mechanism with positive muons residing inside the structure of protons as its constituents. Through the proposed proton-breaking mechanism supposed to be operational only at superhigh energies positive muons are set free, which then could produce positrons through their normal decay channel. These twin (standard and non-standard) sources contribute to the positrons. The model- based final expression for positron fraction, defined as the ratio of the total flux over total electron plus positron flux, is given by[@Bhattacharyya1] $$\frac{\phi_{e^+}}{\phi_{e^+}+\phi_{e^-}}=\frac{1}{2+C'E^{0.5}_{e^+}\sin^2\theta_{cut}}+\beta E^{0.5}_{e^+}$$ where $C'$ is a parameter related to the physics of proton-breaking mechanism, $\theta_{cut}$ is the cut-off angle of emission or detection of the positrons with the vertical. In the experiments by Adriani et al the cut-off angle is not precisely mentioned for which we have calculated for both small-angle $(0-10^{0})$(Fig.1) and large-angle (Fig.2) emissions of the positrons. $\beta$ is a parameter which is to be chosen by the methods of fitting the data. We have maintained the same value $\beta$ for both small-angle and large-angle scattering. The parameter values are given in Table-1 and Table-2.
$\theta_{cut}$ $c'$ $\beta$ $\frac{\chi^2}{ndf}$
---------------- --------------------- ------------------ ----------------------
$3^{o}$ $5417.46\pm 56.45$ $0.011\pm0.0002$ $4.775/11$
$5^{o}$ $1904.63 \pm 18.13$ $0.011\pm0.0002$ $4.242/11$
$7^{o}$ $968.567 \pm 9.219$ $0.011\pm0.0002$ $4.242/11$
$ 10^{o}$ $472.714 \pm 4.592$ $0.011\pm0.0002$ $3.271/10$
: Chosen numerical values of the fit parameters in the expression for the positron fraction\[with small-angle emission\].
The results based on the calculations are presented only by graphical plots,\[Fig.1 and Fig.2\] alongwith the two adjoining Tables \[Table-1 and Table-2\] which provide the necessary parameter values. The results are controlled and dominated by the second factor, power-law based term in the final expression. In the data-analysis at ultrahigh energies the first term plays no significant role. And so the results virtually grow independence of the angle of emission.
$\theta_{cut}$ $c'$ $\beta$ $\frac{\chi^2}{ndf}$
---------------- -------------------- ------------------ ----------------------
$30^{o}$ $57.248\pm 0.0556$ $0.011\pm0.0002$ $3.271/10$
$45^{o}$ $28.632 \pm 0.278$ $0.011\pm0.0002$ $3.271/10$
$60^{o}$ $19.223 \pm 0.183$ $0.011\pm0.0002$ $4.242/11$
$ 90^{o}$ $14.312 \pm 0.139$ $0.011\pm0.0002$ $3.271/10$
: Chosen numerical values of the fit parameters in the expression for the positron fraction\[with large-angle emission\].
Summary and Conclusions :
=========================
The excellent agreement between the measurements and our model-based results are quite evident in all the cases of assumed both small-angle or large-angle emissions of the positrons in the PAMELA experiment. So the anomaly is resolved by virtue of the calculations done on the basis of the conjectures made here which mark a radical departure from the conventional set-patterns of ideas and the fixed standard beliefs. By the same token of argumentative points entailed in the new paradigm we also predict here the detection of the excess of cosmic muon neutrinos and antineutrinos at very very high energies due to the breaking of the nucleons by the cosmic spallation process in the integergalactic space.
The muon charge ratios at very high cosmic ray energies depict normally a very slowly rising nature. Had the muons been not very decay-prone, it would also have met the similar nature arising out of the same nucleon-breaking mechanism. In any case, both the $\mu^+/\mu^-$ and $e^+/e^-$ ratios rise with energy at very high cosmic ray energies. This illustrates and manifests one important aspect of the muon-electron universality property : Our success in interpreting the PAMELA-data reinforces our dependence on models different form the Standard Model(s) in the Particle Physics and the related fields, as the entire edifice of the present work is based on the rejection of the Standard Model which is artificial and thoroughly questionable from the very start. However, some other comments are in order here for the sake of completeness and totality. (i) The electron-positrons are charged particles. We have, however, neglected here the complications of path-deflections suffered by the charged positrons or electrons arising out of the earth’s magnetic field. It is to be stressed upon that the mechanism suggested here plugs automatically the parallel expectations for the cases of antiprotons, as the nucleon-(or, proton-)breaking mechanism can and does in no way give rise to any excess production of antiprotons. (ii) As it is a ratio, the systematic uncertainties in the data are cancelled; that also allows the cancellation of the solar activity. In reality solar modulations could arise from the phase of the solar cycle and also from the opposite charges of electrons and positrons. But the fact is we do not include these probable disturbing effects in order to escape initially the complications contributing to some very minor effects with no significant numerical values.
However, the model we apply here takes care of the experimental data quite well and successfully solves the anomaly evinced by the adjoining figures, without assuming, however, the role of pulsars, the dark matter annihilations or taking into account some other phenomena evolved from the Standard Model(SM)-based points of view. And the conclusion derived from this work is in perfect accord with what is maintained by Morselli and Moskalenko[@Morselli1] that the excesses imply a source, conventional or exotic, of additional leptonic component, especially of the positive variety. And this obviously causes a distantiation from the viewpoints expressed by Chen et al[@Chen1].
[**NOTE ADDED :** ]{}
After the completion of our present work on PAMELA-Paradox, our attention was drawn by a scientific colleague to a very important report[@Butt1] and to a few papers[@Chang1; @Aharonian1] with some concrete findings. The report by Butt[@Butt1] is an exceptionally brilliant one for its unbiasedness or open-mindedness and near-perfect objectivity. The bump observed by the ATIC collaboration is not to be electron-specific; side by side with the signature-electrons, the positrons are also to be produced in roughly equal measure, as was expressly maintained by Butt[@Butt1], if Kaluza-Klein(KK) WIMPs are their progenitor. But the ATIC measurements[@Chang1] were singularly aimed at studying the electrons alone. So, unless the positrons are measured under the same or similar circumstances by these groups[@Chang1; @Aharonian1], no definitive comment on the status of KK WIMPs is possible. In this context, another comment is yet in order. The measurements by Aharonian et al[@Aharonian1] for detection of cosmic ray electrons at energies beyond 600GeV do not report very clearly, such excesses, as is indicated by Chang et al [@Chang1]. This, therefore, tacitly and indirectly puts a question mark to the measurements of Chang et al until further scrutiny.
Besides, there are a few sharp differences between the two sets of studies\[PAMELA, HEAT etc. on the one side, and ATIC, HESS etc., on the other\], for which a comparison of the two sets of findings might not be quite significant. Firstly, the studies by PAMELA Collaboration concentrate uniquely on the studies of cosmic antiparticles like positron(s) and antiproton(s), whereas both the ATIC and the HESS Collaborations measure only electron spectrum at much higher energies; they did not report on the measure of corresponding antiparticle production scenario. Secondly, the energy-ranges of the two sets of experiments are grossly different. So the studies on the excess production of cosmic electrons alone at much higher energies do not disturb the pivot of our present work on PAMELA- paradox. Unless ATIC and HESS Collaborations study and report pointedly on the nature of positron and antiproton productions at the same energy-range and under the stringently same experimental conditions we see no tangible reason to redefine our attitude and reconsider our outlook. However, if asymmetric excess electron production alone is repeatedly reported and confirmed, only then we will have to investigate in to some exotic sources or nor-yet-proposed-or-known mechanism for cosmic electron production. So for the present, we are still not in favour of attaching too much importance to the hypothesis of dark matter or the postulates Kaluza-Klein(KK) WIMPs.
[**Acknowledgements :**]{} The authors express their thankful gratitude to an anonymous Referee for some encouraging remarks and helpful comments.
[\*]{} O.Adriani et al : astro-ph/0810.4995 v1 28 October 2008. O.Adriani et al : astro-ph/0810.4994 v1 28 October 2008. N. Arkani-Hamed, D.P.Finkbeiner, T.Slatyer and N.Weiner, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.0713. N. Arkani-Hamed and N.Weiner, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.0714. D.P.Finkbeiner, T.Slatyer and N.Weiner, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.0722. M.Pospelov and A.Ritz, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.1502. D.Hooper, P.Blasi and P.D.Serpico, arXiv : astro-ph/0810.1527. J.Hisano, M.Kawasaki, K.Kohri and K.Nakayama, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.1892. H.Yuksel, M.D.Kistler and T.Stanev, arXiv : astro-ph/0810.2784. M.Kamionkowski and S.Profumo, arXiv : astro-ph/0810.3233. M.Boezio et al., arXiv : astro-ph/0810.3508. M.Masip and I.Mastromatteo, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.4468. S.Khalil and H.Okada, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.4573. P.D.Serpico, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.4846. A.E.Nelson and C.Spitzer, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.5167. F.Donato, D.Maurin, P.Brun, T.Delahaye and P.Salati, arXiv : astro-ph/0810.5292. I.Cholis, D.P.Finkbeiner, L.Goodenough and N.Weiner, arXiv : astro-ph/0810.5344. Y.Nomura and J.Thaler, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.5397. R.Harnik and G.D.Kribs, arXiv : hep-ph/0810.5557. T.Hambye, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.0172. P.f.Yin, Q.Yuan, J.Liu, J.Zhang, X.j.Bi and S.h.Zhu, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.0176. K.Ishiwata, S.Matsumoto and T.Moroi, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.0250. Y.Bei and Z.Han, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.0387. P.J.Fox and E.Poppitz, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.0399. C.R.Chen, F.Takahashi and T.T.Yanagida, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.0477. K.Hamaguchi, E.Nakamura, S.Shirai and T.T.Yanagida, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.0737. E.Ponton and L.Randall, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.1029. A.Ibarra and D.Tran, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.1555. L.Bergstrom, T.Bringmann and J.Edsjo, arXiv : astro-ph/0808.3725. M.Cirelli and A.Strumia, arXiv : astro-ph/0808.3867. V.Barger, W.Y.Keung, D.Marfatia and G.Shaughnessy, arXiv : hep-ph/0809.0162. I.Cholis, L.Goodgnough, D.Hooper, M.Simet and N.Weiner, arXiv : hep-ph/0809.1683. J.H.Huh, J.E.Kim and B.Kyae, arXiv : hep-ph/0809.2601. P.Brun et al : Phy. Rev. [**D 76**]{} (2007) 083506. P.Picozza et al : Astro. Part. Phys. [**27**]{} (2007) 296. S.Bhattacharrya : IL Nuovo Cimento [**C 10**]{} (1987) 669. S.Bhattacharrya : IL Nuovo Cimento [**C 10**]{} (1987) 209. S.Bhattacharrya and P.Pal : IL Nuovo Cimento [**C 10**]{} (1987) 227. S.Bhattacharyya : J. Phys. [**G 14**]{} (1988) 9. P.Bandyopadhyay, R.K.Roychowdhury and S.Bhattacharyya : Phys. Rev. [**D 21**]{} (1980) 1861. P.Bandyopadhyay and S.Bhattacharyya : IL Nuovo Cimento [**A 43**]{} (1978) 305. P.Bandyopadhyay and S.Bhattacharyya : IL Nuovo Cimento [**A 43**]{} (1978) 323. P.Bandyopadhyay, S.Bhattacharyya, R.K.Roychowdhury and D.P.Bhattacharyya : IL Nuovo Cimento [**A 50**]{} (1979) 133. P.Bandyopadhyay and S.Bhattacharyya : Lett. Nuovo Cimento [**17**]{} (1976) 393. P.Bandyopadhyay and S.Bhattacharyya : Lett. Nuovo Cimento [**17**]{} (1976) 399. P.Bandyopadhyay and S.Bhattacharyya : Hadronic Journal [**7**]{} (1984) 313. S.Baek and P.Ko, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.1646. F.D.Steffen, arXiv : hep-ph/0811.3347. A.Morselli and I.V.Moskalenko, arXiv : astro-ph/0811.3526. C.R.Chen, F.Takahashi and T.T.Yanagida, arXiv : astro-ph/0811.3357. Y.M.Butt : Nature [**456**]{} (2008) 329. J.Chang et al (ATIC Collaboration) : Nature [**456**]{} (2008) 362. F.Aharonian et al (HESS Collaboration), arXiv : astro-ph/0811.3894.
[^1]: e-mail:sau$\[email protected]
[^2]: e-mail: sunil$\[email protected]
[^3]: e-mail: [email protected] (Communicating Author).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Cosmic microwave background observations are most commonly analyzed by estimating the power spectrum. In the limit where the CMB statistics are perfectly Gaussian, this extracts all the information, but the CMB also contains detectable non-Gaussian contributions from secondary, and possibly primordial, sources. We review possible sources of CMB non-Gaussianity and describe statistical techniques which are optimized for measuring them, complementing the power spectrum analysis. The machinery of $N$-point correlation functions provides a unifying framework for optimal estimation of primordial non-Gaussian signals or gravitational lensing. We review recent results from applying these estimators to data from the WMAP satellite mission.'
author:
- 'Kendrick M. Smith'
title: 'Beyond the power spectrum: primordial and secondary non-Gaussianity in the microwave background'
---
Introduction
============
Observations of the cosmic microwave background have had an enormous impact on our understanding of cosmology and the level of precision with which cosmological parameters can be constrained. Beginning with first detection of anisotropy on large angular scales by COBE [@Smoot:1992td], successive generations of experiments have provided increasingly precise measurements of CMB temperature flucutations on smaller scales [e.g. @Hanany:2000qf; @Netterfield:2001yq; @Hinshaw:2003ex; @Kuo:2006ya; @Ade:2007ty; @Lueker:2009rx; @Fowler:2010cy]. In particular, the WMAP satellite has measured CMB fluctuations on the full sky with high signal-to-noise for all angular scales larger than $\approx$20 arcmin.
It is convenient to represent the CMB in harmonic space. If $T({\bf n})$ denotes the value of the temperature in line-of-sight direction ${\bf n}$, then we expand in spherical harmonics: $$T({\bf n}) = \sum_{\ell=2}^\infty \sum_{m=-\ell}^\ell a_{\ell m} Y_{\ell m}({\bf n})$$ to define the multipoles $a_{\ell m}$. In this representation, the most general rotationally invariant two-point correlation function is: $$\left\langle a_{\ell_1 m_1} a_{\ell_2 m_2} \right\rangle = (-1)^{m_1} C_{\ell_1} \delta_{\ell_1\ell_2} \delta_{m_1,-m_2}$$ where this equation defines the power spectrum $C_\ell$.
CMB observations are typically analyzed via the power spectrum: the main result of the analysis is a measurement of $C_\ell$ and an estimate of the statistical uncertainty, which can be compared with theoretical predictions for the power spectrum. This approach is powerful because the CMB is a Gaussian field to a good approximation. Gaussianity implies that the full probability distribution for the CMB map (i.e. the multivariate PDF for the variables $a_{\ell m}$) is determined by the two-point correlation function, so that the power spectrum contains all the information. However, there are weak sources of non-Gaussianity which contain qualitatively new cosmological information, and require statistical techniques which complement the power spectrum. In this article, we will review sources of non-Gaussianity either in the early universe during inflation, or in the late universe via gravitational lensing. Our emphasis will be on statistical techniques for extracting these non-Gaussian signals, and we will present results from applying these techniques to WMAP data when possible.
Primordial non-Gaussianity
==========================
Three-point signals from inflation
----------------------------------
Consider the simplest model of inflation: single-field slow-roll inflation with standard kinetic term, $${\mathcal L} = \frac{M_{\rm pl}^2}{2} R - \frac{1}{2} (\partial^\mu \phi) (\partial_\mu \phi) - V(\phi)$$ In such a model, the adiabatic curvature perturbation $\zeta({\bf k})$ generated during inflation is a Gaussian field; in particular the three-point correlation function is zero.[^1] However, there are inflationary models which can generate a three-point function which is observationally distinguishable from zero. In this section we will review the phenomenology of such models.
Let us first make some general mathematical comments. If we restrict attention to models which satisfy statistical translation and rotation invariance, then the three-point function of the curvature perturbation $\zeta$ must be of the form $$\langle \zeta({\bf k}_1) \zeta({\bf k}_2) \zeta({\bf k}_3) \rangle = F(k_1,k_2,k_3) \, (2\pi)^3 \delta^3({\bf k}_1 + {\bf k}_2 + {\bf k}_3)$$ where the function $F$ is called the bispectrum, and only depends on the lengths $k_i$ of the Fourier wavenumbers ${\bf k}_i$ which form a closed triangle. For the inflationary models we will consider in this section, the bispectrum will have a simple dependence on overall scale (roughly $F(\alpha k_1, \alpha k_2, \alpha k_3) \approx \alpha^{-6 + 2(1-n_s)} F(k_1,k_2,k_3)$) so that we can think of the bispectrum as a function of a 2-parameter family of triangle shapes without regard to overall scale. We will use the term “squeezed” for a triangle shape with $k_1\ll k_2$ (which implies $k_1\ll k_3$), “flattened” for a shape with $k_1 \approx (k_2+k_3)$, and “equilateral” for a shape with $k_1\approx k_2\approx k_3$.
The curvaton model is a multifield model of inflation in which the source of primordial curvature fluctuations is not the inflaton, but a second field $\sigma$ which does not dominate the energy density during inflation, but decays after the inflaton, when the curvaton is oscillating near the minimum of its potential [@Linde:1996gt; @Moroi:2001ct; @Lyth:2002my]. The power spectrum $P_{(\delta\sigma/\sigma)}$ of the fractional curvaton perturbation $(\delta\sigma/\sigma)$ and the fraction $f = \rho_\sigma/\rho_{\rm tot}$ of the energy density due to the curvaton (both quantities evaluated at curvaton decay) are free parameters of the model. The perturbation to the curvaton energy density is given by $(\delta\rho_\sigma/\rho_\sigma) = 2(\delta\sigma/\sigma) + (\delta\sigma/\sigma)^2$, and can therefore be a non-Gaussian field if the quadratic term is non-negligible compared to the linear term. There is a region of parameter space (i.e. $f \ll 1$ with $P_{\delta\sigma/\sigma} = {\mathcal O}(10^{-9} f^{-2})$) in which the primordial curvature fluctuation (after curvaton decay) is significantly non-Gaussian and has a power spectrum which is consistent with CMB observations. The non-Gaussian curvature fluctuation in the curvaton model can be written: $$\zeta({\bf x}) = \zeta_G({\bf x}) - \frac{3}{5} f_{NL}^{\rm local} \zeta_G({\bf x})^2$$ where $\zeta_G$ is a Gaussian field, and $f_{NL}^{\rm local}$ is a free parameter. (The factor $3/5$ is purely conventional.) If we write this equation in Fourier space[^2], we get the following form of the bispectrum $F$: $$F(k_1,k_2,k_3) = f_{NL}^{\rm local} F_{\rm local}(k_1,k_2,k_3)$$ where $$F_{\rm local}(k_1,k_2,k_3) = -\frac{6 \Delta_\zeta^2}{5} \left(
\frac{1}{k_1^3 k_2^3} +
\frac{1}{k_2^3 k_3^3} +
\frac{1}{k_1^3 k_3^3} \right) \label{eq:F_local}$$ The local bispectrum is largest for squeezed triangles. Conversely, there is a theorem, the single-field consistency relation [@Maldacena:2002vr; @Creminelli:2004yq], which states that the bispectrum is always small (i.e. ${\mathcal O}(10^{-2})$) in squeezed triangles, provided that inflation is single-field (but allowing for aribtrary self-interactions of the inflaton). Thus the presence of a second field in the curvaton model is actually a necessary ingredient for any model which generates $f_{NL}^{\rm local}$ larger than ${\mathcal O}(10^{-2})$.
For single-field inflation, there is also a theorem [@Senatore:2009gt] which shows that the most general primordial bispectrum is: $$F(k_1,k_2,k_3) = f_{NL}^{\rm equil} F_{\rm equil}(k_1,k_2,k_3) + f_{NL}^{\rm orthog} F_{\rm orthog}(k_1,k_2,k_3) \label{eq:F_single_field}$$ where the “equilateral” and “orthogonal” bispectra are defined by:[^3] $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\rm equil}(k_1,k_2,k_3) &=& - \frac{18 \Delta_\zeta^2}{5} \frac{(k_1+k_2-k_3)(k_1-k_2+k_3)(-k_1+k_2+k_3)}{k_1^3 k_2^3 k_3^3} \nonumber \\
F_{\rm orthog}(k_1,k_2,k_3) &=& 3 F_{\rm equil}(k_1,k_2,k_3) + \frac{36 \Delta_\zeta^2}{5} \frac{1}{k_1^2 k_2^2 k_3^2} \label{eq:F_equil_orthog}\end{aligned}$$ The equilateral shape is largest for equilateral triangles (as the name suggests) while the orthogonal shape changes sign between equilateral and flattened triangles. Both single-field shapes vanish in the squeezed limit, as required by the consistency relation.
For a particular single-field model, such as DBI inflation [@Alishahiha:2004eh] or ghost inflation [@ArkaniHamed:2003uz], the coefficients $f_{NL}^{\rm equil}$ and $f_{NL}^{\rm orthog}$ in Eq. (\[eq:F\_single\_field\]) can be calculated in terms of fundamental parameters of the model. In this article, our emphasis will be on data analysis. We simply remark that the forms of the bispectra $F_{\rm local}$, $F_{\rm equil}$, $F_{\rm orthog}$ given above provide a point of contact between theory and data. Given data from a CMB experiment like WMAP, our job is to determine observational limits on the three $f_{NL}$ parameters with statistical errors which are as small as possible. Once this has been done, any inflationary model can be compared with observations by calculating the $f_{NL}$ parameters.
Primordial non-Gaussianity is a particularly interesting probe of inflation because it can rule out qualitative classes of models. A robust detection of $f_{NL}^{\rm local} \ne 0$ would rule out all single-field models. Detection of any nonzero $f_{NL}$ parameter would rule out the simplest inflationary model, single-field inflation with standard kinetic term and slow-roll potential $V(\phi)$. In the next two subsections we will turn to data analysis: we will construct optimal estimators for constraining the $f_{NL}$ parameters from data, and present results from WMAP.
Estimators for primordial non-Gaussianity {#ssec:fnl_estimators}
-----------------------------------------
Let us begin by making some general statements about how three-point signals are estimated from data, before specializing to the case of the three inflationary shapes from the preceding subsection.
We will make the approximation that the evolution from the 3D intitial curvature fluctuation $\zeta({\bf k})$ to the 2D CMB $a_{\ell m}$ is a linear operation, so that the three-point function of $\zeta$ translates linearly into the three-point function of the CMB: $$\left\langle a_{\ell_1 m_1} a_{\ell_2 m_2} a_{\ell_3 m_3} \right\rangle
= f_{NL}^X B^X_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2,\ell_3m_3} \label{eq:fnlhat_setup}$$ where $B^X_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2,\ell_3m_3}$ is different for each $X\in\{ {\rm local}, {\rm equil}, {\rm orthog} \}$.
When we measure the CMB in a real experiment, we measure the $a_{\ell m}$’s plus some instrumental noise: $$a_{\ell m}^{\rm obs} = a_{\ell m}^{\rm true} + a_{\ell m}^{\rm noise}$$ We will assume that the instrumental noise is Gaussian, and that the total covariance matrix of the observed $a_{\ell m}$’s is given by the sum of a signal term (which is diagonal in $\ell,m$) and a noise term (which is non-diagonal): $$\left\langle a_{\ell_1m_1} a_{\ell_2m_2} \right\rangle = (-1)^{m_1} C_{\ell_1} \delta_{\ell_1\ell_2} \delta_{m_1,-m_2} + N_{\ell_1 m_1,\ell_2 m_2} \label{eq:ctot}$$ The detailed form of the noise covariance matrix $N_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2}$ encapsulates details of the experiment such as spatial gradients in instrumental noise level (represented by assigning different noise variance to different pixels), the sky mask imposed to remove regions of high foreground emission (represented by assigning infinite noise variance to pixels which are masked), and the shapes of the beams. We will denote the total covariance matrix on the RHS of Eq. (\[eq:ctot\]) by $C_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2}$ and its inverse by $(C^{-1})^{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2}$. The matrix $C$ represents all the properties of the experiment that we will need to know about in order to write down an estimator for $f_{NL}$.
Now we can ask the following general question: Given $B^X_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2,\ell_3m_3}$ and $C_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2}$, how should we estimate the value of the coefficient $f_{NL}^X$ in Eq. (\[eq:fnlhat\_setup\]) from the noisy CMB $a_{\ell m}$? The optimal (i.e. mininum variance) estimator was found in [@Creminelli:2005hu]: $${\hat f_{NL}}^X = \frac{1}{F} \left( T[C^{-1}a] - (C^{-1}a)^{\ell m}
\left\langle \partial_{\ell m} T[C^{-1}a'] \right\rangle_{a'} \right) \label{eq:fnlhat}$$ where the quantities $T$ and $\partial T$ are defined by [@Smith:2006ud]: $$\begin{aligned}
T[C^{-1}a] &=& \frac{1}{6} \sum_{\ell_im_i} B_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2,\ell_3m_3} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_1m_1} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_2m_2} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_3m_3} \nonumber \\
\partial_{\ell m} T[C^{-1}a] &=& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\ell_im_i} B_{\ell m,\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_1m_1} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_2m_2} \label{eq:Tdef}\end{aligned}$$ The normalization constant $F$, which is included so that ${\hat f_{NL}}^X$ will be an unbiased estimator of $f_{NL}^X$ (i.e. $\langle {\hat f_{NL}}^X \rangle = f_{NL}^X$) can be determined by Monte Carlo. The estimator ${\hat f_{NL}}^X$ in Eq. (\[eq:fnlhat\]) is a sum of a three-point term and a one-point “counterterm” which reduces the estimator variance in the presence of inhomogeneous noise. The one-point term vanishes if the noise is homogeneous, since rotation invariance implies $\langle \partial_{\ell m} T[C^{-1}a'] \rangle = 0$ for $\ell > 0$. We will see more examples of this estimator structure, with an $N$-point leading term plus counterterms of lower order, in §\[ssec:gravitational\_lensing\_estimators\]
To evaluate the estimator ${\hat f_{NL}}^X$, we need algorithms for computing $a_{\ell m} \rightarrow (C^{-1}a)^{\ell m}$ and $a \rightarrow T[a]$. The first algorithm depends on details of the experiment being analyzed (via $C^{-1}$) but not the form of the three-point function $B_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2,\ell_3m_3}$; we will discuss its implementation in WMAP in the next subsection. The rest of this subsection is devoted to briefly describing the second algorithm, which depends only on the three-point function.
For a completely general three-point function $B_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2,\ell_3m_3}$, there is no algorithm for the operation $a \rightarrow T[a]$ which is faster than the ${\mathcal O}(\ell_{\rm max}^5)$ harmonic-space sum in Eq. (\[eq:Tdef\]). For current CMB experiments (with $\ell_{\rm max} = {\mathcal O}(10^3)$) this is computationally prohibitive. However, if the three-point function is a sum of $N$ factorizable terms, in the sense that $$\begin{aligned}
B_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2,\ell_3m_3} &=& \sum_{i=1}^N
\alpha_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell_3}^{(i)}
\beta_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell_3}^{(i)}
\gamma_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell_3}^{(i)} \label{eq:B_factorizable} \\
&& \hspace{0.5cm} \times
\sqrt{\frac{(2\ell_1+1)(2\ell_2+1)(2\ell_3+1)}{4\pi}}
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\
m_1 & m_2 & m_3
\end{array} \right) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ and $N$ is not too large, then there is a fast (i.e. ${\mathcal O}(\ell_{\rm max}^3 N)$) algorithm for the $a\rightarrow T[a]$ operation [@Komatsu:2003iq; @Creminelli:2005hu; @Smith:2006ud]. (A closely related algorithm exists for the operation $a\rightarrow \partial_{\ell m}T[a]$, which is also needed in order to evaluate the one-point term in the optimal estimator in Eq. (\[eq:fnlhat\]).) In practice, this factorizability condition is satisfied for “interesting” forms of the three-point function such as the local, equilateral and orthogonal shapes.
In a little more detail, we can also define a 3D factorizability condition for the primordial bispectrum $F(k_1,k_2,k_3)$: we say that $F$ is factorizable if it is a sum of $N$ terms $$F(k_1,k_2,k_3) = \sum_{i=1}^N \alpha_i(k_1) \beta_i(k_2) \gamma_i(k_3) \label{eq:F_factorizable}$$ It can be shown that a primoridal bispectrum $F$ which is factorizable (in the sense defined by Eq. (\[eq:F\_factorizable\])) evolves to a CMB three-point function which is also factorizable (in the sense defined by Eq. (\[eq:B\_factorizable\])), although the number of terms $N$ is typically increased by a factor 10–100.[^4]
The optimal estimator can also be used to search for three-point signals which are generated by secondary sources of anisotropy such as point sources or gravitational lensing (e.g. @Spergel:1999xn [@Goldberg:1999xm; @Verde:2002mu; @Cooray:1999kg]). In this case there is no underlying primordial bispectrum $F$, but the CMB three-point function $B_{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2,\ell_3m_3}$ seems to satisfy the factorizability condition for a wide range of secondaries (for a survey of shapes see @Smith:2006ud).
Summarizing, there is an optimal estimator ${\widehat \mathcal E}$ which can be applied to estimate the amplitude of a three-point signal of specified shape. For the estimator to be computationally feasible, the three-point function must satisfy the technical requirement of factorizability (Eq. (\[eq:B\_factorizable\])). The factorizability requirement is satisfied for the three primordial shapes we will consider in this article (and for many secondary shapes as well). Evaluating the estimator also requires a fast algorithm for the experiment-specific operation $a_{\ell m} \rightarrow (C^{-1}a)^{\ell m}$ which we now discuss in more detail in the context of WMAP.
Primordial non-Gaussianity in WMAP {#ssec:fnl_wmap}
----------------------------------
In the previous subsection, the computational problem of evaluating the optimal estimator ${\hat f_{NL}}^X$ was reduced to the “$C^{-1}$ problem”: finding an efficient algorithm to compute the inverse (signal+noise) weighted map $(C^{-1}a)^{\ell m}$ given a harmonic-space map $a_{\ell m}$.
The operator $C^{-1}$ is experiment-specific. One simplifying feature of WMAP is that the instrumental noise can be treated as uncorrelated between pixels (more precisely, pixel correlations due to $1/f$ noise in the detectors are only important on large angular scales, where the instrumental noise is much smaller than the CMB temperature fluctuations). Even with this simplification, the $C^{-1}$ problem is still very challenging for WMAP, due to the large number of pixels ($N_{\rm pix} \approx 10^7$) needed to represent the WMAP data. A brute-force linear algebra approach, representing $C^{-1}$ by a dense $N_{\rm pix}$-by-$N_{\rm pix}$ matrix, is computationally infeasible. Consequently, algorithms for solving the $C^{-1}$ problem for a large-$N_{\rm pix}$ experiment such as WMAP are based on iterative methods such as the conjugate gradient algorithm.
Iterative algorithms can be used if there is a fast algorithm for applying the “forward” operation $a \rightarrow Ca$, and a fast algorithm for computing a linear operation $a \rightarrow Pa$ (the “preconditioner”) such that $P$ approximates $C^{-1}$ as closely as possible. The idea behind the iterative algorithms is to compute $C^{-1}a$ by iteratively improving a guess $x \approx C^{-1}a$. In each iteration, the preconditioner is applied to the residual vector $(a - Cx)$ to determine a direction in which to search for an improved guess. The algorithm terminates when the residual vector is sufficiently close to zero. The convergence rate is determined by the accuracy of the approximation $C^{-1} \approx P$; thus the iterative approach will be successful (i.e., fast) if a good preconditioner can be constructed.
The $C^{-1}$ problem is an ingredient in many flavors of optimal estimators, such as optimal power spectrum estimators, the optimal estimators for primordial non-Gaussianity in this section, and optimal estimators for gravitational lensing to be considered shortly. For this reason, the problem of finding a good preconditioner for WMAP has been considered by several authors [e.g. @Oh:1998sr; @Eriksen:2004ss; @Smith:2007rg]. The best preconditioner to date was constructed in @Smith:2007rg, using a multigrid approach: the preconditioner for the $C^{-1}$ operation is defined by evaluating a (partially converged) conjugate gradient $C^{-1}$ operation on a lower-resolution version of the WMAP dataset. The preconditioner for the lower-resolution $C^{-1}$ operation is defined using even lower resolution, and so on recursively. Using the multigrid preconditioner, the operation $a \rightarrow C^{-1} a$ for WMAP can be computed in $\approx$15 CPU-minutes. This is sufficiently fast that the optimal estimator ${\hat f_{NL}}^X$ can be evaluated in a Monte Carlo pipeline.
Optimal $f_{NL}$ constraints from WMAP were first reported for the public 5-year release [@Smith:2009jr; @Senatore:2009gt]. This implementation of the optimal estimator was subsequently incorporated into the WMAP 7-year analysis pipeline [@Komatsu:2010fb]. At the time of this writing, current WMAP constraints on $f_{NL}$ parameters are: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{NL}^{\rm local} &=& 32 \pm 21 \nonumber \\
f_{NL}^{\rm equil} &=& 26 \pm 140 \nonumber \\
f_{NL}^{\rm orthog} &=& -202 \pm 104 \hspace{1cm} \mbox{($1\sigma$ error)} \label{eq:fnl_wmap}\end{aligned}$$ Thus the WMAP data are consistent with Gaussian initial conditions. These constraints will improve by a factor $\approx 5$ in a few years with results from the Planck satellite mission.
Gravitational lensing {#sec:gravitational_lensing}
=====================
Introduction
------------
One of the largest sources of “secondary” CMB anisotropy, or additional anisotropy generated after recombination, is gravitational lensing. For purposes of this article, the effect of gravitational lensing can be succinctly described as follows. (For more detailed reviews, see @Lewis:2006fu [@Hanson:2009kr].) Gravitational potentials in the late universe deflect photons, so that an observer who looks in line-of-sight direction ${\bf n}$ sees the part of the surface of last scattering which lies in direction $({\bf n} + \nabla\phi({\bf n}))$, where the lens potential $\phi({\bf n})$ is a 2D field which can be written as a line-of-sight integral. Gravitational lensing preserves surface brightness, so that the effect of gravitational lensing is simply to move CMB aniostropy around, $$(\Delta \tilde T)({\bf n}) = (\Delta T)({\bf n} + \nabla \phi({\bf n}))$$ In this equation and throughout this article, we denote the lensed CMB temperature by $\tilde T({\bf n})$ or ${\tilde a}_{\ell m}$, and the unlensed temperature by $T({\bf n})$ or $a_{\ell m}$.
Via gravitational lensing, the CMB is indirectly sensitive to the power spectrum $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}$ of the lens potential. This power spectrum can be written as a line-of-sight integral which contains geometric distance factors and the power spectrum $P_\Psi(k)$ of the large-scale Newtonian potential: $$C_\ell^{\phi\phi} = \frac{8\pi^2}{\ell^3} \int d\chi\, \chi \left( \frac{\chi_*-\chi}{\chi_*\chi} \right)^2 P_\Psi(\chi; k=\ell/\chi)$$ In this way, the CMB becomes sensitive to the expansion history and growth of structure in the late universe, which adds qualitatively new information. In contrast, the unlensed CMB is very sensitive to a single “late universe” paramter, the angular diameter distance $D_A(z_*)$ to the redshift of recombination, but is otherwise insensitive to the late universe: this is the so-called angular diameter distance degeneracy [@Zaldarriaga:1997ch]. CMB lensing breaks the angular diameter distance degeneracy and can ultimately provide interesting constraints on new parameters such as neutrino mass or the dark energy equation of state [@Stompor:1998zj; @Smith:2006ud].
How can we reconstruct the lensing power spectrum $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}$ from observations of the CMB? One possibility is to consider the effect of gravitational lensing on the CMB temperature power spectrum. Lensing alters $C_\ell^{TT}$ by smoothing the acoustic peaks and adding power in the high-$\ell$ tail [@Seljak:1995; @Hu:2000; @Challinor:2005jy] The peak-smoothing effect can be understood as degree-scale lenses transferring CMB power between different values of $\ell$, with characteristic scale $\Delta\ell \sim 100$. Extra power in the damping tail can be understood as small-scale lenses generating new anisotropy from a smoothly varying CMB backlight. (On small angular scales, the unlensed CMB power spectrum is exponentially suppressed but the power spectrum of the lens potential is not).
A more qualitative effect of CMB lensing is that it generates non-Gaussianity. In the next subsection, we will calculate some higher-point correlation functions due to lensing.
Three-point and four-point signals from lensing
-----------------------------------------------
Let us first compute the three-point function $\langle \tilde T \tilde T \phi \rangle$ between the lens potential and two powers of the (lensed) CMB temperature. If we Taylor expand the lensed CMB in powers of the lens potential, we get $${\tilde a}_{\ell_1 m_1} = a_{\ell_1 m_1} + \sum_{\ell_2m_2\ell m} f_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell}\, a_{\ell_2m_2}^* \phi_{\ell m}^*
\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell \\
m_1 & m_2 & m
\end{array}
\right) + \cdots$$ where the mode-coupling kernel $f_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell}$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell} &=&
\left( \frac{-\ell_1(\ell_1+1) + \ell_2(\ell_2+1) + \ell(\ell+1)}{2} \right) \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{1cm} \times
\sqrt{ \frac{(2\ell_1+1)(2\ell_2+1)(2\ell+1)}{4\pi} }
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell \\
0 & 0 & 0
\end{array} \right)\end{aligned}$$ A short calculation now gives the $\langle \tilde T \tilde T \phi \rangle$ three-point function: $$\left\langle {\tilde a}_{\ell_1 m_1} {\tilde a}_{\ell_2 m_2} \phi_{\ell m} \right\rangle
= \left( f_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell} C_{\ell_2}^{TT} + f_{\ell_2\ell_1\ell} C_{\ell_1}^{TT} \right) C_\ell^{\phi\phi}
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell \\
m_1 & m_2 & m
\end{array} \right) \label{eq:lensing_ttphi}$$ If we replace the lens potential $\phi_{\ell m}$ with a different large-scale structure tracer field $g_{\ell m}$, then the correlation between $\phi$ and $g$ will generate a $\langle \tilde T \tilde T g \rangle$ correlation given by: $$\left\langle {\tilde a}_{\ell_1 m_1} {\tilde a}_{\ell_2 m_2} a_{\ell m}^\phi \right\rangle
= \left( f_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell} C_{\ell_2}^{TT} + f_{\ell_2\ell_1\ell} C_{\ell_1}^{TT} \right) C_\ell^{g\phi}
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell \\
m_1 & m_2 & m
\end{array} \right) \label{eq:lensing_ttg}$$ We will consider a case where the tracer field is given by number counts of radio galaxies in the NVSS survey, in §\[ssec:wmap\_lensing\]
We can also consider the case where the tracer field is the CMB temperature itself, where the correlation $C_\ell^{T\phi}$ arises from the ISW effect in a cosmology with $\Omega_m \ne 1$. This gives rise to the “ISW-lensing” three-point function, which is internal to the CMB: $$\left\langle {\tilde a}_{\ell_1m_1} {\tilde a}_{\ell_2m_2} {\tilde a}_{\ell_3m_3} \right\rangle
= f_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell_3} C_{\ell_2}^{TT} C_{\ell_3}^{T\phi}
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\
m_1 & m_2 & m_3
\end{array} \right)
+ \mbox{(5 perm.)} \label{eq:isw_lensing_ttt}$$ The ISW-lensing signal is the main contribution to the three-point function induced by gravitational lensing. There is a larger signal in the four-point function. $$\begin{aligned}
&& \left\langle {\tilde a}_{\ell_1 m_1} {\tilde a}_{\ell_2 m_2} {\tilde a}_{\ell_3 m_3} {\tilde a}_{\ell_4 m_4} \right\rangle_{\rm conn} \label{eq:lensing_tttt} \\
&& \hspace{0.5cm} = \sum_{\ell} f_{\ell_1\ell_3\ell} f_{\ell_2\ell_4\ell} C_{\ell_3}^{TT} C_{\ell_4}^{TT} C_\ell^{\phi\phi} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{1.5cm} \times \sum_m (-1)^m
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\ell_1 & \ell_3 & \ell \\
m_1 & m_3 & m
\end{array} \right)
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\ell_2 & \ell_4 & \ell \\
m_2 & m_4 & -m
\end{array} \right)
+ \mbox{(11 perm.)} \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For comparison, forecasts for the Planck satellite show that the ISW-lensing three-point signal should be detectable at the $\sim 5\sigma$ level, whereas the four-point signal should be detectable at $\sim 60 \sigma$, and can in fact be used to make a precision measurement of $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}$.
The three-point and four-point calculations in this section have been somewhat formal, in the sense that we have written down expressions for the correlation functions (Eqs. (\[eq:lensing\_ttphi\])–(\[eq:lensing\_tttt\])) without much interpretation. In the next section we will give a more intuitive interpretation for these signals, and also construct estimators for extracting them from data.
Estimators for gravitational lensing {#ssec:gravitational_lensing_estimators}
------------------------------------
The large higher-point signals described in the preceding subsection contain information, via the lens potential $\phi$, about the expansion history and growth of structure in the late universe. How can we best extract this information, i.e. what higher-point estimators should we apply to data to measure these signals? We will answer this question for the $\langle TTg \rangle$ three-point signal (Eq. (\[eq:lensing\_ttg\])), the ISW-lensing three-point signal (Eq. (\[eq:isw\_lensing\_ttt\])), and the four-point CMB signal (Eq. (\[eq:lensing\_tttt\])).
In order to make the analogy with the estimators for primordial non-Gaussianity the clearest, let us first consider the ISW-lensing signal. Since this signal is just a different shape for the CMB three-point function, the minimum-variance estimator ${\widehat \mathcal E}$ is given by the general form in Eq. (\[eq:fnlhat\]) given previously in the context of primordial non-Gaussianity. If we write out the definitions of $T$ and $\partial T$ for the special case of the ISW-lensing three-point function, the estimator becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat{\mathcal E} &=& \frac{1}{F}
\sum_{\ell_im_i} f_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell_3} C_{\ell_2}^{TT} C_{\ell_3m_3}^{T\phi}
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell_3 \\
m_1 & m_2 & m_3
\end{array} \right) \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{0.5cm} \times
\Bigg[ (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_1m_1} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_2m_2} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_3m_3} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{1cm} - (C^{-1})^{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_3m_3} - (C^{-1})^{\ell_1m_1,\ell_3m_3} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_2m_2} \nonumber \\
&& \hspace{1cm} - (C^{-1})^{\ell_2m_2,\ell_3m_3} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_1m_1} \Bigg]\end{aligned}$$ The last two terms in the estimator turn out to be small compared to the first two terms, so we will neglect them. Under this approximation, we can rewrite $\widehat{\mathcal E}$ in a mathematically equivalent way by introducing the quadratic estimator $({\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi})$, defined[^5] by: $$\begin{aligned}
({\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi})_{\ell m} &=& (-1)^m \sum_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell} f_{\ell_1\ell_2\ell} C_{\ell_2}^{TT}
\left( \begin{array}{ccc}
\ell_1 & \ell_2 & \ell \\
m_1 & m_2 & -m
\end{array} \right) \nonumber \\
&& \times \left[ (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_1m_1} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_2m_2} - (C^{-1})^{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2} \right] \label{eq:phihat}\end{aligned}$$ We have arrived at this definition by studying $N$-point correlation functions, but the quadratic reconstruction ${\mathcal N}^{-1} {\hat\phi}$ was originally proposed as a minimum variance estimator of the lensing potential from the CMB [@Bernardeau:1996aa; @Zaldarriaga:1998te; @Hu:2001tn]. Because the lens breaks statistical isotropy of the CMB, correlations between different Fourier modes of the CMB can be used to estimate the lensing potential. Each Fourier mode $\phi_{\ell m}$ of the lensing potential can be independently estimated, so the lens reconstruction ${\hat\phi}_{\ell m}$ has the degrees of freedom of a map, rather than a scalar quantity. Note that our definition of the estimator in Eq. (\[eq:phihat\]) includes subtraction of the “mean field” term $(C^{-1})^{\ell_1m_1,\ell_2m_2}$. This can be interpreted as simply subtracting off the contribution from spurious anisotropy, induced by anisotropy of the noise covariance, when estimating the lensing potential.
The ISW-lensing estimator ${\mathcal E}$ can then be rewritten: $$\widehat{\mathcal E} = \frac{1}{F} \sum_{\ell m} C_\ell^{T\phi} ({\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi})_{\ell m} (C^{-1}a)_{\ell m}^* \label{eq:isw_lensing_estimator2}$$ In this form, the estimator has a simple intuitive interpretation. The ISW-lensing signal can be interpreted as a correlation between the (inverse noise weighted) lens reconstruction $({\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi})$ and the (inverse signal+noise weighted) temperature $(C^{-1}a)$. The optimal estimator is simply the cross power spectrum of these two fields, evaluated in a single large bandpower whose “shape” in $\ell$ is given by the cross spectrum $C_\ell^{T\phi}$. When written in this way (Eq. (\[eq:isw\_lensing\_estimator2\])), the estimator looks like a two-point quantity, but it is actually a three-point statistic in the CMB temperature map, because the lens reconstruction $({\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi})$ is quadratic in the CMB. (Note that there is also a one-point counterterm in the estimator, coming from the mean field term in the definition of ${\mathcal N}^{-1} {\hat \phi}$.)
The other higher-point signals from the previous subsection can be treated similarly to the ISW-lensing case. Consider next the $\langle TTg \rangle$ three-point signal (Eq. (\[eq:lensing\_ttg\])). In this case, the optimal estimator is given by: $$\widehat{\mathcal E} = \frac{1}{F} \sum_{\ell m} C_\ell^{\phi g} ({\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi})_{\ell m} (C^{-1}g)_{\ell m}^* \label{eq:ttg_estimator}$$ For this estimator to make sense, we must have noisy observations of the large-scale structure field $g_{\ell m}$, with associated noise and signal covariance so that $(C^{-1}g)_{\ell m}$ can be defined. Note that the above equation, we have written down the optimal estimator for an overall multiple of the fiducial signal. This estimator is just the cross power spectrum of the lens reconstruction ${\hat\phi}_{\ell m}$ and the observed galaxy field, evaluated in a large bandpower with $\ell$ weighting given by $C_\ell^{\phi g}$. This is the appropriate estimator for making a statistical detection of a weak signal, but in a case where the $\langle TTg \rangle$ correlation can be detected with high significance, it may be more appropriate to split the estimator in Eq. (\[eq:ttg\_estimator\]) into $\ell$ bands and estimate the cross power spectrum $C_\ell^{\phi g}$ in independent bandpowers.[^6]
Finally, we consider the four-point CMB signal given by Eq. (\[eq:lensing\_tttt\]). A nearly-optimal estimator is the auto power spectrum of ${\hat\phi}$, summed over $\ell$ in one bandpower with “shape” proportional to the signal power spectrum $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}$: $$\widehat{\mathcal E} = \frac{1}{F} \sum_{\ell m} C_\ell^{\phi\phi}
\left[ ({\mathcal N}^{-1} {\hat\phi})_{\ell m} ({\mathcal N}^{-1} {\hat\phi})_{\ell m}^*
- \left\langle ({\mathcal N}^{-1} {\hat\phi})_{\ell m} ({\mathcal N}^{-1} {\hat\phi})_{\ell m}^* \right\rangle
\right]
\label{eq:estimator_tttt}$$ where $\langle\cdot\rangle$ denotes an expectation value taken over random realizations of the CMB. As with the $TTg$ estimator, we can alternately split the $\ell$ sum into subranges and estimate the power spectrum $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}$ in independent bandpowers. Note that this estimator $\widehat{\mathcal E}$ is written so that it looks like a two-point quantity, but is actually a four-point estimator in the CMB. This estimator is “nearly optimal” because the optimal estimator for $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}$ contains additional two-point counterterms which reduce the variance in the same way that including the one-point counterterm in the $f_{NL}$ estimator (Eq. (\[eq:fnlhat\])) reduces the variance, relative to an estimator defined with only a three-point term. For more details see [@Smith:2010].
In summary, one can construct higher-point estimators for CMB lensing in two mathematically equivalent ways. Formally, one can write down expressions for three-point or four-point correlation functions generated by lensing, and obtain optimal estimators as special cases of general expressions for the optimal estimators. More intuitively, one can apply the quadratic lens reconstruction estimator $\widehat \phi$ (Eq. (\[eq:phihat\])) and then compute cross and auto power spectra. In lens reconstruction language, the three-point and four-point correlations generated by lensing can be interpreted as either the two-point correlation between $\widehat \phi$ and another field, or the two-point function of $\widehat \phi$ itself.
Gravitational lensing in WMAP {#ssec:wmap_lensing}
-----------------------------
In this subsection we will present lensing results from 3-year WMAP data, originally reported in @Smith:2007rg. At WMAP resolution, the lens reconstruction ${\hat\phi}$ is highly noise-dominated. Forecasting shows that there is insufficient signal-to-noise to detect lensing using the auto power spectrum $C_\ell^{{\hat\phi}{\hat\phi}}$ (i.e. the estimator defined in Eq. (\[eq:estimator\_tttt\])). However, the signal-to-noise can be boosted by cross correlating ${\hat\phi}$ with another field which is highly correlated to $\phi$ and less noisy. The best candidate for such a cross-correlation is the radio galaxy number density from the NVSS survey [@Condon:1998]. The NVSS survey has large sky coverage ($f_{\rm sky}=0.8$), low Poisson noise ($N_{\rm gal} = 1.8 \times 10^6$), and high redshift ($z_{\rm median} = 0.9$), making it an excellent match to a large-$f_{\rm sky}$ CMB lens reconstruction.
The main computational problem in implementing the optimal $TTg$ estimator is the $C^{-1}$ operation appearing in Eq. (\[eq:ttg\_estimator\]). However, a solution to this problem has already been described (in the context of primordial non-Gaussianity) in §\[ssec:fnl\_wmap\]
Another implementational issue is that the definition of ${\hat\phi}$ given above would be computationally prohibitive (the computational cost would be ${\mathcal O}(\ell_{\rm max}^5)$) if evaluated in harmonic space using Eq. (\[eq:phihat\]). However, a fast mathematically equivalent expression for ${\hat\phi}$ is given by the following chain of definitions: $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha({\bf n}) &=& \sum_{\ell_1m_1} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_1m_1} Y_{\ell_1m_1}({\bf n}) \nonumber \\
\beta_i({\bf n}) &=& \sum_{\ell_2m_2} C_{\ell_2}^{TT} (C^{-1}a)^{\ell_2m_2} \nabla_i Y_{\ell_2m_2}({\bf n}) \nonumber \\
({\mathcal N}^{-1} {\hat\phi})_{\ell m} &=& \int d^2{\bf n}\, (\nabla^i Y_{\ell m}^*({\bf n})) \Big[ \alpha({\bf n}) \beta_i({\bf n}) - \langle \alpha({\bf n}) \beta_i({\bf n}) \rangle \Big] \end{aligned}$$ This is closely analogous to the $f_{NL}$ estimator considered previously: the most algebraically straightforward way to write down the estimator (Eq. (\[eq:fnlhat\])) has computational cost ${\mathcal O}(\ell_{\rm max}^5)$, but there is a faster algorithm based on the specific form of the three-point function.
In Fig. 1, we show the result of evaluating the optimal $(TTg)$ estimator (Eq. (\[eq:ttg\_estimator\])) using CMB measurements from WMAP and galaxy number counts from NVSS. We have split the estimator into several $\ell$ bands and reported an estimate for $C_\ell^{\phi g}$ in each band. The errorbars include systematic errors from number density gradients in NVSS, beam effects in WMAP, CMB foregrounds and point sources, and thermal SZ. The overall significance (statistical+systematic) for detecting nonzero $C_\ell^{\phi g}$ is 3.4$\sigma$. This result was the first detection of CMB lensing. A detection was also reported by @Hirata:2008cb, using a suboptimal estimator but a larger galaxy sample obtained by combining NVSS with luminous red galaxies and photometric quasars from SDSS.
Discussion and future prospects
===============================
The theme of this article has been higher-point CMB signals which complement the power spectrum. We have studied examples of such signals from inflationary physics and gravitational lensing in the late universe, constructed optimized estimators which are “matched” to various higher-point signals, and reported results from WMAP data. Let us conclude with a look to the future, by discussing upcoming observational prospects and some of the many unsolved theoretical problems in this area.
For single-field inflation, there is a theorem (Eq. (\[eq:F\_single\_field\])) which completely characterizes the most general three-point function which can be generated during inflaton. This has not yet been generalized to multifield inflation. The local shape $f_{NL}^{\rm local}$ is one example of a three-point signal which can arise in multifield models but is disallowed in the single-field case, but are there other possibilities? Is it always sufficient to look for primordial three-point signals, or do there exist inflationary models which generate detectably large four-point signals with no accompanying detectable three-point signal?
So far we have not mentioned CMB polarization. Future generations of low-noise polarization experiments will be exquisite probes of CMB secondaries such as lensing, since first-order perturbative effects with scalar sources only generate an E-mode in polarization [@Seljak:1996gy; @Kamionkowski:1997], whereas secondary effects tend to generate a mixture of E and B-modes. For example, in the limit of low instrumental noise, the reconstructed lens potential ${\hat\phi}$ from CMB polarization extends to much smaller angular scales than would be possible using CMB temperature [@Okamoto:2003zw]. As another example, secondary polarization generated by Thomson scattering of CMB photons by HII bubbles during the epoch of inhomogeneous reionization is a mixture of E and B-modes and generates a higher-point signal which can be extracted by suitably constructed estimators [@Dvorkin:2008tf].
At the time of this writing, CMB lensing has been detected in cross-correlation with large-scale structure, with low statistical significance (3.4$\sigma$). The situation will change dramatically in a few years with lensing results from Planck and ground-based experiments like SPT and ACT, which can constrain lensing “internally” (i.e. without a cross-correlation tracer) at the few percent level and obtain interesting constraints on parameters such as neutrino mass. The CMB lens reconstruction ${\hat\phi}$ from Planck will be the first all-sky lensing map with interesting signal-to-noise, and will measure a redshift range which is difficult to measure with other probes of lensing such as cosmic shear. Gravitational lensing will soon be an indirect but important scientific product of experiments which measure the small-scale CMB, in much the same way that weak lensing (via galaxy ellipticities) is an important product of wide-field optical surveys like SDSS.
On small angular scales, secondary CMB anisotropy generated well after recombination dominates the primary CMB. In this regime, the CMB should be thought of in a different way: each source of secondary anisotropy is a non-Gaussian signal whose statistical distribution is different from the other secondaries. Exploring this new observational frontier will require new statistical tools; the higher-point estimators presented here represent one approach to this problem. Ideally, we would like to have a complete set of estimators which can separate the various secondaries (lensing, inhomogeneous reionization, kinetic SZ, etc.) from each other, but such a framework has not yet been developed. There are many unsolved problems in the field, but the potential scientific returns from new measurements of CMB temperature and polarization in the next few years are very exciting.
Acquaviva, V., Bartolo, N., Matarrese, S., & Riotto, A. 2003, Nucl. Phys. B, 667, 119 Ade, P. [*et al.*]{} \[QUaD Collaboration\] 2008, Astrophys. J. 674, 22 Alishahiha, M., Silverstein, E., & Tong, D. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 123505 Arkani-Hamed, N., Creminelli, P., Mukohyama, S., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2004, JCAP, 0404, 001 Bernardeau, F. 1997, Astron. Astrophys. 324, 15 Challinor, A. & Lewis. A. 2005, PRD, 71, 103010 Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., Yin, Q. F., Perley, R. A., Taylor, G. B., & Broderick, J. J. 1998, Astron. J., 115, 1693 Cooray, A. R. & Hu, W. 2000, ApJ, 534, 533 Creminelli, P. & Zaldarriaga, M. 2004, JCAP, 0410, 006 Creminelli, P., Nicolis, A., Senatore, L., Tegmark, M. & Zaldarriaga, M. 2006, JCAP 0605, 004 Dvorkin., C. & Smith, K. M. 2009, PRD, 79, 043003 (2009) H. K. Eriksen [*et al.*]{} 2004, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 155, 227 Fowler [*et al.*]{} \[The ACT Collaboration\] 2010, arXiv:1001.2934 \[astro-ph.CO\]. Hanson, D., Challinor, A., & Lewis, A. 2009, arXiv:0911.0612 Hirata, C. M., Ho, S., Padmanabhan, N., Seljak, U. & Bahcall, N. A. 2008, PRD, 78, 043520 Goldberg, D. M. & Spergel, D. N. 1999, PRD, 59, 103002 Hanany, S. [*et al.*]{} 200, Astrophys. J. 545, L5 Hinshaw, G. [*et al.*]{} \[WMAP Collaboration\] 2003, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 148, 135 Hu, W. 2000, PRD, 62, 043007 Hu, W. 2001, Astrophys. J. 557, L79 Kamionkowski, M., Kosowsky, A. & Stebbins, A. 1997, PRL, 78, 2058 Komatsu, E., Spergel, D. N. & Wandelt, B. D. 2005, Astrophys. J., 634, 14 Komatsu, E. [*et al.*]{} 2010, arXiv:1001.4538. Kuo, C. L. [*et al.*]{} 2007, Astrophys. J., 664, 687 Lewis, A. & Challinor, A. 2006, Phys. Rept., 429, 1 Linde, A. D & Mukhanov, V. F. 1997, Phys. Rev. D, 56, 535 Lueker, M. [*et al.*]{} 2009, arXiv:0912.4317 \[astro-ph.CO\]. Lyth, D. H., Ungarelli, C. & Wands, D. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 023503 Maldacena, J. M. 2003, JHEP, 0305, 013 Moroi, T. & Takahashi, T. 2001, Phys. Lett. B, 522, 215 Netterfield, C. B. [*et al.*]{} 2002, Astrophys. J., 571, 604 Oh, S.P., Spergel, D. N. & Hinshaw, G. 2009, Astrophys. J., 510, 551 Okamoto, T. & Hu, W. 2003, PRD, 67, 083002 Seljak, U. 1996, ApJ, 463, 1 Seljak, U. & Zaldarriaga, M. 1997, PRL, 78, 2054 Senatore, L., Smith, K. M. & Zaldarriaga, M. 2010, JCAP, 1001, 028 Smith, K. M., Hu, W. & Kaplinghat, M. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 123002 Smith, K. M., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0612571. Smith, K. M., Zahn, O., & Doré, O. 2007, PRD, 76, 043510 Smith, K. M., Senatore, L. & Zaldarriaga, M. 2009, JCAP, 0909, 006 Smith, K. M., Senatore, L. & Zaldarriaga, M., to appear Smoot, G. F. [*et al.*]{} 1992, Astrophys. J. 396, L1 Spergel, D. N. & Goldberg, D. M. 1999, PRD, 59, 103001 Stompor, R. & Efstathiou, G. 1999, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 302, 735 Verde, L. & Spergel, D. N. 2002, PRD, 65, 043007 Zaldarriaga, M., Spergel, D. N. & Seljak, U. 1997, Astrophys. J., 488, 1 Zaldarriaga, M. & Seljak, U. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 123507
[^1]: This statement is an approximation, but a good one: the three-point function in such models corresponds roughly to $f_{NL}^{\rm loc} \approx (5/12) (1-n_s)$, far too small to be detectable [@Acquaviva:2002ud; @Maldacena:2002vr].
[^2]: Note that in Eqs. (\[eq:F\_local\]) and (\[eq:F\_equil\_orthog\]), we have assumed scale invariance, so that $P_\zeta(k) = \Delta_\zeta k^{-3}$. See @Senatore:2009gt for expressions for the primordial bispectra with a power law spectrum $P_\zeta(k) = \Delta_\zeta k^{-3} (k/k_0)^{n_s-1}$.
[^3]: The equilateral and orthogonal bispectra defined in Eq. (\[eq:F\_equil\_orthog\]) are actually approximations to more precise expressions for the bispectra generated during inflation. The approximation is made so that $F(k_1,k_2,k_3)$ will be a sum of a small number of terms which are factorizable in the form $f(k_1) g(k_2) h(k_3)$. As will be discussed in the next subsection, this factorizability condition is necessary in order to make the data analysis computationally tractable.
[^4]: More precisely, each factorizable term in the primordial bispectrum evolves to a CMB three-point function which has an integral representation with factorizable integrad. When the integral is approximated by a finite sum, the CMB three-point function will be factorizable in the sense defined by Eq. (\[eq:B\_factorizable\]). There is an optimization algorithm [@Smith:2006ud] which can be used to minimize the number of quadrature points needed to approximate the integral to a specified level of accuracy.
[^5]: We have used the notation ${\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi}$ rather than ${\hat\phi}$ because there is a formal sense in which the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq:phihat\]) is a reconstruction for the lens potential after multiplying by the inverse noise covariance matrix of the reconstruction. More precisely, there is an operator ${\mathcal N}^{-1}_{\ell m,\ell'm'}$ such that $\langle ({\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi})_{\ell m} \rangle = {\mathcal N}^{-1}_{\ell m,\ell'm'} \phi_{\ell'm'}$ and $\langle ({\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi})_{\ell m} ({\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi})_{\ell'm'} \rangle = {\mathcal N}_{\ell m,\ell'm'}$. In the simplified case of all sky coverage and isotropic noise, the operator ${\mathcal N}^{-1}$ can be inverted and one can write down an estimator ${\hat\phi}_{\ell m}$ such that $\langle {\hat\phi}_{\ell m} \rangle = \phi_{\ell m}$. In the cut sky case the operator ${\mathcal N}^{-1}$ is noninvertible; for this reason we work with the inverse noise weighted reconstruction $({\mathcal N}^{-1}{\hat\phi})_{\ell m}$ in Eq. (\[eq:phihat\]) and throughout this article.
[^6]: Let us mention one more subtlety in the $TTg$ estimator (Eq. (\[eq:ttg\_estimator\])): inverse noise weighting the ${\hat\phi}$ field is only optimal if the lens reconstruction is noise-dominated ($C_\ell^{\phi\phi} \ll N^{\phi\phi}_{\ell}$). If this assumption is not satisfied then the choice of optimal estimator will depend on whether optimality is defined assuming a fiducial model with $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}=0$. If $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}|_{\rm fid}$ is assumed zero (which makes sense if one is trying to obtain the most statistically significant detection of a nonzero $\langle TTg \rangle$ signal) then the estimator in Eq. (\[eq:ttg\_estimator\]) is optimal. If $C_\ell^{\phi\phi}|_{\rm fid}$ is assumed nonzero (which makes sense if one is trying to obtain the smallest error bars on $C_\ell^{\phi g}$ bandpowers around their fiducial values), then the inverse noise weighted field $({\mathcal N}^{-1} {\hat\phi})$ should be replaced by a (suitably defined) inverse signal+noise weighted field $({\mathcal S} + {\mathcal N})^{-1} {\hat\phi}$ in Eq. (\[eq:ttg\_estimator\]). A similar comment applies to the four-point estimator in Eq. (\[eq:estimator\_tttt\]). This subtlety will be unimportant for the WMAP analysis in the next subsection where the lens reconstruction is very noise-dominated.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a simplified model for Majorana fermion dark matter and explore constraints from direct, indirect and LHC collider searches. The dark matter is assumed to couple to the Standard Model through a vector mediator with axial-vector interactions. We provide detailed analyses of LHC mono-jet searches and IceCube limits on dark matter annihilation in the Sun. In particular, we develop a method for calculating limits on simplified WIMP dark matter models from public IceCube data, which are only available for a limited number of Standard Model final states. We demonstrate that LHC and IceCube searches for Majorana dark matter are complementary and derive new limits on the dark matter and mediator masses, including in addition constraints from LHC di-jet searches, direct detection and the dark matter relic density.'
author:
- |
Jan Heisig$^{1}$[^1], Michael Krämer$^{1}$[^2], Mathieu Pellen$^{1}$[^3], Christopher Wiebusch$^{2}$[^4]\
[ *$^1$Institute for Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology,*]{}\
[*RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany*]{}\
[*$^2$ III. Physikalisches Institut B, RWTH Aachen University, 52056 Aachen, Germany*]{}
bibliography:
- 'LHC\_DM.bib'
date: September 2015
title: |
\
\
**Constraints on Majorana Dark Matter from the LHC and IceCube**
---
Introduction
============
Weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) are attractive candidates for dark matter and are predicted by various extensions of the Standard Model (SM). Searches for WIMPs at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and through direct and indirect detection experiments are complementary, and probe different types of dark matter models and different regions of the model parameter space.
To explore the nature of dark matter, and to be able to combine results from direct, indirect and collider searches, one may follow a more model-independent approach. So-called simplified models (see *e.g.* [@Abdallah:2014hon; @Malik:2014ggr; @Abercrombie:2015gea] and references therein) describe dark matter and its experimental signatures with a minimal amount of new particles, interactions and model parameters. They thus allow us to explore the landscape of dark matter theories, and serve as a mediator between the experimental searches and more complete theories of dark matter.
Many simplified models for dark matter have been proposed in the literature. Minimal models describe dark matter by a single particle which interacts with the SM through a single mediator. We focus on a model with Majorana fermion dark matter and a vector mediator with axial-vector couplings to quarks. Such models predict spin-dependent WIMP-nucleon scattering cross sections and can thus be probed by IceCube in the search for dark matter annihilation in the Sun [@Blumenthal:2014cwa; @Catena:2015iea]. Previous work on dark matter models with vector mediators [@Buchmueller:2013dya; @Buchmueller:2014yoa; @Lebedev:2014bba; @Alves:2015pea; @Chala:2015ama] has mainly focused on Dirac fermion dark matter and, in particular, has not analyzed dark matter limits from IceCube.
The complementarity of IceCube and LHC searches for dark matter has been explored in Ref. [@Blumenthal:2014cwa], albeit in an effective field theory (EFT) approach, where the masses of all particles mediating the interaction between the SM and dark matter are assumed to be large compared to the energy scale of the process. The EFT limit is reliable to interpret the low-energy WIMP-nucleon interactions which are probed by direct detection experiments, but it may break down when analyzing dark matter searches with IceCube and with the LHC. While the capture of WIMPs in the Sun is well described by an EFT, the annihilation process is in general not. Indeed, as we will show, the IceCube limits are sensitive to details of the simplified model which cannot be described within the EFT. Furthermore, the EFT may break down when probing dark matter production at the LHC: when the energy scale of the interaction is near or larger than the mass of the mediator, resonance effects become important, and the mediator has to be included in the particle spectrum of the model [@Busoni:2013lha; @Busoni:2014sya; @Bai:2010hh; @Fox:2011pm; @Fox:2011fx; @Fox:2012ru; @Goodman:2011jq; @Busoni:2014haa; @Buckley:2014fba; @Harris:2014hga].
We thus provide a comprehensive analysis of collider, direct and indirect detection constraints on Majorana dark matter with vector mediators in the simplified model framework. The paper is organized as follows. The dark matter model is introduced in section \[sec:model\]. We derive limits on the model parameters from LHC searches in section \[sec:collider\]. In particular, we use the most recent results for mono-jet searches from both the ATLAS [@Aad:2015zva] and CMS [@Khachatryan:2014rra] collaborations. Section \[sec:astro\] addresses constraints from the dark matter relic density, from direct dark matter searches, and, in particular, searches for dark matter annihilation in the Sun with IceCube. For a mediator that is lighter than the WIMP, annihilation into a pair of mediators can be dominant. In order to determine the IceCube model rejection factor in this region of parameter space we develop a method to estimate the limits for annihilation into two mediators on the basis of the limits for annihilation into the SM particles the mediator decays into. We validate this method by applying it to annihilation into top quark pairs for which we find very good agreement with the most recent public IceCube dark matter annihilation limits [@Aartsen:2016exj] for that channel. We finally combine the various constraints and derive new limits on the dark matter and mediator masses in section \[sec:results\]. Our conclusions are presented in section \[sec:conclude\].
A simplified model for Majorana fermion dark matter {#sec:model}
===================================================
We focus on a minimal model with Majorana fermion dark matter, $\chi$, and a vector mediator, $V_\mu$, with axial-vector couplings to quarks, $${\cal L} \supset g_\chi\, \bar \chi \gamma^\mu \gamma^5 \chi V_\mu
+ g_q\, \bar q \gamma^\mu \gamma^5 q V_\mu\,.$$ We assume universal couplings of the mediator to the SM quarks and neglect couplings to leptons.[^5] Thus the model has only four independent parameters: the couplings of the mediator to the dark matter and the SM quarks, $g_\chi,$ and $g_q$, and the dark matter and mediator masses, $m_\chi$ and $M_V$, respectively. We require both couplings to be $g_\chi, g_q < 4\pi$.
The axial-vector interaction of Majorana dark matter with nuclei leads to spin-dependent scattering cross sections and contributes significantly to the dark matter capture rate in the Sun (see section \[sec:IceCube\]). Searching for dark matter annihilation in the Sun with the neutrino telescope IceCube can thus place strong limits on such models, which are competitive with direct detection bounds and with dark matter searches at the LHC.
The width of the mediator, $\Gamma_V$, is determined by the particle masses and the couplings: \[eq:Vwidth\] \_V = ( (1-4 )\^[3/2]{} + \^6\_[i = 1]{} ( 1-4 )\^[3/2]{} ) , where $m_{q_i}$ is the mass of the SM quarks.
The dark matter cross section at the LHC and the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section depend on the product of the couplings and on the width of the mediator, $\sqrt{g_q g_\chi}$ and $\Gamma_V$, respectively. We will thus present our results in terms of $\Gamma_V$ and $\sqrt{g_q g_\chi}$, rather than in terms of the individual couplings $g_q$ and $g_\chi$.
(0.5,0.415) (0.0,-0.007)[![Non-accessible regions in the $M_V/m_\chi$-$\Gamma_V/ M_V$ plane for $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=1$ (red shaded region), 0.2 (blue shaded region) and 0.1 (green shaded region). The width of the bands marking the boundaries of the shaded regions indicates the explicit dependence on $m_\chi$: the upper and lower edge of the band correspond to the boundaries for $m_\chi=1\,\text{TeV}$ and $1\,\text{GeV}$, respectively. []{data-label="fig:allowedreg"}](figs/figure1.pdf "fig:"){width="49.00000%"}]{}
The relation between $\Gamma_V$, $\sqrt{g_q g_\chi}$ and the individual couplings $g_q$ and $g_\chi$ provides some insight into the phenomenology of this model. In the region $M_V> 2m_\chi$, and for any given value of the product of the couplings, $\sqrt{g_q g_\chi}$, we encounter a minimal value for the mediator width, below which there is no solution for the individual couplings within the model. These regions are shown in Fig. \[fig:allowedreg\] in the $M_V/m_\chi$-$\Gamma_V/ M_V$ plane. The unaccessible regions only depend very mildly on $m_\chi$, as indicated by the width of the bands marking the boundaries of the shaded regions (here $m_\chi$ was varied between 1GeV and 1TeV). In the allowed part of the region where $M_V> 2m_\chi$ there exist two solutions for $g_q$ for any given $\sqrt{g_q g_\chi}$. To derive conservative limits on the model from di-jet production (see Sec. \[sec:dijet\]), we adopt the smaller value for $g_q$ in our analysis, unless this would cause $g_\chi>4\pi$ for a given $\sqrt{g_q g_\chi}$.
In the EFT limit $M_V\gg m_\chi$, where dark matter and SM quarks interact through a 4-fermion operator with coefficient $1/M_*^2=g_q g_\chi/M_V^2$, we find that $\Gamma_V/ M_V \gtrsim 0.3\, g_\chi g_q = 0.3\, (M_V/M_*)^2$. The LHC Run I data probe suppression scales $M_* \lesssim 1$TeV, see Sec. \[sec:collider\]. Thus, in the region $M_V \gg \sqrt{s}$ where the EFT is valid, $\Gamma_V/M_V$ is typically larger than one, inconsistent with a particle-like interpretation of the mediator (*cf.* Ref. [@Buchmueller:2013dya]).
Collider limits {#sec:collider}
===============
Mono-jet limits
---------------
Weakly interacting dark matter particles can be detected at the LHC through their associated production with jets, electroweak bosons or heavy quarks. The search for such signatures together with large missing transverse energy (MET) has been performed at the LHC Run I and is one of the central goals of LHC Run II [@Abercrombie:2015gea]. In the following we will focus on signatures with mono-jets and MET as presented in [@Aad:2015zva; @Khachatryan:2014rra]. Searches for electroweak gauge bosons with large MET are important in general, but provide weaker limits for the dark matter model we consider, see e.g. [@Aad:2014tda; @Khachatryan:2014rwa].
To simulate the experimental signature for our model, we have generated events using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FeynRules</span> 2.1 [@Alloul:2013bka], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Madgraph5\_aMC@NLO</span> [@Alwall:2014hca] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PYTHIA</span> 6 [@Sjostrand:2006za], including QCD processes with one and two jets in the hard scattering. We have used <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DELPHES</span> [@deFavereau:2013fsa] for the detector simulation and implemented the cuts employed in the ATLAS [@Aad:2015zva] and CMS [@Khachatryan:2014rra] mono-jet searches in an in-house program. With the observed and expected number of events provided by Refs. [@Aad:2015zva; @Khachatryan:2014rra] we are thus able to set exclusion limits at $95 \%$ confidence level (CL) on the different parameters of the model.
(0.99,0.933) (0.0,-0.005)[![ Lower exclusion limits in the $m_\chi$-$M_{V}$ plane at 95% CL for the ATLAS (blue lines) and CMS (red lines) mono-jet searches. The limits for the simplified model (solid lines), for the EFT (dashed lines) and for the EFT applying the $Q$-truncation (dotted lines) are shown. Four slices of the parameter space: $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=1$ , $\Gamma_V=0.01 M_V$ (upper left panel), $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=1$, $\Gamma_V=0.5 M_V$ (upper right panel), $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$, $\Gamma_V=0.01 M_V$ (lower left panel) and $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$, $\Gamma_V=0.5 M_V$ (lower right panel) are displayed. The blue shaded region in the left panels represent the parameters space not allowing a consistent solution for the mediator width as a function of $ M_V,m_\chi,\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}$. []{data-label="fig:LHCres"}](figs/figure2.pdf "fig:"){width="98.00000%"}]{}
We have also studied our model in the EFT limit, where the interaction is described by a higher-dimensional operator of the form $(g_\chi g_q/M_V^2) \, \bar{\chi} \gamma_\mu \gamma^5 \chi\,\bar{q}\gamma^\mu\gamma^5q$. As the EFT is valid only for energy scales below the mediator mass, it has been proposed to restrict the momentum transfer in the $s$-channel, $Q < M_V$, when calculating cross sections at the LHC [@Busoni:2014sya].
In Fig. \[fig:LHCres\] we show exclusion limits on the dark matter and mediator masses, for scenarios with a small or a large mediator width, $\Gamma_V/M_V=0.01$ and $0.5$, and small or large mediator couplings, $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$ and $1$, respectively. Note that we consider $\Gamma_V/M = 0.5$ a rather extreme benchmark case, which however is commonly adopted in the literature. For even larger $\Gamma_V/M$ the narrow-width approximation to the cross section calculation may not be reliable, and the interpretation of the mediator as a resonance becomes doubtful. The results have been obtained for the ATLAS [@Aad:2015zva] and CMS [@Khachatryan:2014rra] mono-jet searches interpreted in terms of the simplified model, the EFT, and the EFT with a truncation $Q < M_V$. Note that not all combinations of the parameters $m_\chi, M_V, \Gamma_V$ and $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}$ are viable, as discussed in section \[sec:model\]: for a small width, $\Gamma_V/M_V = 0.01$, most of the region $M_V>2m_\chi$ is theoretically inconsistent. On the other hand, for a large width $\Gamma_V/M_V = 0.5$ the whole parameter region is allowed.
(0.5,0.38) (0.0,-0.007)[![ Theoretical prediction for the total production cross section (solid lines) and its observed upper limits (dashed lines) in the EFT limit with (green lines) and without (black lines) $Q$-truncation as well as in the simplified model with $\Gamma_V=0.01M_V$ (red lines) and $\Gamma_V=0.5M_V$ (blue lines). Example for $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$ and $m_\chi=15\,\GEV$ for the CMS analysis.[]{data-label="fig:xstheoLIM"}](figs/figure3.pdf "fig:"){width="50.00000%"}]{}
We find large differences between the EFT and simplified model limits. For $M_V<2m_\chi$ the EFT limit (without $Q$-truncation) extents to much larger values of $m_\chi$ and drastically over-estimates the sensitivity in this region. By construction, this is not the case for the EFT limit employing the truncation on $Q$. Furthermore, also for $M_V>2m_\chi$ we find significant differences. This is due to the fact that $M_V$ lies in the range of accessible energies at the LHC. The cross section can be greatly enhanced due to contributions from on-shell mediators. This leads to a larger sensitivity in the simplified model than in the EFT and is most pronounced for a small mediator width. However, for small $M_V$ – smaller that the minimal MET of approximately $150$GeV required in the search – the cross section in the simplified model decreases again and the sensitivity becomes weaker. This effect can be seen in the slice of parameter space with $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$ and $\Gamma_V=0.5M_V$ (lower right panel), where we cannot constrain the dark matter and mediator masses from the CMS analyses interpreted within the simplified model while within the EFT (without $Q$-truncation) a limit on $M_V$ around $200\,$GeV is obtained.
To illustrate the origin of the differences we present the cross-section predictions together with the observed upper CMS limits for the simplified model, the EFT and the EFT with truncation in Fig. \[fig:xstheoLIM\]. The results are shown exemplarily for $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$ and $m_\chi = 15$GeV, and for small and large widths, $\Gamma_V/M_V =0.01$ and $0.5$. The observed upper limits, which involve the observed number of events, the background expectation and the signal efficiencies, do not depend significantly on the mediator width, and are similar for the simplified model and the EFT with truncation. However, the cross section predictions from the simplified model and the EFT differ by orders of magnitude, in particular for small mediator widths. Furthermore, the simplified model cross section for $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$ and $\Gamma_V/M_V =0.5$ never exceeds the cross section limit, so that no constraint on the dark matter and mediator masses can be derived. Note that the slopes of the cross section limits and the cross section predictions are quite similar, so that small changes in the observed number of events, or small statistical fluctuations in the estimate of the efficiencies and cross sections, may have a visible impact on the limits.
We conclude that for our dark matter model, the EFT interpretation of the experimental LHC searches is only reliable if the mediator mass is larger than the accessible LHC partonic energies. However, as the current LHC limit on the suppression scale $M_*=M_V/\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}$ is of ${\cal O}(1\,{\rm TeV})$, an EFT interpretation would require extremely large couplings. On the other hand, the EFT limit with a truncation on $Q$ results in overly conservative limits which do not fully exploit the potential of the LHC searches. We will thus use the limits obtained in the simplified model in the compilation of bounds presented in section \[sec:results\].
Di-jet limits {#sec:dijet}
-------------
Limits on our simplified model can also be derived from searches for the mediator particle in di-jet signatures. A detailed and comprehensive study of di-jet constraints has been presented recently in Ref. [@Chala:2015ama], including results from UA2 [@Alitti:1993pn], the Tevatron [@Aaltonen:2008dn], ATLAS [@TheATLAScollaboration:2013gia; @Aad:2014aqa] and CMS [@Khachatryan:2015sja]. These searches can set bounds on a broad range of masses and are complementary to the signatures we have studied in this paper. We will include the di-jet limits in the final discussion of the bounds on the model parameter space presented in section \[sec:results\].
Astrophysical and cosmological constraints {#sec:astro}
==========================================
Models for dark matter are constrained by the relic density, indirect and direct searches. We have evaluated the relic density and the most recent IceCube limits on dark matter annihilation in the Sun [@Aartsen:2016exj] within our simplified model for Majorana dark matter, as discussed in detail below. We also briefly comment on direct dark matter searches, which provide further complementary constraints on our model.
Relic density {#sec:relic}
-------------
We have calculated the dark matter relic density for each point of the model parameter space using <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FeynRules</span> 2.1 [@Alloul:2013bka], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">CalcHEP</span> [@Belyaev:2012qa] and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">micrOMEGAs</span> 4 [@Belanger:2014vza]. The calculation includes possible resonant effects, which are not taken into account when expanding in the dark matter velocity [@Gondolo:1990dk]. We have however checked that the results obtained from the exact calculation within the simplified model match those obtained in the EFT limit for $M_V\gg m_\chi$. To that end, we have calculated the annihilation cross section into quarks [@Zheng:2010js; @Dreiner:2012xm] for the case of Majorana dark matter,
\_[qq]{} = ( &4 M\_V\^4\
&- 96 M\_V\^2 m\_\^2 m\_q\^2 s + 48 m\_\^2 m\_q\^2 s\^2 ) ,
where $\beta_{q,\chi} = \sqrt{1-4m^2_{q,\chi} / s}$ and $s$ is the center-of-mass energy. Note that this annihilation cross section is helicity suppressed [@Goldberg:1983nd; @Go832], and thus the main annihilation channels will be into top and bottom quarks.
In Fig. 6 (grey band) we show the parameter values of our model for which the relic density from thermal freeze-out agrees with the one measured by the Planck Collaboration [@Ade:2013zuv], $\Omega_\text{DM} h^2 = 0.1199$, within $\pm 10\%$. Assuming a standard cosmological history parameter points above this line can be considered excluded in the framework of our simplified model. Points below this line could be allowed by either requiring an additional component of dark matter or an additional (non-thermal) production mechanism. In this paper we assume 100% of the (local) dark matter to be the considered WIMP candidate and hence do not rescale the limits from IceCube and LUX for points below the grey band. Note that in an extension of our simplified model co-annihilations or additional resonances may exist that could further weaken the relic density constraint while providing a similar phenomenology at the LHC and IceCube.
Finally, we mention that the unitarity of the $S$-matrix imposes constraints on the masses and couplings in the dark matter model [@Chala:2015ama; @Griest:1989wd]. However, performing a definite analysis of unitarity constraints would require us to extend the simplified model framework, which is beyond the scope of this work.
Limits from IceCube {#sec:IceCube}
-------------------
If dark matter particles scatter in heavy astrophysical objects such as the Sun, they can lose enough energy to become gravitationally trapped inside the object. With the accumulation of dark matter, the annihilation rate can become large enough to lead to an equilibrium between dark matter capture and annihilation.
The evolution of the number of dark matter particles in the Sun, $N$, can be described by the Riccati differential equation [@Jungman:1995df] \[eq:diffeqcap1\] = C\_ - C\_ N\^2 - C\_ N, where $\dot{N}$ denotes the time derivative of $N$, $C_\odot$ is the capture rate of dark matter particles in the Sun, $C_\text{A} N^2 = 2 \Gamma_A$ is twice the dark matter annihilation rate and $C_\text{E} N$ is the evaporation rate, [*i.e.*]{} the rate at which particles escape the Sun due to hard elastic scattering. For dark matter particles with masses $m_\chi\gtrsim10\,\GEV$, the evaporation term can be neglected [@Griest:1986yu], allowing for a simple solution of Eq. (\[eq:diffeqcap1\]): \[eq:tanhsq\] C\_N\^2 = C\_\^2 ( t) . For large times, $\sqrt{C_\odot C_A} \, t \gg 1$, the tanh-term in Eq. approaches one, and WIMP annihilation and capture are in equilibrium, *i.e.* $C_\odot = 2 \Gamma_A = C_A N^2$. This implies $\dot{N} = 0$. Hence in equilibrium the annihilation rate does not depend on the annihilation cross section, but only on the capture rate, which in turn is determined by the elastic WIMP scattering cross section. We shall analyze the equilibrium condition within our model in more detail in Sec. \[sec:EQcond\].
Through a measurement of the neutrino flux, neutrino telescopes are sensitive to the WIMP annihilation rate. We consider data from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory [@Aartsen:2012kia; @Aartsen:2016exj] taken during 317 days in the years 2011 and 2012. No significant excess over background has been observed and these measurements can thus be used to set limits on possible dark matter signals.
The search has been interpreted in terms of limits on the spin-dependent WIMP-proton scattering cross section. The WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section in our model is
\_\^[(N)]{} &= ( \_[q=u,d,s]{} g\_q \_q\^[(N)]{})\^2\
&1.810\^[-40]{}\^2 ()\^2 ()\^2 ()\^4 , \[eq:sigmaSDm\]
where $\mu_{N\chi}=m_\chi m_N/(m_\chi + m_N)$ is the reduced WIMP-nucleon mass and $N=p$ for WIMP-proton scattering.[^6] In the second line of Eq. we have used the fact that $g_q$ is universal and included the numerical values for the nucleon form factors $\Delta_u^{(p)}=\Delta_d^{(n)}=0.85$, $\Delta_u^{(n)}=\Delta_d^{(p)}=-0.42$ and $\Delta_s^{(p)}=\Delta_s^{(n)}=-0.08$ [@Cheng:2012qr]. Considering universal couplings and neglecting the small mass difference between the proton and the neutron, the WIMP-neutron scattering cross section probed in direct detection experiments (see section \[sec:LUX\]) is equal to the WIMP-proton cross section.
The dark matter interpretation of the IceCube searches initially relied on two scenarios: annihilation into $b\bar b$ and $W^+W^-$ [@Aartsen:2012kia]. Recently, an improved interpretation [@Aartsen:2016exj] has been performed which includes more scenarios, in particular annihilation into $t\bar t$. In the model considered here, annihilation into $t\bar t$, $b\bar b$ and $VV$ is dominant (*cf.* Fig. \[fig:cosmores\]). Therefore, in Sec. \[sec:ttlims\] we will first estimate the limit on the spin-dependent WIMP-proton scattering cross section for annihilation into $t\bar t$ based on the limits for the annihilation into $W^+W^-$ and $b\bar b$. The excellent agreement between our estimate of the $t\bar t$ limits and the results presented in Ref. [@Aartsen:2016exj] is considered as evidence for the accuracy of the conversion method. We then apply the same method to estimate limits on the annihilation into $VV$ in Sec. \[sec:VVlims\]. For the exclusion limits on the parameter space of our model we conservatively take into account only the most constraining channel and compute the model rejection factor, $\mu$, via (m\_,M\_V)=\_\^[(p)]{}(m\_,M\_V)( , , ), \[eq:mucomb\] where $R_{i}$ is the contribution of the channel $i$ to the annihilation cross section and $\sigma_{i}^\text{UL}$ is the corresponding upper limit on the spin-dependent WIMP-proton scattering cross section. Note that we display the dependence of the various factors on the dark matter and mediator masses, but not the dependence on the couplings $g_q,g_\chi$. A point in parameter space is excluded if $\mu\ge1$.
### Limit on $\sigma_\text{SD}$ for annihilation into $t\bar t$ {#sec:ttlims}
In this subsection we will derive a limit on the spin-dependent WIMP-proton scattering cross section for dark matter annihilating to 100% into $t\bar t$. Our procedure uses the limits of capturing rates $\Gamma_\text{A}$ for annihilation into $W^+W^-$ and $b\bar b$ as input. As WIMPs are practically at rest inside the Sun, the $W$ bosons (or $b$ quarks) that are produced directly in WIMP annihilation have a well-defined energy given by the WIMP mass $m_\chi$. Therefore we can interpret the limits on $\Gamma_\text{A}$ as limits on the annihilation rate of the $W$-(or $b$-)pairs with the energy $E^{W/b}=m_\chi$, regardless of the actual annihilation process.[^7] We exploit this fact and consider the energy spectrum of the $W$ bosons and $b$ quarks arising from the decay of the top quarks from WIMP annihilation into $t\bar t$. Since the interaction time of the top quark in the Sun is much larger than its lifetime, no energy loss is expected before it decays into an on-shell $W$-boson and $b$-quark. As a next step we calculate the probability distributions $P(E_i|E_t) $ of the energy of a final state particle $i$ for a given top energy – and hence WIMP mass – by simulating the annihilation process $\chi\chi\to t \bar t \to W^+ W^- b \bar b$ with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Madgraph5\_aMC@NLO</span>. The probability distributions are normalized to one. Based on these distributions we can calculate the resulting limit on $\Gamma_\text{A}^{t \bar t}$ by a weighted average of the limits for each relevant final state $x=W^+,W^-,b,\bar b$: = \_0\^E\_W + \_0\^E\_b . \[eq:avGamma1\] In order to evaluate $\Gamma_\text{A}^{W^+W^-\!/b\bar b}$ for arbitrary values of the energy we interpolate the limits linearly in $E^{W/b}$ between the values given in Ref. [@Aartsen:2016exj] on a double logarithmic scale. Note that the contribution from the $b$ quarks in Eq. is sub-leading. The correction is below $10\%$ (for large WIMP masses and decreases to below $1\%$ towards small masses).
(0.46,0.35) (0.0,-0.007)[![ 90% CL upper limits on the spin-dependent WIMP-proton scattering cross section, $\sigma^\text{UL}_{\text{SD}}$, for 100% annihilation into $t\bar t$ (red solid line), $b\bar b$ (blue dotted line) and $W^+W^-$ (green dashed line) from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory [@Aartsen:2016exj]. The black dashed line shows the $t\bar t$ limit we derived from the $b\bar b$ and $W^+W^-$ data according to the method described in Sec. \[sec:ttlims\]. []{data-label="fig:xsSDlimICcomp"}](figs/figure4.pdf "fig:"){width="47.00000%"}]{}
We converted the limits on the spin-dependent WIMP-proton scattering cross section given in Ref. [@Aartsen:2016exj] into limits on the annihilation rate (and vice versa) by \[eq:conv\] \_\^(m\_)=12 K\_(m\_) \_\^(m\_), where $K_\text{SD}$ is the (channel independent) capture efficiency for the spin-dependent part of the scattering. We take $K_\text{SD}$ from Ref. [@Aartsen:2012kia] where it was derived following the method of Ref. [@Wikstrom:2009kw] adopting the Standard Solar Model BS05(OP) [@Bahcall:2004pz] as implemented in <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DarkSUSY</span> [@Gondolo:2004sc].
The result is presented in Fig. \[fig:xsSDlimICcomp\], where we also show the limit on 100% annihilation into $W^+W^-$, $b\bar b$ and $ t\bar t$ from Ref. [@Aartsen:2016exj]. The good agreement of our cross section limits for ${t \bar t}$ with Ref. [@Aartsen:2016exj] demonstrates the validity of our calculation. In addition, as a consistency check of our procedure, we have converted the limit on the annihilation rate into a limit on the resulting muon flux in the detector, $\Phi^\text{UL}_\mu$, using the conversion functions provided in Ref. [@Wikstrom:2009kw]. As expected, we found that $\Phi^\text{UL}_\mu$ from the annihilation into $t\bar{t}$ is always in between the limits obtained for annihilation into $W^+W^-$ and $b\bar{b}$ as presented in Ref. [@Aartsen:2016exj].
### Limit on $\sigma_\text{SD}$ for annihilation into $VV$ {#sec:VVlims}
In this subsection we will derive limits on the spin-dependent WIMP-proton scattering cross section for dark matter annihilating to 100% into mediator pairs $VV$ with the method described in Sec. \[sec:VVlims\]. Annihilation into $VV$ takes place only for $M_V<m_\chi$, where the mediator decays solely into quarks. As we consider a universal coupling to all quarks, the corresponding branching ratios are simply determined by the accessible phase space. Here we only take into account neutrinos arising from the decay of the mediator into bottom and top quarks. In order to justify this choice we computed the differential neutrino spectra ${\mathrm{d}}n_\nu/{\mathrm{d}}E_\nu$ for annihilation into all quark flavors with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WimpSim</span> 3 [@Blennow:2007tw].[^8] As expected, the neutrino fluxes spectra for light flavor quarks $d,u,s$ are much softer than for bottom and top quarks and can be safely neglected for the derivation of the limits. The neutrino flux for annihilation into charm quarks is weaker than that for $b$-quarks by a factor of 3 to 10 (and much weaker than for top quarks) in the relevant energy range and is hence subdominant. We simulate the annihilation process $\chi\chi\to VV$ and the subsequent decays $V\to q\bar q$ with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Madgraph5\_aMC@NLO</span> and determine the probability distributions $P(E_q|E_V) $ of the energy of a final state quark $q=b,t$, which are hence normalized to $2\times\text{BR}(V\to q\bar q)$. We calculate the resulting limit on $\Gamma_\text{A}^{VV}$ analogous to Eq. through: = \_0\^E\_t + \_0\^E\_b . \[eq:avGamma\]
As the resulting limit depends on the WIMP mass and the mediator mass we scan the corresponding two-dimensional grid. In Fig. \[fig:IClimitsVV\] we present the limits on $\Gamma_\text{A}$ (left panel) and $\sigma_\text{SD}^{VV}$ (right panel). The limits are considerably weaker than for annihilation into a pair of tops. As the limits depend both on $m_\chi$ and $M_V$ we show two slices in the parameter space $M_V/m_\chi=0.75$ and $M_V/m_\chi=0.35$, respectively. The main difference between these two slices is due to the opening of the mediator decay into top quarks for $M_V>2m_t$, which greatly enhances the sensitivity.
The resulting IceCube limits on the model parameter space considering the annihilation channels $b\bar b$, $t\bar t$ and $VV$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:cosmores\]. The sensitivity to annihilation into $VV$ is significantly weaker than for $t \bar t$ and – below the $t \bar t$ threshold – for $b \bar b$ final states. This causes a drop in the limit on $M_V$ for regions where annihilation into $VV$ is dominant (light grey areas).
(0.98,0.35) (0.0,-0.007)[![ 90% CL upper limits on the annihilation rate $\Gamma_\text{A}$ and the spin-dependent WIMP-proton scattering cross section $\sigma_{\text{SD}}$ for 100% annihilation into $VV$ (black lines) derived from a reinterpretation of the data from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory [@Aartsen:2016exj]. We show two slices regarding the mediator mass, $M_V/m_\chi=0.75$ (dashed line) and $M_V/m_\chi=0.35$ (dot-dashed line). For comparison we also show the limits for 100% annihilation into $b\bar b$ (blue solid line) and $W^+W^-$ (red solid line) taken from Ref. [@Aartsen:2016exj].[]{data-label="fig:IClimitsVV"}](figs/figure5.pdf "fig:"){width="100.00000%"}]{}
(0.99,0.933) (0.0,-0.007)[![ Astrophysical and cosmological quantities in the $m_\chi$-$M_{V}$ plane in four slices of the considered parameter space: $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=1$, $\Gamma_V=0.01 M_V$ (upper left panel), $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=1$, $\Gamma_V=0.5 M_V$ (upper right panel), $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$, $\Gamma_V=0.01 M_V$ (lower left panel) and $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$, $\Gamma_V=0.5 M_V$ (lower right panel). The shaded regions denote the dominant annihilation channel, in red, blue, green and grey we denote dominant annihilation into $t\bar t$, $b\bar b$, light flavor quarks and two mediators, respectively. The 90% CL lower exclusion limits from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory (green line) and from LUX derived from the limits presented in Ref. [@Savage:2015xta] (purple line) are also displayed. The dark grey shaded band denotes the region where the relic density matches the dark matter density within $\pm10\%$. In the region below the red thin line the equilibrium condition is fulfilled, *i.e.* $\sqrt{C_\odot C_A} \, t_\odot > 3$. []{data-label="fig:cosmores"}](figs/figure6.pdf "fig:"){width="98.00000%"}]{}
### Equilibrium condition for capturing and annihilation in the Sun {#sec:EQcond}
As discussed at the beginning of Sec. \[sec:IceCube\], for large times, $\sqrt{C_\odot C_A}\, t \gg 1$, dark matter matter annihilation and capture in the Sun are in equilibrium, and the limits on the annihilation rate can directly be translated into limits on the elastic WIMP-nucleon scattering. Assuming that the Sun has been collecting dark matter during its entire lifetime, $t = t_\odot \simeq 1.5 \times 10^{17} \, \text{s}$, the equilibrium condition can approximately be expressed by [@Jungman:1995df] \[eq:equilcon\] t\_330 ( )\^[1/2]{} ( )\^[1/2]{} ( )\^[3/4]{}1. In practice $\sqrt{C_\odot C_A} \, t_\odot \gtrsim 3$ is already enough to obtain an error of less than a percent on $C_\odot$. In order to estimate $\sqrt{C_\odot C_A} \, t_\odot$ for our model, we compute $\langle \sigma_\text{A} v \rangle$ with <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">micrOMEGAs</span>. The capture rate, $C_\odot$, can be deduced from the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section using the capture efficiency (see Sec. \[sec:ttlims\]) $$C_\odot = K_\text{SD} (m_\chi) \sigma_\text{SD}\,.$$ In Fig. \[fig:cosmores\] we show the contours $\sqrt{C_\odot C_A} \, t_\odot=3$ (labeled “EQ") in the $m_\chi$-$M_V$ plane. Below this line the equilibrium condition is fulfilled and the interpretation of the IceCube measurement in terms of the elastic scattering cross section is justified. A similar conclusion was put forward for the limits set in Ref. [@Blumenthal:2014cwa], where $\langle \sigma_\text{A} v \rangle$ was computed within the EFT. However, the fact that the equilibrium condition holds in the EFT limit does not imply that it should hold in the simplified model description, as the thermally averaged cross section, $\langle \sigma_\text{A} v \rangle$, can be smaller in the latter case.
Limits from direct detection {#sec:LUX}
----------------------------
Although providing much stronger limits on the spin-independent WIMP-nucleon scattering cross section, direct detection experiments are also capable of imposing limits on spin-dependent scattering. In the relevant part of the parameter space the strongest constraints are set by the LUX experiment [@Akerib:2013tjd]. As an up-to-date dedicated analysis for spin-dependent scattering has not been provided by the LUX Collaboration, several authors have reinterpreted the LUX limits accordingly [@Buchmueller:2014yoa; @Savage:2015xta; @Chala:2015ama].
We will use the limits on the spin-dependent WIMP-neutron scattering cross section presented in Ref. [@Savage:2015xta]. They are very similar to those presented in Ref. [@Buchmueller:2014yoa]. Since Xenon, the target material of LUX, has neutron-odd isotopes, limits on spin-dependent WIMP-proton scattering are considerably weaker and are thus not taken into account. The results are shown in Fig. \[fig:cosmores\] (purple curve).
Results and Discussion {#sec:results}
======================
In this section we finally summarize the constraints on our model from indirect, direct and collider searches. Fig. \[fig:mainres\] presents limits on the dark matter and mediator masses for four different choices of the coupling strength, $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}$, and the mediator width, $\Gamma_V$. As discussed in Sec. \[sec:model\], not all combinations of the parameters $m_\chi, M_V, \Gamma_V$ and $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}$ are viable within our model. For small width, a large range of the parameter space, marked in shaded blue in the left panels of Fig. \[fig:mainres\], is not allowed. For a large width, $\Gamma_V = 0.5\, M_V$, on the other hand, the whole parameter region is allowed.
(0.99,0.933) (0.0,0.0)[![ Summary of the exclusion limits in the $m_\chi$-$M_{V}$ plane in four slices of the considered parameter space: $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=1$, $\Gamma_V=0.01 M_V$ (upper left panel), $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=1$, $\Gamma_V=0.5 M_V$ (upper right panel), $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$, $\Gamma_V=0.01 M_V$ (lower left panel) and $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$, $\Gamma_V=0.5 M_V$ (lower right panel). We show the 95%CL lower exclusion limits from mono-jet searches at ATLAS (blue lines) and CMS (red lines) (both in the simplified model interpretation) as well as limits from searches for resonances in di-jet signatures taken from Ref. [@Chala:2015ama] (orange shaded regions are excluded). Furthermore, we show the 90%CL lower exclusion limits from the IceCube Neutrino Observatory (green line) and from LUX derived from the limits presented in Ref. [@Savage:2015xta] (purple line). The dark grey shaded band denotes the region where the relic density matches the dark matter density within $\pm10\%$. In the light-grey shaded region above it, the dark matter is over-produced. The blue shaded region in the left panels do not allow for a consistent solution for the mediator width as a function of $M_V,m_\chi,\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}$ within the model.[]{data-label="fig:mainres"}](figs/figure7.pdf "fig:"){width="98.00000%"}]{}
The model provides the correct dark matter relic density only for the parameter region within the thin grey band. The shaded grey area in Fig. \[fig:mainres\] indicates the parameter region leading to an overproduction of dark matter within the model. Note, however, that the relic density constraint can be softened significantly if we assume an extended particle spectrum that leads to co-annihilation effects (which can give access to the region above the thermal relic-band) or to additional – non-thermal – contributions to the dark matter production (which can give access to the region below the thermal relic-band).
The limits from the ATLAS and CMS mono-jet searches, obtained within the simplified model, are particularly relevant for small $m_\chi$. The ATLAS mono-jet analysis (blue solid curve) is the most constraining search for $M_V>2m_\chi$ in the whole parameter space considered. In particular, this search constrains most strongly the parameter space where the relic density from thermal freeze-out agrees with the measured dark matter density, *cf.* the dark grey band that represents the parameter region with $\Omega_\text{th} h^2 = 0.1199\pm 0.012$. The LHC limits depend upon the width of the mediator. This dependence is particularly pronounced for $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=0.2$, where LHC searches probe mediator masses $M_V\lesssim1\,$TeV. Note that this mass range is of the order of the typical scattering energies of mono-jet searches with large MET, so that an EFT description would not be reliable. The sensitivity of the LHC searches is higher for smaller width as the cross section is enhanced through on-shell mediator production.
As discussed in Sec. \[sec:dijet\] we also show the limits from di-jet searches as obtained in Ref. [@Chala:2015ama]. These constraints are particularly important for large mediator width (right panels), because a larger width requires a larger mediator-quark coupling $g_q$, and thus a larger cross section.
The direct and indirect dark matter searches by the LUX and IceCube experiments, respectively, are particularly relevant for intermediate and large dark matter masses. The IceCube limits, specifically, show a maximal sensitivity for dark matter masses around $200\!\!-\!\!1000$GeV. This results from two effects: As the sensitivity for annihilation into $b\bar b$ is significantly lower than for $t \bar t$ (*cf.* Fig. \[fig:xsSDlimICcomp\]) there is a significant strengthening of the IceCube limits around the top threshold. For very large $m_\chi$, on the other hand, the capture efficiencies and thus the cross section limits decrease and the IceCube search loses sensitivity. Furthermore, for $M_V<m_\chi/2$, the annihilation into a pair of mediators is allowed (via a $t$-channel $\chi$), which again provides a lower model rejection than $t \bar t$. Hence, the limit depends strongly on the relative importance of annihilation into $t \bar t$ and $VV$. For $m_\chi>M_V$ and $\sqrt{g_\chi g_q}=1$, the limit is considerably weaker for a small mediator width, as a smaller width requires a smaller $g_q$ and hence a larger $g_\chi$ (note that the cross section for annihilation into mediators scales like $g_\chi^4$).
Conclusion {#sec:conclude}
==========
The complementarity of direct, indirect and collider searches for dark matter can be exploited in the framework of simplified models, where dark matter and its experimental signatures are described with a minimal amount of new particles, interactions and model parameters. We have considered a simplified model with a Majorana fermion dark matter particle and an axial-vector mediator with universal couplings to SM quarks. Such a model leads to spin-dependent interactions and can thus be probed by IceCube in the search for neutrinos from dark matter annihilation in the Sun.
We have focused on a re-interpretation of IceCube limits on the dark matter annihilation rate within our model, and have obtained substantial constraints on the dark matter and mediator masses. Furthermore, we have derived new constraints on our model from recent LHC mono-jet searches, and have analyzed in some detail the differences between interpretations of LHC searches within simplified models and effective field theories.
We find that the limits from the ATLAS and CMS mono-jet searches are particularly relevant for small dark matter masses. They exclude mediator masses $M_V \lesssim 1$TeV, depending in detail on the size of the couplings and the mediator width. The indirect searches for dark matter annihilation in the Sun by IceCube probe intermediate and large dark matter masses and show a maximal sensitivity for masses $m_\chi \simeq 200\!\!-\!\!1000$GeV. In this region, the dark matter capture efficiencies in the Sun are still sizeable, and dark matter annihilation is predominantly into top quarks, leading to more highly energetic neutrinos and thus a higher neutrino detection efficiency with IceCube.
We have also computed the relic density within our model, and have combined the LHC mono-jet and IceCube limits with constraints from direct detection and the collider search for di-jet resonances. We have found a striking complementarity of the different experimental approaches, which probe particular and often distinct regions of the model parameter space. Thus, the combination of future collider, indirect and direct searches for dark matter will allow a comprehensive test of minimal dark matter models.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Chiara Arina, Pavel Gretskov, Carlos de los Heros, Kerstin Hoepfner, Alexander Knochel, Manfred Krauss, Lennart Oymanns, Mohamed Rameez, Carsten Rott, Pat Scott and Jory Sonnenveld for helpful discussions. We acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation DFG through the research unit “New physics at the LHC”, the Helmholtz Alliance for Astroparticle Physics and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research BMBF.
[^1]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^2]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^3]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^4]: E-mail: `[email protected]`
[^5]: The case of different couplings to up- and down-type quarks has been considered [*e.g.*]{} in Ref. [@Chala:2015ama]. However, as discussed in Ref. [@Bell:2015sza], gauge-invariance sets very tight constraints on the difference of these couplings.
[^6]: The scattering cross section for Majorana fermion dark matter given in Eq. is larger than the one for Dirac fermion dark matter by a factor of four (see *e.g.* Ref. [@Agrawal:2010fh]). This is in contradiction with the result quoted in Ref. [@Savage:2015xta], which is a factor of eight smaller than our result.
[^7]: Note that this is only true for the limit on $\Gamma_\text{A}$, but not for the limit on $\sigma_\text{SD}$ because $\sigma_\text{SD}$ depends explicitly on $m_\chi$ through the capture efficiencies. Furthermore, the limit on $\Gamma_\text{A}$ is independent of the correlation between the two $W$ bosons (or $b$ quarks) of one annihilation. The fraction of events where multiple neutrinos arising from $W$ bosons (or $b$ quarks) of the same annihilation simultaneously interact in the detector can safely be neglected.
[^8]: The program package <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">WimpSim</span> is linked to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">PYTHIA</span> 6 [@Sjostrand:2006za] for the simulation of dark matter annihilation in the Sun, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Nusigma</span> [@nusigma] for the simulation of neutrino-nucleon interactions and to <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">DarkSUSY</span> [@Gondolo:2004sc] for the implementation of the Sun’s density profile. We take the neutrino oscillation parameters from Ref. [@Tortola:2012te].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Making use of an ${\it ansatz}$ for the eigenfunction, we obtain exact closed form solutions to the Schrödinger equation with the inverse-power potential, $V(r)=Ar^{-4}+Br^{-3}+Cr^{-2}+Dr^{-1}$ both in three dimensions and in two dimensions, where the parameters of the potential $A, B, C, D$ satisfy some constraints.
PACS numbers: 03. 65. Ge.
author:
- |
Shi-Hai Dong[^1]\
[Institute of High Energy Physics, P. O. Box 918(4), Beijing 100039, People’s Republic of China]{}\
\
Zhong-Qi Ma\
[China Center for Advanced Science and Technology (World Laboratory), P. O. Box 8730, Beijing 100080]{}\
[and Institute of High Energy Physics, P. O. Box 918(4), Beijing 100039, People’s Republic of China]{}
title: |
Schrödinger Equation with the\
Potential $V(r)=Ar^{-4}+Br^{-3}+Cr^{-2}+Dr^{-1}$
---
psfig.sty 22.5cm-0.1in 15.5cm0.25in
[1. Introduction]{}\
The exact solutions to the fundamental dynamical equations play an important role in the different fields of physics. As far as the Schrödinger equation concerned, the exact solutions are possible only for the several potentials and some approximation methods are frequently used to arrive at the solutions. The problem of the inverse-power potential, $1/r^n$, has been widely carried out on the different fields of classic mechanics as well as on the quantum mechanics. For instance, the interatomic interaction potential in molecular physics \[1-2\], the inverse-power potentials $V(r)=-Z^2\alpha/r^4$ \[3\] (interaction between an ion and a neutral atom) and $V(r)=-d_{1}d_{2}/r^3$ \[4\] (interaction between a dipole $d_{1}$ and another dipole $d_{2}$) are often applied to explain the interaction between one matter and another one. The interaction in one-electron atoms, muonic and hadronic and Rydberg atoms also requires considering the inverse-power potentials \[5\]. Indeed, the interaction potentials mentioned above are only special cases of the inverse-power potential when some parameters of the potential vanishes.
The reason we write this paper is as follows. On the one hand, Özcelik and Simsek discussed this potential in the three-dimensional spaces \[6\]. They obtained the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions for the arbitrary node. Simultaneously, the corresponding constraints on the parameters of the potential were obtained. Unfortunately, they did not find that it is impossible to discuss the higher order excited state except for the ground state. In the later discussion, we will draw this conclusion and find some essential mistakes occurred in their calculations even for the ground state. We recalculate the solutions to the Schrödinger equation with this potential in three dimensions following their idea and correct their mistakes. On the other hand, with the advent of growth technique for the realization of the semiconductor quantum wells, the quantum mechanics of low-dimensional systems has become a major research field. Almost all of the computational techniques developed for the three-dimensional problems have already been extended to lower dimensions. Therefore, we generalize this method to the two-dimensional Schrödinger equation because of the wide interest in lower-dimensional fields theory. Besides, we has succeeded in dealing with the Schödinger equation with the anharmonic potentials, such as singular potential both in two dimensions and in three dimensions\[9, 10\], the sextic potential \[11\], the octic potential \[12\] and the Mie-type potential \[13\] by this method. We now attempt to study the Schödinger equation with the inverse-power potential by the same way both in three dimensions and in two dimensions.
This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we study the three-dimensional Schrödinger equation with this potential using an ${\it ansatz}$ for the eigenfunctions. The study of the two-dimensional Schrödinger equation with this potential will be discussed in section 3. The figures for the unnormalized radial functions are plotted in the last section.
[2. Solutions in three dimensions ]{}\
Throughout this paper the natural unit $\hbar=1$ and $\mu=1/2$ are employed. Consider the Schrödinger equation $$-\nabla^{2} \psi +V(r) \psi =E \psi, \eqno (1)$$
where here and hereafter the potential $$V(r)=Ar^{-4}+Br^{-3}+Cr^{-2}+Dr^{-1}, ~~~A>0, ~~~~D<0. \eqno(2)$$
Let $$\psi(r, \theta, \varphi)=r^{-1} R_{\ell}(r) Y_{\ell m}(\theta, \varphi),
\eqno (3)$$
where $\ell$ and $E$ denote the angular momentum and the energy, respectively, and the radial wave function $R_{\ell}(r)$ satisfies $$\displaystyle {d^{2} R_{\ell}(r) \over dr^{2} }
+\left [E-V(r)-\displaystyle {\ell(\ell+1) \over r^{2}} \right]
R_{\ell}(r)=0. \eqno (4)$$
Özcelik and Simsek \[6\] make an ${\it ansatz}$ for the ground state $$R_{\ell}^{0}(r)=\exp [g(r)], \eqno(5)$$
where $$g(r)=\frac{a}{r}+b r+c \ln r, ~~~a<0, ~~~b<0. \eqno(6)$$
After calculating, one can obtain the following equation $$\displaystyle {d^{2} R_{\ell}^{0}(r) \over dr^{2}}
-\left [\displaystyle{d^{2} g(r) \over dr^{2}}
+\left(\displaystyle {dg(r) \over dr}\right)^2\right]R_{\ell}^{0}(r)=0.
\eqno(7)$$
Compare Eq. (7) with Eq. (4) and obtain the following sets of equations $$a^2=A, ~~~~~~b^2=-E, \eqno(8a)$$ $$2bc=D, ~~~~~2a(1-c)=B, \eqno(8b)$$ $$C+\ell(\ell+1)-\frac{1}{4}=c^2-2ba-c. \eqno(8c)$$
It is not difficult to obtain the value of the parameter $a$ from Eq. (8a) written as $a=\pm \sqrt{A}$. In order to retain the well-behaved solution at $r \rightarrow 0$ and at $r \rightarrow \infty$, they choose negative sign in $a$, i. e. $a=-\sqrt{A}$. According to this choice, they arrive at a constraint on the parameters of the potential from Eq. (8c) written as $$C={\displaystyle}{\frac{B^2}{4A}}+\displaystyle{\frac{B}{2\sqrt{A}}}
+{\displaystyle}{\frac{2AD}{B+2\sqrt{A}}}-\ell(\ell+1). \eqno(9)$$
Then the energy is read as $$E_{0}^{\pm}=-\frac{1}{16A}\left\{C+\ell(\ell+1) \pm
\sqrt{ [C+\ell(\ell+1)]^2-2BD}\right\}^2. \eqno(10)$$
It is readily to find that Eq. (10) is a wrong result. From Eqs. (6) and (8b), as we know, since the parameter $b$ is negative, when we calculate the energy $E$ from Eq. (8a), we only take the $b$ as a negative value, so that Eq. (10) only takes the negative sign. Actually, it is not difficult to obtain the corresponding values of the parameters for the $g(r)$ from Eq. (8), i. e. $$c=\displaystyle{\frac{B+2\sqrt{A}}{2\sqrt{A}}},
~~~b=\displaystyle{\frac{D\sqrt{A}}{B+2\sqrt{A}}}. \eqno(11)$$
The eigenvalue $E$, however, will be simply expressed as from Eq. (8a) $$E=-{\displaystyle}{\frac{AD^2}{B^2+4A+4B\sqrt{A}}}. \eqno(12)$$
The corresponding eigenfunction Eq. (5) can now be read as $$R_{\ell}^{0}=N_{0}r^{c}
\exp\left [\frac{1}{r}a+b r\right], \eqno(13)$$
where $N_{0}$ is the normalized constant and here and hereafter the parameters $a$, $b$ and $c$ are given above.
After their discussing the ground state, Özcelik and Simsek continue to study the first excited state. They make the ${\it ansatz}$ for the first excited state, $$R_{\ell}^{1}(r)=f(r)\exp [g(r)], \eqno(14)$$
where $g(r)$ is the same as Eq. (6) and $f(r)=r-\alpha_{1}$, where $\alpha_{1}$ is a constant. For short, it is readily to find from Eq. (14) that the radial wave function $R_{\ell}^{1}(r)$ satisfies the following equation $$R_{\ell}^{1}(r)''-\left [g(r)''+(g(r)')^2
+\left(\frac{f(r)''+2g(r)'f(r)'}{f(r)}\right)\right]
R_{\ell}^{1}(r)=0, \eqno(15)$$
where the prime denotes the derivative of the radial wave function with respect to the variable $r$.
Compare Eq. (15) with Eq. (4) and obtain the following sets of equations $$-2b-2bc+D+b^2\alpha_{1}+e\alpha_{1}=0, \eqno(16a)$$ $$-b^2-E=0, ~~~~~a^2\alpha_{1}-A\alpha_{1}=0, \eqno(16b)$$ $$-a^2+A+2a\alpha_{1}-B\alpha_{1}-2ac\alpha_{1}=0, \eqno(16c)$$ $$2ab-c-c^2+C+\ell(\ell+1)+2bc\alpha_{1}-D\alpha_{1}=0, \eqno(16d)$$ $$B+2ac-2ab\alpha_{1}-c\alpha_{1}+c^2\alpha_{1}-C\alpha_{1}-\ell\alpha_{1}-
\ell^2\alpha_{1}=0, \eqno(16e)$$
it is not hard to obtain the following sets of equations from Eqs. (16a-16c) $$E=-b^2, ~~a^2=A, ~~c=\frac{B+2\sqrt{A}}{2\sqrt{A}}, \eqno(17a)$$ $$~~b=\frac{D\sqrt{A}}{B+4\sqrt{A}}, \eqno(17b)$$
where the constant $\alpha_{1}\not=0$ and it is determined by Eqs. (16d) and (16e). Furthermore, it is evident to find that Eq. (17b) does not coincide with Eq. (11) with respect to the same parameter $b$, which will lead to the their wrong calculation for the first excited state. In fact, they obtained two different relations during their calculation through the compared equation, i. e. $D=2bc$ (see Eq. (9) in \[6\]) and $D=2b(c+1)$ (see Eq. (16) in \[6\]). The parameter $D$ does not exist if the parameter $b$ is not equal to zero. It is another main mistaken that arises their wrong result, that’s to say, it is impossible to discuss the first excited state for the Schrödinger equation by this method. We only discuss the ground state by this simpler ${\it ansatz}$ method as mentioned above.
As a matter of fact, the normalized constants $N_{0}$ can be calculated in principle from the normalized relation $$\int_{0}^{\infty}|R_{\ell}^{0}|^2dr=1. \eqno(18)$$
In the course of calculation, making use of the standard integral \[14\](Re$\lambda_{1}>0$, Re$\lambda_{2}>0$ and Re$\nu>0$) $$\int_{0}^{\infty}r^{\nu -1}\exp [-(\lambda_{1} r+\lambda_{2} r^{-1})]dr
=2\left(\frac{\lambda_{2}}{\lambda_{1}}\right)^{\nu/2}K_{\nu}
(2\sqrt{\lambda_{1}\lambda_{2}}), \eqno(19)$$
which implies $$N_{0}=\left [{\displaystyle}{\frac{1}{2(\frac{a}{b})^{\frac{2c+1}{2}}
K_{2c+1}(4\sqrt{ab})}}\right], \eqno(20)$$
where the values of the parameters $b, c$ and $a$ are given by Eq. (11) and $-\sqrt{A}$, respectively. The figure 1 for the unnormalized radial eigenfunction in three dimensions is plotted in the last section.
[3. Solutions in tow dimensions ]{}\
We now generalize this method to the two-dimensional Schrödinger equation. Consider Schrödinger equation with a potential $V(r)$ that depends only on the distance $r$ from the origin $$H\psi =\left(
\displaystyle {1 \over r} \displaystyle {\partial \over \partial r}
r \displaystyle {\partial \over \partial r} +
\displaystyle {1 \over r^{2}} \displaystyle {\partial^{2} \over
\partial \varphi^{2} } \right)\psi +V(r) \psi =E \psi. \eqno(21)$$
Let $$\psi(r, \varphi)=r^{-1/2} R_{m}(r) e^{ \pm im \varphi},
~~~~~m=0, 1, 2, \ldots, \eqno (22)$$
where the radial wave function $R_{m}(r)$ satisfies the following radial equation $$\displaystyle {d^{2} R_{m}(r) \over dr^{2} }
+\left [E-V(r)-\displaystyle {m^{2}-1/4 \over r^{2}} \right] R_{m}(r)
=0, \eqno (23)$$
where $m$ and $E$ denote the angular momentum and energy, respectively. For the solution of Eq. (23), we make an ${\it ansatz}$ \[6-13\] for the ground state $$R_{m}^{0}(r)=\exp [g_{m}(r)], \eqno(24)$$
where $$g_{m}(r)=\frac{a_{1}}{r}+b_{1} r+c_{1} \ln r. \eqno(25)$$
After calculating, we arrive at the following equation $$\displaystyle {d^{2} R_{m}^{0}(r) \over dr^{2}}
-\left [\displaystyle{d^{2} g_{m}(r) \over dr^{2}}
+\left(\displaystyle {dg_{m}(r) \over dr}\right)^2\right]R_{m}^{0}(r)=0.
\eqno(26)$$
Compare Eq. (26) with Eq. (23) and obtain the following sets of equations $$a_{1}^2=A, ~~~~~~b_{1}^2=-E, \eqno(27a)$$ $$2b_{1}c_{1}=D, ~~~~~2a_{1}(1-c_{1})=B, \eqno(27b)$$ $$C+m^2-\frac{1}{4}=c_{1}^2-2b_{1}a_{1}-c_{1}. \eqno(27c)$$
It is not difficult to obtain the values of the parameters $a_{1}$ from Eq. (27a) written as $a_{1}=\pm \sqrt{A}$. Likely, in order to retain the well-behaved solution at $r \rightarrow 0$ and at $r \rightarrow \infty$, we choose negative sign in $a_{1}$, i. e. $a_{1}=-\sqrt{A}$. According to this choice, Eq. (27b) will give the other parameter values as $$c_{1}=\displaystyle{\frac{B+2\sqrt{A}}{2\sqrt{A}}},
~~~b_{1}=\displaystyle{\frac{D\sqrt{A}}{B+2\sqrt{A}}}. \eqno(28)$$
Besides, it is readily to obtain from Eq. (27c) that $$C={\displaystyle}{\frac{B^2}{4A}}+\displaystyle{\frac{B}{2\sqrt{A}}}
+{\displaystyle}{\frac{2AD}{B+2\sqrt{A}}}-(m^2-1/4), \eqno(29)$$
which is the constraint on the parameters for the two-dimensional Schrödinger equation with the inverse-power potential.
The eigenvalue $E$, however, will be given by Eq. (27a) as $$E=-{\displaystyle}{\frac{AD^2}{B^2+4A+4B\sqrt{A}}}. \eqno(30)$$
The corresponding eigenfunction Eq. (24) can now be read as $$R_{m}^{0}=Nr^{c_{1}}
\exp\left [\frac{1}{r}a_{1}+b_{1} r\right], \eqno(31)$$
Similarly, the normalized constants $N$ can be calculated in principle from the normalized relation $$\int_{0}^{\infty}|R_{m}^{0}|^2dr=1. \eqno(32)$$
According to Eq. (19), we can obtain $$N=\left [{\displaystyle}{\frac{1}{2(\frac{a_{1}}{b_{1}})^{\frac{2c_{1}+1}{2}}
K_{2c_{1}+1}(4\sqrt{a_{1}b_{1}})}}\right], \eqno(33)$$
where the values of the parameters $a_{1}, b_{1}$ and $c_{1}$ are given above. The figure 2 for the unnormalized radial eigenfunction in two dimensions is plotted in the last section.
Considering the values of the parameters of the potential, we fix them as follows. The values of parameters $A, C, D$ are first fixed, for example $A=4. 0, C=2. 0$ and $D=-2. 0$, the value of the parameter $B$ is given by Eq. (10) and Eq. (29) for the cases both in three dimensions and two dimensions for $\ell=0$ and $m=0$, respectively. By this way, the parameter $B$ turns out to $B=5. 87$ in three dimensions and $B=5. 65$ in two dimensions, respectively. The ground state energy corresponding to these values are obtained as $E=-0. 164$ for the case in three dimensions and $E=-0. 172$ for the case in two dimensions. Actually, when we study the properties of the ground state, as we know, the unnormalized radial wave functions do not affect the main features of the wave functions. We have plotted the unnormalized radial wave functions in figures 1 and 2 for the cases both in three dimensions and in two dimensions, respectively. With respect to figures 1 and 2, it is easy to find that they are similar to each other, which stems from the same values of the angular momentum $\ell=0$ and $m=0$. They will be different if we take the different values of the angular momentum in the course of calculations.
In conclusion, we obtain the exact analytic solutions to the Schrödinger equation with the inverse-power potential $V(r)=Ar^{-4}+Br^{-3}+Cr^{-2}+Dr^{-1}$ using a simpler ${\it ansatz}$ for the eigenfunction both in three dimensions and in two dimensions, and simultaneously the constrains on the parameters of the potential are arrived at from the compared equations. Finally, we remark that this simple and intuitive method can be generalized to other potential. The study of the Schrödinger equation with the asymmetric potential is in progress.
. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and Grant No. LWTZ-1298 from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
[99]{} G. C. Maitland, M. Rigby, E. B. Smith and W. A. Wakeham, [*Intermolecular forces*]{} (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1987. R. J. LeRoy and W. Lam, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**71**]{}, 544 (1970); R. J. LeRoy and R. B. Bernstein, J. Chem. Phys. [**52**]{}, 3869(1970). E. Vogt and G. H. Wannier, Phys. Rev. [**95**]{}, 1190(1954). L. D. Laudau and E. M. Lifshitz, [*Quantum mechanics*]{}, Vol. 3, 3rd Ed. (Pergamon, Oxford, 1977); D. R. Bates and I. Esterman, [*Advances in atomic and molecular physics*]{}, Vol. 6 (Academic Press, New York, 1970). B. H. Bransden and C. J. Joachain, [*Physics of atomics and molecules*]{}(Longman, London, 1983). S. Özcelik and M. Simsek, Phys. Lett. [**152**]{}, 145(1991). R. S. Kaushal and D. Parashar, Phys. Lett. A [**170**]{}, 335(1992). R. S. Kaushal, Ann. Phys. (N. Y. )[**206**]{}, 90(1991). Shi-Hai Dong and Zhong-Qi Ma, Schrödinger Equation with the Potential $V(r)=ar^2+br^{-4}+cr^{-6}$ in Two Dimensions, accepted by J. Phys. A (in press). Shi-Hai Dong, Xi-Wen Hou and Zhong-Qi Ma, Schrödinger Equation with the Potential $V(r)=ar^2+br^{-4}+cr^{-6}$ , submited to J. Phys. A. Shi-Hai Dong and Zhong-Qi Ma, Exact solutions to the Schrödinger Equation with the Sextic Potential in Two Dimensions, submitted to J. Phys. A. Shi-Hai Dong and Zhong-Qi Ma, An Exact Solution to the Schrödinger Equation with the Octic Potential in two dimensions, submitted to Il Nuovo Cimento B. Shi-Hai Dong and Zhong-Qi Ma, Exact Solutions to the Schrödinger Equation with the Mie-type Potential in two dimensions, submitted to Il Nuovo Cimento B. I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, [*Table of integrals, series and products*]{} (Academic Press, New York, 1965) p. 342.
[^1]: Electronic address: DONGSH@BEPC4. IHEP. AC. CN
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The frontier orbital sequence of individual dicyanovinyl-substituted oligothiophene molecules is studied by means of scanning tunneling microscopy. On NaCl/ Cu(111) the molecules are neutral and the two lowest unoccupied molecular states are observed in the expected order of increasing energy. On NaCl/Cu(311), where the molecules are negatively charged,the sequence of two observed molecular orbitals is reversed, such that the one with one more nodal plane appears lower in energy. These experimental results, in open contradiction with a single-particle interpretation, are explained by a many-body theory predicting a strongly entangled doubly charged ground state.'
author:
- Ping Yu
- Nemanja Kocić
- Benjamin Siegert
- Andrea Donarini
- Jascha Repp
bibliography:
- 'ref.bib'
title: Apparent Reversal of Molecular Orbitals Reveals Entanglement
---
For the use of single molecules as devices, engineering and control of their intrinsic electronic properties is all-important. In this context, quantum effects such as electronic interference have recently shifted into the focus [@Cardamone2006; @Donarini2009; @Donarini2010; @Guedon2012; @Vazquez2012; @Ballmann2012; @Xia2014]. Most intriguing in this respect are electron correlation effects [@Zhao2005; @Maruccio2007; @Fernandez2008; @Franke2011; @Chiesa2013; @Grothe2013; @Ervasti2016], which are intrinsically strong in molecules due to their small size [@Begemann2008; @Toroz2011; @Toroz2013; @Schulz2015; @Siegert2016].
In general, Coulomb charging energies strongly depend on the localization of electrons and hence on the spatial extent of the orbitals they occupy. Therefore the orbital sequence of a given molecule can reverse upon electron attachment or removal, if some of the frontier orbitals are strongly localized while others are not, like in e.g. phthalocyanines [@Liao2001; @Nguyen2003; @Wu2006; @wu2008; @Uhlmann2013]. Coulomb interaction may also lead to much more complex manifestations such as quantum entanglement of delocalized molecular orbitals.
Here we show, that the energy spacing of the frontier orbitals in a single molecular wire of individual dicyanovinyl-substituted quinquethiophene (DCV5T) can be engineered to achieve near-degeneracy of the two lowest lying unoccupied molecular orbitals, leading to a strongly-entangled ground state of DCV5T$^{2-}$. These orbitals are the lowest two of a set of particle-in-a-box-like states and differ only by one additional nodal plane across the center of the wire. Hence, according to the fundamental oscillation theorem of the Sturm-Liouville theory their sequence has to be set with increasing number of nodal planes, which is one of the basic principles of quantum mechanics [@Hueckel1931; @Barford2005]. This is evidenced and visualized from scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and spectroscopy (STS) of DCV5T on ultrathin insulating films. Upon lowering the substrate’s work function, the molecule becomes charged, leading to a reversal of the sequence of the two orbitals. The fundamental oscillation theorem seems strikingly violated since the state with one [*more*]{} nodal plane appears [*lower*]{} in energy. This contradiction can be solved, though, by considering intramolecular correlation leading to a strong entanglement in the ground state of DCV5T$^{2-}$.
The experiments were carried out with a home-built combined STM/atomic force microscopy (AFM) using a qPlus sensor [@giessibl2000] operated in ultra-high vacuumat a temperature of $6$ K. Bias voltages are applied to the sample. All AFM data, d$I$/d$V$ spectra and maps were acquired in constant-height mode. Calculations of the orbitals and effective single particle electronic structure were performed within the density functional theory (DFT) as implemented in the SIESTA code [@soler2002] and are based on the generalized gradient approximation (GGA-PBE). The many-body eigenstates are determined from a diagonalization of the many-body model Hamiltonian $H_{\rm mol}$, which is defined further below in the main text. Based on these, STM-image and spectra simulations were performed within a Liouville approach for the density matrix $\rho$. See Supplemental Material [@Suppl] for more details.
The molecular structure of DCV5T, shown in Fig. \[Fig:DFT\]a, consists of a quinquethiophene (5T) backbone and a dicyanovinyl (DCV) moiety at each end. The delocalized electronic system of polythiophene and oligo-thiophene enables conductance of this material [@Feast1996; @Yamada2008; @Fitzner2011]. The lowest unoccupied orbital of each of the thiophene rings couples electronically to its neighbors and forms a set of particle-in-a-box-like states [@Repp2010; @Kislitsyn2016]. The LUMO to LUMO+1 level spacing of the quinquethiophene (5T) backbone is approx. 0.7 eV [@Repp2010], which is in good agreement with the energy difference calculated for free 5T based on DFT, as shown in Fig. \[Fig:DFT\]a, left. This DFT-based calculation also confirms the nature of the LUMO and LUMO+1 orbitals, both deriving from the single thiophene’s LUMOs and essentially differing only by one additional nodal plane across the center of the molecule. To enable the emergence of correlation and thus level reordering, we have to bring these two states closer to each other. This is achieved by substituting dicyanovinyl moieties with larger electron affinity at each end of the molecular wire. As the orbital density of the higher lying particle-in-a-box-like state, namely LUMO+1, has more weight at the ends of the molecule, it is more affected by this substitution than the lowest state, the LUMO. This is evidenced by corresponding calculations of DCV5T, for which the LUMO to LUMO+1 energy difference is reduced by more than a factor of two, see Fig. \[Fig:DFT\]a, left. The increased size of DCV5T may also contribute to the reduced level spacing. For the rest of this work, we concentrate on the LUMO and LUMO+1 orbitals only. To avoid confusion, we refrain from labeling the orbitals according to their sequence but instead according to their symmetry with respect to the mirror plane perpendicular to the molecular axis, as symmetric (S) and antisymmetric (AS). Hence, the former LUMO and the LUMO+1 are the S and AS states, respectively.
![(a) Molecular structure and density-functional theory based calculations of the electronic structure of 5T and DCV5T. The panel depicts the molecular structure, the calculated orbitals and energies for the LUMO, LUMO+1 and LUMO+2 as indicated. The orbitals are depicted as contours of constant probability density. The LUMO and LUMO+1 orbitals derive from the thiophene subunit’s LUMO. They are the lowest two of a set of particle-in-a-box-like states and differ only by one additional nodal plane. Whereas the LUMO to LUMO+1 energy difference is approx. 0.7eV for 5T, this difference is drastically reduced in the case of DCV5T. The basic principle of level engineering is illustrated for a one dimensional quantum box. (b) STM images of the first DCV5T electronic resonance for NaCl/Cu(111) (top) and NaCl/Cu(311) (bottom) as substrates. Insets show corresponding STM images at voltages below the first molecular resonance. []{data-label="Fig:DFT"}](fig1){width="\columnwidth"}
To study the energetic alignment of the orbitals as well as their distribution in real space, we employ ultrathin NaCl insulating films to electronically decouple the molecules from the conductive substrate [@Repp2005]. It has been previously shown that in these systems the work function can be changed by using different surface orientations of the underlying metal support [@Repp2005; @Olsson2007; @Swart2011]. Importantly, this does not affect the (100)-terminated surface orientation of the NaCl film, such that the local chemical environment of the molecule remains the same, except for the change of the work function.
However, in the present case, this alone has a dramatic effect on the electronic structure of the molecular wires as is evidenced in Fig. \[Fig:DFT\]b. There, the STM images are shown for voltages corresponding to the respective lowest lying molecular resonances at positive sample voltage for DCV5T adsorbed on NaCl/Cu(111) (top panel) and NaCl/Cu(311) (bottom panel). They both show a hot-dog like appearance of the overall orbital density as was observed and discussed previously [@Repp2010; @Bogner2015]. Importantly in the current context, however, the orbital density of DCV5T/NaCl/Cu(311) shows a clear depression at the center of the molecule, indicating a nodal plane, whereas DCV5T/NaCl/Cu(111) does not. Apparently, the energetically lowest lying state is not the same for the two cases, but S for DCV5T/NaCl/Cu(111) and AS in the case of DCV5T/NaCl/Cu(311). In contrast, STM images acquired at voltages well below the first resonance reflect the geometry of the molecule in both cases as wire-like protrusion (see insets of Fig. \[Fig:DFT\]b).
We hence assume that the molecules are neutral on NaCl/Cu(111) and that the S state corresponds to the LUMO. According to the literature, changing the copper surface orientation from Cu(111) to Cu(311) results in a lowering of the work function by approximately $1$eV [@Gartland1972; @Repp2005; @Olsson2005]. Hence, one may expect that the former LUMO, initially located $0.7$eV above the Fermi level $E_F$ in the case of NaCl/Cu(111) will shift to below the Fermi level [@Swart2011; @Uhlmann2013] for NaCl/Cu(311) such that the molecule becomes permanently charged.
To obtain a systematic understanding of the level alignment of the S and AS states of the molecule on both substrates, we acquired differential conductance (d$I$/d$V$) spectra and d$I$/d$V$-maps on DCV5T molecules. Typical spectra measured at the center and the side of the molecule are shown in Figs. \[Fig:Experiments\]a and b on NaCl/Cu(111) and NaCl/Cu(311), respectively. DCV5T exhibits two d$I$/d$V$ resonances at positive bias but none at negative voltages down to -2.5 V. According to the d$I$/d$V$ maps and consistent with the different intensities in the spectra acquired on and off center of the molecule, the S state at $\simeq0.7$ V is lower in energy than the AS state occurring at $\simeq1.1$ V. The energy difference of $\simeq0.4$ eV is in rough agreement to our calculations (see Fig. \[Fig:DFT\]a). As discussed above, in the case of NaCl/Cu(311), DCV5T exhibits the AS state as the lowest resonance at positive bias voltages, this time at $\simeq 0.9$ V. This is additionally evidenced by the constant-current STM image and the corresponding d$I$/d$V$ map in Fig. \[Fig:Experiments\]b. The S state is now located at higher voltages, namely at $\simeq1.3$ V, as seen in the spectrum and the d$I$/d$V$ map. Obviously, the two states are reversed in their sequence. In this case, at negative bias voltages, a peak in d$I$/d$V$ indicates an occupied state in equilibrium, in stark contrast to DCV5T/NaCl/Cu(111) but in agreement with the assumption of the molecule being negatively charged. The constant-current image acquired at $-0.7$ V, corresponding to the first peak at negative bias, seems to be a superposition of both the S and AS states.
![d$I$/d$V$ spectra (top panels), constant-current STM images (center panels) and d$I$/d$V$ maps (bottom panels) on the individual molecule DCV5T on NaCl/Cu(111) (a) and NaCl/Cu(311) (b) respectively. The resonances are labelled with S and AS, referring to the symmetic and antisymmetric states, respectively. d$I$/d$V$ spectra were recorded on (black) and off (red) the center of the molecule as indicated by dots in the constant-current STM images, using lock-in detection. To not miss any small d$I$/d$V$ signals in the low-bias range, a corresponding spectrum (grey) was measured at different set-point values such that the tip was $\simeq 2$Å closer to the surface compared to the other two spectra (red and black). All spectra were slightly low-pass filtered. The images are resized to have the same size and scale, whereby the area of measured data is indicated with white dashed rectangles. Constant current images $I = 2.4$pA; bias voltage as indicated. Scale bar 1 nm.[]{data-label="Fig:Experiments"}](fig2 "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}\
The experimentally observed reversal of the orbital sequence is in striking disagreement with the fundamental oscillation theorem. To understand this apparent orbital reversal we go beyond the single particle picture and invoke the role of electronic correlations. In the double-barrier tunneling junction geometry employed here, the resonances in d$I$/d$V$ are associated with a temporary change of electron number on the molecule. In this terms the two peaks of DCV5T/NaCl/Cu(111) at positive bias are DCV5T$\leftrightarrow $DCV5T$^-$ *transitions* (See Fig. \[Fig:Scheme\]), and, in the same spirit, the ones of DCV5T/NaCl/Cu(311) at positive and at negative bias should be interpreted as DCV5T$^{2-}\leftrightarrow $DCV5T$^{3-}$ and DCV5T$^{2-}\leftrightarrow $DCV5T$^{-}$ transitions, respectively.
Both the topographical and the spectroscopic data presented so far suggest that the electronic transport through DCV5T involves, in the present bias and work function ranges, only the symmetric (S) and the antisymmetric (AS) orbitals. We concentrate on them and freeze the occupation of the other lower (higher) energy orbitals to 2 (0). In terms of these S and AS *frontier* orbitals we write the minimal interacting Hamiltonian for the isolated molecule, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{H_mol}
\begin{split}
H_{\mathrm{mol}} =& \epsilon_{\mathrm{S}}\hat{n}_{\mathrm{S}} + \epsilon_{\mathrm{AS}}\hat{n}_{\mathrm{AS}} + \frac{U}{2}\hat{N}(\hat{N}-1)\\
+& J\sum_{\sigma \sigma'} d^\dagger_{\mathrm{AS} \sigma} d^\dagger_{\mathrm{S} \sigma'} d^{}_{\mathrm{AS} \sigma'} d^{}_{\mathrm{S} \sigma}\\
+& J\left( d^\dagger_{\mathrm{AS} \uparrow} d^\dagger_{\mathrm{AS} \downarrow} d^{}_{\mathrm{S} \downarrow} d^{}_{\mathrm{S} \uparrow}
+ d^\dagger_{\mathrm{S}\uparrow} d^\dagger_{\mathrm{S} \downarrow} d^{}_{\mathrm{AS} \downarrow} d^{}_{\mathrm{AS} \uparrow}\right),
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $d^\dagger_{\mathrm{S(AS)} \sigma}$ creates an electron with spin $\sigma$ in the symmetric (antisymmetric) orbital, $\hat{n}_{\mathrm{i}}$ counts the number of electron in the orbital with ${\mathrm{i}} = {\mathrm{S,AS}}$ and $\hat{N}$ represents the total number of electrons occupying the two frontier orbitals. The interaction parameters $U = 1.4$ eV and $J = 0.75$ eV are obtained from the DFT orbitals by direct calculation of the associated Coulomb integrals and assuming a dielectric constant $\epsilon_r = 2$ which accounts for the screening introduced by the underlying frozen orbitals [@Ryndyk2013; @Siegert2016]. As expected from their similar (de-)localization, the Coulomb integrals of the S and AS states are almost identical [^1]. Besides a constant interaction charging energy $U$, the model defined in Eq. (\[H\_mol\]) contains exchange interaction and pair-hopping terms, both proportional to $J$, which are responsible for the electronic correlation. The electrostatic interaction with the substrate is known to stabilize charges on atoms and molecules [@Kaasbjerg2008; @Kaasbjerg2011; @Olsson2007] due to image charge and polaron formation. We account for this stabilization with the additional Hamiltonian $H_{\mathrm{mol-env}} = -\delta\hat{N}^2$. The orbital energies $\epsilon_{\mathrm{S}} = -3.1\,$eV and $\epsilon_{\mathrm{AS}} = -2.8\,$eV as well as the image-charge renormalization $\delta = 0.43\,$eV are obtained from the experimental resonances of the neutral molecule and previous experimental results on other molecules [@Suppl] Many-body interaction manifests itself most strikingly for the ground state DCV5T$^{2-}$, which will therefore be discussed at first. Consider the two many-body states, in which the two extra electrons both occupy either the S or the AS state: They differ in energy by the energy $2\Delta$, where $\Delta = \epsilon_{\mathrm{AS}} - \epsilon_{\mathrm{S}}$ is the single-particle level spacing between the S and the AS state. These two many-body states interact via pair-hopping of strength $J$, leading to a level repulsion. As long as $\Delta \gg J$, this effect is negligible. In DCV5T, though, the single-particle level spacing $\Delta$ is small compared to the pair-hopping $J$, leading to an entangled ground state of DCV5T$^{2-}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Charging_E}
\begin{split}
|2,0 \rangle &= \cos\theta\,d_{\mathrm{S}\uparrow}^\dagger d_{\mathrm{S}\downarrow}^\dagger |\Omega\rangle
+ \sin\theta\,d_{\mathrm{AS}\uparrow}^\dagger d_{\mathrm{AS}\downarrow}^\dagger|\Omega\rangle,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ with $\quad \theta = \frac{\arctan \left(J/\Delta\right)}{2}$ and where $|\Omega\rangle$ is the ground state of neutral DCV5T. Note that here, as $J/\Delta \approx 2.6$, this state shows more than 30% contribution from both constituent states, is strongly entangled, and therefore it can not be approximated by a single Slater determinant. The first excited state of DCV5T$^{2-}$ is a triplet with one electron in the S and one in the AS orbital at about $54\,$meV above the ground state, as shown in Fig. \[Fig:Scheme\].
The level repulsion in DCV5T$^{2-}$ mentioned above leads to a significant reduction of the ground state energy by roughly 0.5eV. This effect enhances the stability of the doubly charged molecule to the disadvantage of DCV5T$^{-}$, which has just a single extra electron and therefore does not feature many-body effects. Within the framework of the many-body theory, as sketched in Fig. \[Fig:Scheme\], the apparent orbital reversal between Fig. \[Fig:Experiments\]a and Fig. \[Fig:Experiments\]b is naturally explained. To this end, as mentioned above, tunneling events in the STM experiments have to be considered as [*transitions*]{} between the many-body states of different charges $N$ (see arrows in Fig. \[Fig:Scheme\]). The spatial fingerprints of the transitions and hence their appearance in STM images is given by the orbital occupation [*difference*]{} between the two many-body states and is indicated by the labels S and AS in Fig. \[Fig:Scheme\].
\
When on NaCl(2ML)/Cu(111), the DCV5T molecule is in its neutral ground state, see green panel in Fig. \[Fig:Scheme\].A sufficiently large positive sample bias triggers transitions to the singly charged DCV5T$^-$: The S and AS transitions subsequently become energetically available in the expected order of the corresponding single-particle states. A fast tunnelling of the extra electron to the substrate restores the initial condition enabling a steady-state current.
When on NaCl(2ML)/Cu(311) the molecule is doubly charged and in the entangled ground state described by Eq. , see Fig. \[Fig:Scheme\]. At sufficiently high positive sample bias the transitions to DCV5T$^{3-}$ are opening, enabling electron tunnelling from the tip to the molecule. The topography of these transitions is again obtained by comparing the 2 and the 3 (excess) electron states of DCV5T (cf. Fig. \[Fig:Scheme\]). The transition to the 3 particle [*ground*]{} state occurs by the population of the AS state and it involves the *first* component of the entangled 2 electron ground state only. The second component cannot contribute to this transition, which is bound to involve only a [*single*]{} electron tunneling event. Correspondingly, at a larger bias the *first excited* 3 particle state becomes accessible, via a transition involving the *second* component of the 2 particle ground state only. This transition has a characteristic S state topography. Hence, although the electronic structure of the 3 electron states does follow the Aufbau principle, the entanglement of the 2 particle ground state leads to the apparent reversal of the orbital sequence.
As described in the SI, in addition to the many-body spectrum we calculated the full dynamics of subsequent tunneling processes for all relevant situations, resulting in the calculated d$I$/d$V$ characteristics, constant current maps and constant height d$I$/d$V$ maps for a DCV5T single molecule junction presented in Fig. \[Fig:Simulations\]. A qualitative agreement with the experimental results of Fig. \[Fig:Experiments\] can be observed both for the relative strength of the spectral peaks and the dI/dV maps. The above discussed apparent orbital reversal is fully consistent with the calculations.
The experimental data of DCV5T on the Cu(311) substrate at negative bias also show a non-standard feature. The d$I$/d$V$ map at resonance resembles a superposition of the S and AS orbital, see Fig. \[Fig:Experiments\]b. The effect is also reproduced in the theoretical simulations presented in Fig. \[Fig:Simulations\]. This can be rationalized in terms of a non-equilibrium dynamics associated to a population inversion recently predicted by some of the authors [@Siegert2016].
![Theoretical simulations of d$I$/d$V$ spectra (top panels), constant-current STM images (center panels) and d$I$/d$V$ maps (bottom panels) on the individual molecule DCV5T on NaCl/Cu(111) (a) and NaCl/Cu(311) (b) respectively. d$I$/d$V$ spectra were recorded on (black) and off (red) center of the molecule as indicated by dots in the constant-current STM images. []{data-label="Fig:Simulations"}](fig4small "fig:"){width="\columnwidth"}\
In conclusion, we showed that a reduction of the single-particle level spacing of two frontier orbitals enables the manifestation of strong electron-correlation effects in single molecules. Here, the single-particle level spacing engineered by dicyanovinyl-substitution is leading to an apparent reversal of orbital sequence and a strongly-entangled ground state of DCV5T$^{2-}$. The many body description of the electronic transport is capable to reconcile the experimental observations of the orbital reversal with the fundamental oscillation theorem of quantum mechanics and shows how to achieve quantum entanglement of frontier orbitals in molecules.
The authors thank Milena Grifoni for valuable comments and discussions and David Kasipović for help. Financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via SFB 689 and GRK 1570, and the Volkswagen Foundation through its Lichtenberg program, are gratefully acknowledged.
Parametrization of the many-body Hamiltonian
============================================
The grandcanonical many-body Hamiltonian used in this work, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq:H_grand}
{\hat{H}_{\mathrm{G}}} = {\hat{H}_{\mathrm{mol}}} -\delta\hat{N}^2 + \phi_0\hat{N}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
{\hat{H}_{\mathrm{mol}}} =& \epsilon_\mathrm{S}\hat{n}_\mathrm{S} + \epsilon_\mathrm{AS}\hat{n}_\mathrm{AS} + \frac{U}{2}\hat{N}(\hat{N}-1)\nonumber\\
+& J\sum_{\sigma \sigma'} \hat{d}^\dagger_{\mathrm{AS} \sigma} \hat{d}^\dagger_{\mathrm{S} \sigma'} \hat{d}^{}_{\mathrm{AS} \sigma'} \hat{d}^{}_{\mathrm{S} \sigma}\nonumber\\
+& J\left( \hat{d}^\dagger_{\mathrm{AS} \uparrow} \hat{d}^\dagger_{\mathrm{AS} \downarrow} \hat{d}^{}_{\mathrm{S} \downarrow} \hat{d}^{}_{\mathrm{S} \uparrow}
+ \hat{d}^\dagger_{\mathrm{S} \uparrow} \hat{d}^\dagger_{\mathrm{S} \downarrow} \hat{d}^{}_{\mathrm{AS} \downarrow} \hat{d}^{}_{\mathrm{AS} \uparrow}\right),
\end{aligned}$$ is characterized by six parameters: [*i.e.*]{} the single particle energies $\epsilon_\mathrm{S}$ and $\epsilon_\mathrm{AS}$ of the frontier orbitals, the direct interaction and exchange integrals $U$ and $J$, the image charge and polaron renormalization energy $\delta$, the substrate work function $\phi_0$. Some of these parameters ($U$ and $J$) are obtained from first principle calculations, others ($\epsilon_\mathrm{S}$ and $\epsilon_\mathrm{AS}$ and $\delta$) are fitted to the present experimental data or taken from the literature ($\phi_0$) [@Olsson2005].
The direct interaction parameter results from a simplification of a more general model in which all possible combinations of density-density interaction including the symmetric and the antisymmetric orbital are taken into account. In the most general case one should consider the three parameters: $$\label{Eq:dir_Interaction_integrals}
\begin{split}
U_{\rm S} &= \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_r \epsilon_0}\int {\mathrm d}{\bf r}_1 \!\int{\mathrm d}{\bf r}_2 \,\frac{|\psi_{\rm S}({\bf r}_1)|^2 |\psi_{\rm S}({\bf r}_2)|^2}{|{\bf r}_1 - {\bf r}_2|},\\
U_{\rm SAS} &= \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_r \epsilon_0}\int {\mathrm d}{\bf r}_1 \!\int{\mathrm d}{\bf r}_2 \,\frac{|\psi_{\rm S}({\bf r}_1)|^2 |\psi_{\rm AS}({\bf r}_2)|^2}{|{\bf r}_1 - {\bf r}_2|},\\
U_{\rm AS} &= \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_r \epsilon_0}\int {\mathrm d}{\bf r}_1 \!\int{\mathrm d}{\bf r}_2 \,\frac{|\psi_{\rm AS}({\bf r}_1)|^2 |\psi_{\rm AS}({\bf r}_2)|^2}{|{\bf r}_1 - {\bf r}_2|},
\end{split}$$ where the screening introduced by $\epsilon_r = 2$ is justified, even for an isolated molecule, by the presence of a polarizable core electrons. We have performed the integrals in Eq. using the DFT wave functions plotted in Fig. 1 of the main text, with the help of a Montecarlo method. The very similar numerical results ($U_{\rm S} = 1.37 e$V, $U_{\rm AS} = 1.43 e$V, and $U_{\rm SAS}= 1.37 e$V), together with the partial convergence of the Montecarlo method when applied to the DFT molecular orbitals suggested us to simplify the model to a single parameter $U = 1.4e$V. The robustness of the level ordening in the many-body spectrum with respect to variations of the interaction parameters within the estimated error given by the Montecarlo method has been tested. The exchange parameter $J$ has been similarly calculated from the formula: $$\label{Eq:exc_Interaction_integral}
J = \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon_r \epsilon_0}\int {\mathrm d}{\bf r}_1 \!\int{\mathrm d}{\bf r}_2 \,
\frac{\psi_{\rm AS}^*({\bf r}_1)\psi_{\rm S}^*({\bf r}_2) \psi_{\rm AS}({\bf r}_2)\psi_{\rm S}({\bf r}_1)}{|{\bf r}_1 - {\bf r}_2|},$$ which yields $J = 0.75 e$V. Since the molecular orbitals are real functions, Eq. also gives the pair hopping integral.
The remaining parameters ($\epsilon_\mathrm{S}$ and $\epsilon_\mathrm{AS}$ and $\delta$) are fitted to experimental data from the d$I$/d$V$ measurements. The position of the resonant peaks in the differential conductance curves corresponding to the transition $|N,m\rangle \leftrightarrow |N+1,n\rangle$ is given by the relation: $$eV_{\rm b,res}^{N,m \leftrightarrow N+1,n} = \frac{1}{\alpha_T}(E^\mathrm{G}_{N+1,n}-E^\mathrm{G}_{N,m}),$$ where $\alpha_\mathrm{T}$ ,the voltage drop at the tip, is defined by $\mu_T = \mu_0 + \alpha_\mathrm{T} eV_{\rm b}$, and for the the grand canonical energies $E^\mathrm{G}_{N,m}$ it holds $E^\mathrm{G}_{N,m} = E_{N,m} - \delta N^2 + \phi_0N$, where $E_{N,m}$ is the eigenvalue of the $m$-th excited $N$ particle state of ${\hat{H}_{\mathrm{mol}}}$ (analytical expressions for $E_{N,m}$ are given in Table 1. In the experimental data (Fig. 3 in the main text) we identify 5 resonance biases $V_{\rm b,res}$ from which, besides $\epsilon_\mathrm{S}$ and $\epsilon_\mathrm{AS}$ and $\delta$, also the parameter $\alpha_T$ can be extracted.
We assign the resonances seen in the measurements on Cu(111), $\phi_{111}=4\,e$V from low to high bias to specific transitions between 0 and 1 particle states: $V_{111}^{>0}=V_\mathrm{b,res}^{0\leftrightarrow10} = 0.7$V and $V_{111}^{>1}=V_\mathrm{b,res}^{0\leftrightarrow11} = 1.1$V, yielding $$\begin{split}
eV_{111}^{>0} &= \alpha_\mathrm{T}^{-1}\left( \epsilon_\mathrm{S} - \delta + \phi_{111} \right),\\
eV_{111}^{>1} &= \alpha_\mathrm{T}^{-1}\left( \epsilon_\mathrm{S}+\Delta - \delta + \phi_{111} \right).
\end{split}$$ where $\Delta = \epsilon_\mathrm{AS} - \epsilon_\mathrm{S}$. Analogously, we assign the resonances in the d$I$/d$V$ measurements on Cu(311), $\phi_{311}=3\,$eV. The only negative bias resonance is associated to a transition between 1 and 2 particle states: $V_{311}^{<0}=V_\mathrm{b,res}^{1\leftrightarrow20} = -0.7$V. The ones at positive bias involve instead 2 and 3 particle states: $V_{311}^{>0}=V_\mathrm{b,res}^{2\leftrightarrow30} = 0.9$V, and $V_{311}^{>1}=V_\mathrm{b,res}^{2\leftrightarrow31} =1.3$V, we get $$\begin{split}
eV_{311}^{<0} &= \alpha_\mathrm{T}^{-1}\left( \epsilon_\mathrm{S}+\Delta+U-\sqrt{\Delta^2+J^2}-3\delta+\phi_{311} \right), \\
eV_{311}^{>0} &= \alpha_\mathrm{T}^{-1}\left( \epsilon_\mathrm{S}+2U-J+\sqrt{\Delta^2+J^2}-5\delta+\phi_{311} \right), \\
eV_{311}^{>1} &= \alpha_\mathrm{T}^{-1}\left( \epsilon_\mathrm{S}+\Delta+2U-J+\sqrt{\Delta^2+J^2}-5\delta+\phi_{311} \right).
\end{split}$$ where $e$ is the elementary charge taken with positive sign. It is now straightforward to determine the bias drop and the parameters of the Hamiltonian: $\alpha_\mathrm{T} = 0.70$, $\delta = 0.43\,\mathrm{eV}$, $\epsilon_\mathrm{S}=-3.08\,\mathrm{eV}$, and $\epsilon_\mathrm{AS} =-2.8\,\mathrm{eV}$.
[llllll]{}\
& & & & &\
& 0 & $\epsilon_\mathrm{S}$ & $2\epsilon_\mathrm{S}+\Delta+U-\sqrt{\Delta^2+J^2}$ & $3\epsilon_\mathrm{S}+\Delta+3U-J$ & $4\epsilon_\mathrm{S}+2\Delta+6U-2J$\
& & $\epsilon_\mathrm{S}+\Delta$ & $2\epsilon_\mathrm{S}+\Delta+U-J$ & $3\epsilon_\mathrm{S}+2\Delta+3U-J$ &\
& & & $2\epsilon_\mathrm{S}+\Delta+U+J$ & &\
& & & $2\epsilon_\mathrm{S}+\Delta+U+\sqrt{\Delta^2+J^2}$ & &\
Dynamics and transport
======================
The transport characteristics for the STM single molecule junction with thin insulating film, are obtained following the approach already introduced by some of the authors [@Sobczyk2012; @Donarini2012; @Siegert2013] in earlier works. We summarize here only the main steps of the calculation. The junction is described by the Hamiltonian ${\hat{H}_{\mathrm{}}}={\hat{H}_{\mathrm{G}}} + {\hat{H}_{\mathrm{S}}} + {\hat{H}_{\mathrm{T}}} + {\hat{H}_{\mathrm{tun}}}$, where, beside the grand canonical Hamiltonian ${\hat{H}_{\mathrm{G}}}$ for the molecule, ${\hat{H}_{\mathrm{S}}}$ and ${\hat{H}_{\mathrm{T}}}$ correspond to substrate (S) and tip (T), respectively and ${\hat{H}_{\mathrm{tun}}}$ contains the tunnelling dynamics. The tip and the substrate are treated as noninteracting electronic leads: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{H}_{\eta=\mathrm{S,T}}=\sum_{{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}{\epsilon_{\eta{\mathbf{k}}}}\,{\hat{\operatorname{c}}_{\eta{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}^{\dag}}{\hat{\operatorname{c}}_{\eta{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}^{\phantom{\dag}}},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\hat{\operatorname{c}}_{\eta{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}^{\dag}}$ creates an electron in lead $\eta$ with spin $\sigma$ and momentum ${\mathbf{k}}$. The tunneling Hamiltonian ${\hat{H}_{\mathrm{tun}}}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\hat{H}_{\mathrm{tun}}} = \sum_{\eta{\mathbf{k}}i\sigma} t^\eta_{{\mathbf{k}}i}\, {\hat{\operatorname{c}}_{\eta{\mathbf{k}}\sigma}^{\dag}}{\hat{\operatorname{d}}_{i\sigma}^{\phantom{\dag}}} +\mathrm{h.c.},\end{aligned}$$ and it contains the tunneling matrix elements $t^\eta_{{\mathbf{k}}i}$, which are obtained by calculating the overlap between the lead wavefunctions $\ket{\eta{\mathbf{k}}}$ and the molecular orbitals $\ket{i}$ [@Sobczyk2012]. The latter are the starting point for the calculation of the single particle tunnelling rate matrices $\Gamma^\eta_{ij}(E)=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}\sum_{\mathbf{k}}\, t^\eta_{i{\mathbf{k}}}\left(t^\eta_{j{\mathbf{k}}}\right)^*\delta\left({\epsilon_{\eta{\mathbf{k}}}}-E\right)$ and, eventually, of the many-body rates:
$$\label{Eq:ManyBody_Rates}
\begin{split}
R^{N,n\to N+1,m}_{\sigma\eta} &= \sum_{ij}\Gamma^\eta_{ji}(E^G_{N+1,m}-E^G_{N,n})\\
&\langle N+1,m | {\hat{\operatorname{d}}_{i\sigma}^{\dag}}| N,n \rangle \langle N,n| {\hat{\operatorname{d}}_{j\sigma}^{\phantom{\dag}}} | N+1,m\rangle f^+(E^G_{N+1,m}-E^G_{N,n}-\alpha_\eta e V_\mathrm{bias},T)\\
R^{N,n\to N-1,m}_{\sigma\eta} &= \sum_{ij}\Gamma^\eta_{ij}(E^G_{N-1,m}-E^G_{N,n})\\
&\langle N-1,m | {\hat{\operatorname{d}}_{i\sigma}^{\phantom{\dag}}}| N,n \rangle \langle N,n| {\hat{\operatorname{d}}_{j\sigma}^{\dag}} | N-1,m\rangle f^-(E^G_{N,n}-E^G_{N-1,m}-\alpha_\eta e V_\mathrm{bias},T),\\
\end{split}$$
where $f^+(E) = (1+\exp(\beta E))^{-1}$ is the Fermi distribution with $\beta = (k_\mathrm{B}T)^{-1}$ and $f^-(E) =1 - f^+(E)$. Eq. clearly show how each manybody rate is in general the superposition of several molecular orbitals, whose population is changed by the creation (annihilation) operator ${\hat{\operatorname{d}}_{i\sigma}^{\dag}}$ (${\hat{\operatorname{d}}_{i\sigma}^{\phantom{\dag}}}$).
The system dynamics is calculated by means of the generalized master equation, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GME}
\dot{\rho}_\mathrm{red} = \mathcal{L}[\rho_\mathrm{red}],\end{aligned}$$ for the reduced density operator [@Darau2009; @Sobczyk2012] $\rho_\mathrm{red}=\operatorname{Tr}_{\mathrm{S,T}}\left(\rho\right)$. The Liouvillian superoperator in Eq. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{S} + \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{T} + \mathcal{L}_\mathrm{rel}\end{aligned}$$ contains the terms $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{S}$ and $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{T}$ describing tunneling from and to the substrate and the tip, respectively. These superoperators are combinations[@Sobczyk2012] of the many body rates in Eq. (\[Eq:ManyBody\_Rates\]). To account for relaxation processes independent from the electron tunnelling, similarly to Ref. [@Koch2005], we included the term $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rel}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{L_rel}
\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{rel}\left[\rho\right] = -\frac{1}{\tau}\left( \rho - \sum_N\rho^{\mathrm{th},N} \sum_l\, \rho^N_{ll} \right).\end{aligned}$$ $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{rel}}$ combines different relaxation processes associated e.g. with the phonon emission or with particle-hole excitation in the substrate within the relaxation time approximation. This term induces the relaxation of each N-particle subblock of $\rho$ towards its (canonical) thermal distribution: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^\mathrm{th,N}=\sum_{k}\, \frac{ {\mathrm{e}^{-\beta E_{Nk} }} }{ \sum_l {\mathrm{e}^{-\beta E_{Nl} }} } \ket{Nk}\bra{Nk},\end{aligned}$$ with $\beta=\left(k_\mathrm{B}T\right)^{-1}$. The speed of the process is set by the relaxation time $\tau$. Since $\mathcal{L}_\mathrm{rel}$ acts separately on each $N$-particle subblock, it conserves the particle number on the molecule and thus does not contribute directly to the transport. For the calculation of the long time dynamics, we are interested in the stationary solution $\rho_\mathrm{red}^\infty$ for which $\dot\rho_\mathrm{red}^\infty=\mathcal{L}[\rho_\mathrm{red}^\infty]=0$. Eventually, the stationary current through the system is evaluated as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq_current}
\braket{\hat I_\mathrm{\eta}}=\operatorname{Tr}_\mathrm{mol}\left(\hat N\mathcal{L_\eta}[\rho_\mathrm{red}^\infty]\right),\end{aligned}$$ being $\hat I_\eta=\hat N\mathcal{L_\eta}$ the current operator for the lead $\eta$.
Level alignment
===============
In previous studies of molecules on insulating films it was observed that, due to the electronic decoupling by the film, the molecular levels are roughly aligned with the vacuum level. From an electrochemical characterization the electron affinity of DCV5T in solution was determined to be at $-3.73$eV relative to the vacuum level [@Fitzner2011]. The polarizability of the solution lowers the electron affinity level, such that here the LUMO transport level can be expected at some tenths of an eV higher in energy. Considering the work function of NaCl/Cu(111) of about $4\,$eV [@Repp2005; @Bennewitz1999], this expectation in good agreement with the experimentally observed position of the S state for this system.
Kelvin probe force spectroscopy measurements
============================================
We performed Kelvin probe force spectroscopy (KPFS) measurements along the molecules for both substrates, as is shown in Fig. \[SI1\]. From a fit to the parabolic shape of the frequency shift $\Delta f(V)$ as a function of sample voltage $V$, the local contact potential difference (LCPD) between tip and sample[@Nonnenmacher1991; @Sadewasser2009; @Mohn2012; @Steurer2015] is extracted. Next to the molecules, on the clean NaCl films, the LCPD differs by slightly more than $1$eV for the two systems providing a rough estimate of the work function difference for the two systems [^2] in accordance with literature values [@Gartland1972; @Repp2005; @Olsson2005].
{width="17"}
Since local surface charges and dipoles affect the LCPD above adsorbates, the latter should qualitatively reflect the charge state [@Gross2009], the electron affinity [@Schuler2014], and the charge distribution [@Neff2015; @Mohn2012; @Albrecht2015]. The decrease of about 20meV in LCPD over the molecule in the case of DCV5T/NaCl/Cu(111) we assume to be due to the large electron affinity of DCV5T. On the NaCl/Cu(311) substrate the observed increase of LCPD is consistent with an anionic state of DCV5T/NaCl/Cu(311) [@Ikeda2008].
[^1]: For the Coulomb integrals we obtain $U_{\mathrm{S-S}} = 1.37\,$eV, $U_{\mathrm{AS-AS}} = 1.43\,$eV, $U_{\mathrm{S-AS}}= 1.37\,$eV
[^2]: For the two KPFS measurements of the two different systems the tip apex condition was not necessarily identical.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this article, we assume that the narrow structure $X(4350)$ is a scalar $\bar{c}c-{D}_s^\ast {\bar {D}}_s^\ast$ mixing state, and study its mass using the QCD sum rules. The numerical result $M_X=(4.37\pm0.15)\,\rm{GeV}$ is in good agreement with the experimental data, the $X(4350)$ may be a scalar $\bar{c}c-{D}_s^\ast {\bar {D}}_s^\ast$ mixing state. Other possibility, such as a scalar (tensor) $cs\bar{c}\bar{s}$ tetraquark state is not excluded.'
---
\
Zhi-Gang Wang [^1]\
Department of Physics, North China Electric Power University, Baoding 071003, P. R. China
PACS number: 12.39.Mk, 12.38.Lg
Key words: X(4350), QCD sum rules
Introduction
============
In 2009, the CDF collaboration observed a narrow structure (which is denoted as the $Y(4140)$ now) near the $J/\psi\phi$ threshold with statistical significance in excess of 3.8 standard deviations in exclusive decays $B^+\to J/\psi\phi K^+$ produced in $\bar{p} p $ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96 \,\rm{TeV}$ [@CDF0903]. The mass and width are $(4143.0\pm2.9\pm1.2)\,\rm{
MeV}$ and $(11.7^{+8.3}_{-5.0}\pm3.7)\, \rm{MeV}$ respectively. The narrow structure $Y(4140)$ is very similar to the charmonium-like state $Y(3930)$ near the $J/\psi \omega$ threshold [@Belle2005; @Babar2008]. The mass and width of the $Y(3930)$ are $(3914.6^{+3.8}_{-3.4}\pm 2.0) \,\rm{MeV}$ and $(34^{+12}_{-8}\pm
5)\,\rm{MeV}$ respectively [@Babar2008].
There have been several explanations for the nature of the narrow structure $Y(4140)$, such as a $D_s^\ast {\bar D}_s^\ast$ molecular state [@LiuMolecule; @Mahajan0903; @BranzMolecule; @NielsenMolecule; @DingMolecule; @HuangMolecule; @OsetMolecule], an exotic ($J^{PC}=1^{-+}$) hybrid charmonium [@Mahajan0903], a $c \bar c
s \bar s$ tetraquark state [@Stancu4], the effect of the $J/\psi \phi$ threshold [@NoResonance], or none a conventional charmonium state [@LiuRescatter] nor a scalar $D_{s}^{\ast}
\bar{D}_{s}^{\ast}$ molecular state [@Wang0903; @Wang0907], etc. Assuming the $Y(4140)$ is a $D_{s}^{\ast} \bar{D}_{s}^{\ast}$ molecular state with $J^{PC}=0^{++}$ or $2^{++}$, Branz et al predict its two-photon decay width is of order $1\,\rm{ KeV}$ [@BranzMolecule].
Recently, the Belle collaboration measured the process $\gamma
\gamma \to \phi J/\psi$ for the $\phi J/\psi$ invariant mass distributions between the threshold and $5\,\rm{GeV}$ based on a data sample of $825\,\rm{fb}^{-1}$, and observed a narrow peak of $8.8^{+4.2}_{-3.2}$ events with a significance of $3.2$ standard deviations [@Belle4350]. The mass and width of the structure (denoted as $X(4350)$) are $(4350.6^{+4.6}_{-5.1}\pm 0.7)\,\rm{MeV}$ and $(13.3^{+17.9}_{-9.1}\pm 4.1)\,\rm{MeV}$ respectively. No signal for the $Y(4140)\to \phi J/\psi$ structure was observed, this disfavors the scenario of the $Y(4140)$ as a $D_{s}^{\ast}
\bar{D}_{s}^{\ast}$ molecular state.
The possible quantum numbers for a state $X$ decaying into $J/\psi
\phi$ are $J^{PC}=0^{-+},0^{++},1^{-+},2^{++}$, the corresponding strong interactions can be described by the following phenomenological Lagrangian, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{L}_{0^{-+}}&=& g \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}\partial_\mu
\psi_\nu \partial_\alpha \phi_\beta X \, , \nonumber \\
\mathcal{L}_{1^{-+}}&=& g \epsilon^{\mu\nu\alpha\beta}
(\psi_\mu \partial_\nu\phi_\alpha-\phi_\mu \partial_\nu \psi_\alpha) X_\beta \, , \nonumber \\
\mathcal{L}_{0^{++}}&=& g
\psi_\mu \phi^\mu X \, , \nonumber \\
\mathcal{L}_{2^{++}}&=& g X^{\mu\nu} \psi_\mu \phi_\nu \, ,\end{aligned}$$ the strong coupling constants $g$ can be fitted phenomenologically or calculated by some theoretical approaches, for example, the QCD sum rules.
In Ref.[@HuangMolecule], Zhang and Huang study the $Q\bar{s}\bar{Q}s$ and $Q\bar{s}\bar{Q}'s$ molecular states in a systematic way using the QCD sum rules before the Belle experiment, the mass of the $D_s^{*+}\bar{D}_{s0}^{-}$ molecular state is $(4.36 \pm 0.08)\,\rm{GeV}$, which is consistent with experimental data [@Belle4350]. Such a state has $J^P=1^-$ and no definite charge conjugation. In Ref.[@Albuquerque1001], Albuquerque et al re-study the exotic $D_s^{*+}\bar{D}_{s0}^{-}-\bar{D}_s^{*-}D_{s0}^{+}$ molecular state with $J^{PC}=1^{-+}$ by taking into account the contributions from the vacuum condensates up to dimension-8, the prediction $M_{D_s^*{D}_{s0}}=(5.05\pm 0.19)\,\rm{GeV}$ disfavors the scenario of the $X(4350)$ as a $D_s^*\bar{D}_{s0}$ molecular state.
In Ref.[@Drenska0902], Drenska et al study the exotic tetraquark states of the kind $cs\bar{c} \bar{s}$ by computing their spectrum and decay modes within a constituent diquark-antidiquark model, the predictions $M_{0^{-+}}=4277,4312\,\rm{MeV}$ and $M_{1^{-+}}=4321,4356\,\rm{MeV}$ are consistent with the experimental data [@Belle4350]. On the other hand, the flux-tube model [@FluxTube-1; @FluxTube-2] and the Lattice QCD [@Latt-1; @Latt-2; @Latt-3] predict that the masses of the low lying hybrid charmonium states are about $(4.0-4.2)\,\rm{ GeV }$ and $(4.0-4.4) \, \rm{GeV}$ respectively, which are also consistent with the experimental data [@Belle4350]. However, the decay of a hybrid to two photons is generically forbidden [@Page1997].
In Ref.[@Stancu4], Stancu study the mass spectrum of the $c
\bar{c} s \bar{s}$ tetraquarks using a simple quark model with chromo-magnetic interaction and observe that the $Y(4140)$ may be the strange partner of the $X(3872)$, the prediction for the mass of the $2^{++}$ tetraquark state is consistent with the $X(4350)$. As noticed by the author, the amplitude of the singlet-singlet component seems too large comparing with the octet-octet component.
In Ref.[@Liu0911], Liu et al discuss the possibility that the $X(4350)$ is an excited $P$-wave charmonium state $\chi_{c2}''$ by studying the strong decays of the $P$-wave charmonium states with the $^3P_0$ model.
The CDF and Belle collaborations analyze the experimental data by assuming the vector mesons $J/\psi$ and $\phi$ have a relative $S$-wave [@CDF0903; @Belle4350], so we will not focus on the scenarios of the $X(4350)$ as the $0^{-+}$ and $1^{-+}$ tetraquark state or hybrid charmonium.
Nature $J^{PC}$ $M_X(\rm{GeV})$ Decay Channels RW References
--------------------------------------------- ---------- ----------------- ------------------------------------------------- --------- -------------------------------- --
$D^{*}_s \bar{D}_{s0}$ $1^{-?}$ $4.36 \pm 0.08$ $J/\psi\phi$ $P$ [@HuangMolecule]
$D^{*}_s \bar{D}_{s0}-\bar{D}^{*}_s D_{s0}$ $1^{-+}$ $5.05 \pm 0.19$ $J/\psi \phi$ $P$ [@Albuquerque1001]
$cs\bar{c}\bar{s}$ $1^{-+}$ $4.321/4.356$ $J/\psi \phi$ $P$ [@Drenska0902]
$cs\bar{c}\bar{s}$ $2^{++}$ $4.343/4.359$ $J/\psi \phi;\,D_s^*\bar{D}_s^*;\,D_s\bar{D}_s$ $S;D$ [@Stancu4]
$\chi''_{c2}$ $2^{++}$ $D\bar{D};\,D\bar{D}^*;\,D^*\bar{D}^*;\cdots$ $S;P;D$ [@Liu0911]
$cs\bar{c}\bar{s}$ $0^{-+}$ $4.277/4.312$ $J/\psi\phi;\,D_s^*\bar{D}_s^*$ $P$ [@Drenska0902]
$cs\bar{c}\bar{s}$ $0^{++}$ $4.45\pm0.16$ $J/\psi\phi;\,D_s^*\bar{D}_s^*$ $S$ [@WangScalar41; @WangScalar42]
$c\bar{c}-D_s^*\bar{D}_s^*$ $0^{++}$ $4.37\pm0.15$ $J/\psi \phi;\,D_s\bar{D}_s;\,D_s^*\bar{D}_s^*$ $S$ This Work
: The possible explanations for the nature of the $X(4350)$, where the RW stands for the relative wave of the final state mesons.
In Refs.[@WangScalar41; @WangScalar42], we study the mass spectrum of the scalar hidden charm and hidden bottom tetraquark states which consist of the scalar-scalar type, axial-vector-axial-vector type and vector-vector type diquark pairs in a systematic way using the QCD sum rules, the scalar-scalar type and axial-vector-axial-vector type scalar $c\bar{c}s\bar{s}$ tetraquark states have masses about $(4.45\pm0.16)\,\rm{GeV}$, the lower bound of the masses is consistent with the $X(4350)$, we cannot exclude that the $X(4350)$ is a scalar $c\bar{c}s\bar{s}$ tetraquark state. In Refs.[@Wang0903; @Wang0907], we study the ${D}^\ast {\bar {D}}^\ast$, ${D}_s^\ast
{\bar {D}}_s^\ast$, ${B}^\ast {\bar {B}}^\ast$ and ${B}_s^\ast {\bar
{B}}_s^\ast$ molecular states in a systematic way using the QCD sum rules. The numerical result is inconsistent with the experimental data, the $D_s^\ast {\bar D}_s^\ast$ is probably a virtual state and not related to the meson $Y(4140)$. In this article, we study the $X(4350)$ as a linear superposition of a scalar charmonium state $c\bar{c}$ and a virtual state $D_s^\ast
{\bar D}_s^\ast$ using the QCD sum rules [@SVZ79; @Reinders85]. In Table 1, we present the possible explanations for the nature of the $X(4350)$.
The article is arranged as follows: we derive the QCD sum rules for the narrow structure $X(4350)$ in Sect.2; in Sect.3, we present the numerical results and discussions; and Sect.4 is reserved for our conclusions.
QCD sum rules for the $X(4350)$ as a mixing state
==================================================
In the following, we write down the two-point correlation function $\Pi(p)$ in the QCD sum rules, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi(p)&=&i\int d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \langle
0|T\left\{J(x)J^{\dagger}(0)\right\}|0\rangle \, , \\
J(x)&=& \frac{J_{1}(x)+J_2(x)}{\sqrt{2}} \, , \nonumber\\
J_1(x)&=&\bar{c}(x)\gamma_\mu s(x) \bar{s}(x)\gamma^\mu c(x) \, , \nonumber \\
J_2(x)&=&-\frac{\langle\bar{s}s\rangle}{3}\bar{c}(x)c(x) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the $J_2(x)$ is the normalized two-quark current [@Sugiyama2007].
We can insert a complete set of intermediate hadronic states with the same quantum numbers as the current operator $J(x)$ into the correlation function $\Pi(p)$ to obtain the hadronic representation [@SVZ79; @Reinders85]. After isolating the ground state contribution from the pole term of the lowest state $X$, we get the following result, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi(p)&=&\frac{\lambda_{X}^2}{M_{X}^2-p^2} +\cdots \, \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the pole residue (or coupling) $\lambda_X$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{X} &=& \langle 0|J(0)|X(p)\rangle \, .\end{aligned}$$
The two-quark current $\bar{c}(x) c(x)$ has non-vanishing coupling with the charmonia $\chi_{c0}(1P)$, $\chi_{c0}(2P)$, $\chi_{c0}(3P)$, $\cdots$; while the molecule type current $\bar{c}(x)\gamma_\mu s(x) \bar{s}(x)\gamma^\mu c(x)$ has non-vanishing coupling with the molecular states ${D}_s^\ast {\bar
{D}}_s^\ast$, ${D}_s^\ast {\bar {D'}}_s^\ast$, ${D'}_s^\ast {\bar
{D'}}_s^\ast$, $\cdots$ and the scattering states ${D}_s^\ast-{\bar
{D}}_s^\ast$, ${D}_s^\ast -{\bar {D'}}_s^\ast$, ${D'}_s^\ast- {\bar
{D'}}_s^\ast$, $\cdots$ [@PDG]. We cannot distinguish those contributions and study them exclusively. In this article, we take the assumption that the interpolating current $J(x)$ couples to a particular resonance, which is a special superposition of the scalar charmonia $\chi_{c0}(1P)$, $\cdots$ and the virtual molecular states ${D}_s^\ast {\bar {D}}_s^\ast$, $\cdots$. In other words, we take a single pole approximation, the pole embodies the net effects.
We carry out the operator product expansion for the correlation function $\Pi(p)$ at the large space-like momentum region $p^2\ll 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi(p)&=& \frac{1}{2}\Pi_{11}(p)+\frac{\langle
\bar{s}s\rangle^2}{6}\Pi_{22}(p) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_{11}(p)&=& i\int d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \langle
0|T\left\{J_1(x)J_1^{\dagger}(0)\right\}|0\rangle=
\int_{\Delta^2}^{s_0} ds
\frac{\rho_{11}(s)}{s-p^2}+\cdots \, ,\nonumber \\
\Pi_{22}(p)&=&i\int d^4x e^{ip \cdot x} \langle
0|T\left\{J_2(x)J_2^{\dagger}(0)\right\}|0\rangle=
\int_{\Delta^2}^{s_0} ds
\frac{\rho_{22}(s)}{s-p^2}+\cdots \, ,\nonumber \\
\rho_{22}(s)&=&\frac{9}{4\pi^2}\int_{x_i}^{x_f}dx
x(1-x)(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2)\nonumber
\\
&&+\frac{1}{8}\langle\frac{\alpha_sGG}{\pi}\rangle
\int_0^1dx\left[1-\frac{(x^2-x+1)\widetilde{m}_c^2}{x(1-x)M^2}
\right]\delta(s-\widetilde{m}_c^2) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ the explicit expression of the spectral density $\rho_{11}(s)$ can be found in Refs.[@Wang0903; @Wang0907], $\Delta^2=4(m_c+m_s)^2$, $\widetilde{m}_c^2=\frac{m_c^2}{x(1-x)}$, $x_{f}=\left(1+\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_c^2}{s}}\right)/2$, $x_{i}=\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{4m_c^2}{s}}\right)/2$. In calculation, we use the Fierz re-ordering in the color space and Dirac spin space to express the correlation functions $\Pi_{12}(p)$ and $\Pi_{21}(p)$ in terms of the $\Pi_{22}(p)$. In this article, we carry out the operator product expansion to the vacuum condensates adding up to dimension-10 and take the assumption of vacuum saturation for the high dimensional vacuum condensates, they are always factorized to lower condensates with vacuum saturation in the QCD sum rules, and factorization works well in large $N_c$ limit.
Once analytical result is obtained, then we can take the quark-hadron duality and perform the Borel transform with respect to the variable $P^2=-p^2$, finally we obtain the following sum rule: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{X}^2 e^{-\frac{M_X^2}{M^2}}= \int_{\Delta^2}^{s_0} ds
\left[\frac{1}{2}\rho_{11}(s)+\frac{\langle \bar{s}s\rangle^2}{6}
\rho_{22}(s)\right] e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}} \, .\end{aligned}$$
Differentiating Eq.(8) with respect to $\frac{1}{M^2}$, then eliminate the pole residue $\lambda_{X}$, we can obtain the sum rule for the mass, $$\begin{aligned}
M_X^2= \frac{\int_{\Delta^2}^{s_0} ds
\frac{d}{d \left(-1/M^2\right)}\left[3\rho_{11}(s)+ \langle
\bar{s}s\rangle^2 \rho_{22}(s)\right]e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}}
}{\int_{\Delta^2}^{s_0} ds \left[3\rho_{11}(s)+ \langle
\bar{s}s\rangle^2 \rho_{22}(s)\right]e^{-\frac{s}{M^2}}}\, .\end{aligned}$$
Numerical results and discussions
=================================
The input parameters are taken to be the standard values $\langle
\bar{q}q \rangle=-(0.24\pm 0.01\, \rm{GeV})^3$, $\langle \bar{s}s
\rangle=(0.8\pm 0.2)\langle \bar{q}q \rangle$, $\langle
\bar{s}g_s\sigma G s \rangle=m_0^2\langle \bar{s}s \rangle$, $m_0^2=(0.8 \pm 0.2)\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $\langle \frac{\alpha_s
GG}{\pi}\rangle=(0.33\,\rm{GeV})^4 $, $m_s=(0.14\pm0.01)\,\rm{GeV}$ and $m_c=(1.35\pm0.10)\,\rm{GeV}$ at the energy scale $\mu=1\,
\rm{GeV}$ [@SVZ79; @Reinders85; @Ioffe2005].
In the conventional QCD sum rules [@SVZ79; @Reinders85], there are two criteria (pole dominance and convergence of the operator product expansion) for choosing the Borel parameter $M^2$ and threshold parameter $s_0$. In Refs.[@Wang0903; @Wang0907], we study the ${D}^\ast {\bar
{D}}^\ast$, ${D}_s^\ast {\bar {D}}_s^\ast$, ${B}^\ast {\bar
{B}}^\ast$ and ${B}_s^\ast {\bar {B}}_s^\ast$ molecular states in a systematic way, the threshold parameters are $s_0=(24\pm1)\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $(25\pm1)\,\rm{GeV}^2$, $(138\pm2)\,\rm{GeV}^2$ and $(140\pm2)\,\rm{GeV}^2$ in the $\bar{c}\gamma_\mu u \bar{d} \gamma^\mu c$, $\bar{c}\gamma_\mu s \bar{s} \gamma^\mu c$, $\bar{b}\gamma_\mu u \bar{d} \gamma^\mu
b$ and $\bar{b}\gamma_\mu s \bar{s} \gamma^\mu b$ channels respectively; the Borel parameters are $M^2=(2.6-3.0)\,\rm{GeV}^2$ and $(7.0-8.0)\,\rm{GeV}^2$ in the hidden charm and hidden bottom channels respectively. In those regions, the two criteria of the QCD sum rules are satisfied. In this article, we choose the interpolating current $J(x)$, which is a special superposition of the scalar currents $\bar{c}(x)c(x)$ and $\bar{c}(x)\gamma_\mu s(x) \bar{s}(x) \gamma^\mu c(x)$. So we can take the same threshold parameter and Borel parameter as in the channel $\bar{c}\gamma_\mu s \bar{s} \gamma^\mu c$, i.e. $s_0=(25\pm1)\,\rm{GeV}^2$ and $M^2=(2.6-3.0)\,\rm{GeV}^2$.
The contributions from the different terms in the operator product expansion are shown in Fig.1, from the figure, we can see that the dominant contribution comes from the perturbative term and the operator product expansion is well convergent. In Fig.2, we show the contribution from the pole term with variation of the Borel parameter and the threshold parameter. The pole contribution is larger than $50\%$, the pole dominant condition is also satisfied.
Taking into account all uncertainties of the relevant parameters, finally we obtain the values of the mass and pole residue of the narrow structure $X(4350)$, which are shown in Fig.3, $$\begin{aligned}
M_X&=&(4.37\pm0.15)\,\rm{GeV} \, ,\nonumber\\
\lambda_X&=&(4.1\pm0.8)\times 10^{-2}\,\rm{GeV}^5 \, .
\end{aligned}$$ The prediction is in good agreement with the experimental data $M_X=(4350.6^{+4.6}_{-5.1}\pm 0.7)\,\rm{MeV}$ [@Belle4350], the $X(4350)$ may be a scalar $\bar{c}c-{D}_s^\ast {\bar {D}}_s^\ast$ mixing state. Other possibility, such as a scalar (tensor) $c\bar{c}s\bar{s}$ tetraquark state is not excluded.
The nominal thresholds of the $D_s-\bar{D}_s$ and $D^*_s-\bar{D}^*_s$ are $M_{D_s\bar{D}_s}=3.937\,\rm{GeV}$ and $M_{D_s^*\bar{D}^*_s}=4.225\,\rm{GeV}$ respectively [@PDG], the strong decays $X(4350) \to D_s\bar{D}_s , D^*_s\bar{D}^*_s$ can take place, so we can search for the $X(4350)$ in the $D_s\bar{D}_s$ and $D^*_s\bar{D}^*_s$ invariant mass distributions. The decay channel $X(4350) \to D^*_s\bar{D}^*_s$ has much smaller phase space comparing with the decay channel $X(4350) \to D_s\bar{D}_s$, the strong decay $X(4350) \to D_s\bar{D}_s$ is of great importance. By measuring the relative angular distributions of the pseudoscalar mesons $D_s$ and $\bar{D}_s$, we can determine the spin of the $X(4350)$.
In Ref.[@4Coupling], the light nonet scalar mesons are taken as tetraquark states, and the strong coupling constants among the light scalar mesons and pseudoscalar mesons are calculated with the QCD sum rules. The numerical results indicate that the values of the strong coupling constants for the tetraquark states are always smaller than the corresponding ones for the $q\bar{q} $ states [@Colangelo03; @Wang04]. In Ref.[@Maiani20042], Maiani et al take the diquarks as the basic constituents, examine the rich spectrum of the diquark-antidiquark states with the constituent diquark masses and the spin-spin interactions, and try to accommodate some of the newly observed charmonium-like resonances not fitting a pure $c\bar{c}$ assignment. The predictions (also the Ref.[@Drenska0902]) depend on the assumption that the light scalar mesons $a_0(980)$ and $f_0(980)$ are tetraquark states, the basic parameters (constituent diquark masses) are estimated thereafter. If the scenarios of the light nonet scalar mesons as the tetraquark states are robust, the scalar (tensor) $c\bar{c}s\bar{s}$ tetraquark state will have smaller $D_s\bar{D}_s$ decay width than the corresponding ones of the $c\bar{c}-D_s^*\bar{D}_s^*$ mixing state.
![ The contributions from the different terms with variation of the Borel parameter $M^2$ for $s_0=25\,\rm{GeV}^2$ in the operator product expansion. The $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$, $E$ and $F$ correspond to the contributions from the perturbative term, $\langle \bar{s} s \rangle+\langle \bar{s}g_s\sigma G s \rangle$ term, $\langle \frac{\alpha_s GG}{\pi} \rangle $ term, $\langle
\frac{\alpha_s GG}{\pi} \rangle $+$\langle \frac{\alpha_s GG}{\pi}
\rangle \left[\langle \bar{s} s \rangle +\langle \bar{s}g_s\sigma G
s \rangle+ \langle \bar{s}s \rangle^2\right]$ term, $\langle \bar{s}
s \rangle^2$+$\langle \bar{s} s \rangle\langle \bar{s}g_s\sigma G s
\rangle$ term and $\langle \bar{s}g_s\sigma G s \rangle^2$ term, respectively. ](fraction.EPS){width="7cm"}
{width="7cm"}
{width="7cm"} {width="7cm"}
Conclusion
==========
In this article, we assume that the $X(4350)$ is a scalar $\bar{c}c-{D}_s^\ast {\bar {D}}_s^\ast$ mixing state, and study its mass using the QCD sum rules. Our prediction depends heavily on the two criteria (pole dominance and convergence of the operator product expansion) of the QCD sum rules. The numerical result is in good agreement with the experimental data, the $X(4350)$ may be a scalar $\bar{c}c-{D}_s^\ast {\bar {D}}_s^\ast$ mixing state. Other possibility, such as a scalar (tensor) $c\bar{c}s\bar{s}$ tetraquark state is not excluded. We can search for $X(4350)$ in the $D_s\bar{D}_s$ and $D^*_s\bar{D}^*_s$ invariant mass distributions, especially the $D_s\bar{D}_s$. By measuring the relative angular distributions of the pseudoscalar mesons $D_s$ and $\bar{D}_s$, we can determine the spin of the $X(4350)$.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant Number 10775051, and Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University, Grant Number NCET-07-0282, and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities.
[99]{}
T. Aaltonen et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{} (2009) 242002.
S. K. Choi et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{} (2005) 182002.
B. Aubert et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{} (2008) 082001.
X. Liu and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. [**D80**]{} (2009) 017502.
N. Mahajan, Phys. Lett. [**B679**]{} (2009) 228.
T. Branz, T. Gutsche and V. E. Lyubovitskij, Phys. Rev. [**D80**]{} (2009) 054019.
R. M. Albuquerque, M. E. Bracco and M. Nielsen, Phys. Lett. [**B678**]{} (2009) 186.
G. J. Ding, Eur. Phys. J. [**C64**]{} (2009) 297.
J. R. Zhang and M. Q. Huang, arXiv:0905.4672.
R. Molina and E. Oset, Phys. Rev. [**D80**]{} (2009) 114013.
F. Stancu, arXiv:0906.2485.
E. van Beveren and G. Rupp, arXiv:0906.2278.
X. Liu, Phys. Lett. [**B680**]{} (2009) 137.
Z. G. Wang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C63**]{} (2009) 115.
Z. G. Wang, Z. C. Liu and X. H. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. [**C64**]{} (2009) 373.
C. P. Shen et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{} (2010) 112004.
R. M. Albuquerque, J. M. Dias and M. Nielsen, arXiv:1001.3092.
N. V. Drenska, R. Faccini and A. D. Polosa, Phys. Rev. [**D79**]{} (2009) 077502.
N. Isgur and J. E. Paton, Phys. Rev. [**D31**]{} (1985) 2910.
T. Barnes, F. E. Close and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. [**D52**]{} (1995) 5242.
P. Lacock et al, Phys. Lett. [**B401**]{} (1997) 308.
C. W. Bernard et al, Phys. Rev. [**D56**]{} (1997) 7039.
P. Chen, Phys. Rev. [**D64**]{} (2001) 034509.
P. R. Page, Nucl. Phys. [**B495**]{} (1997) 268.
X. Liu, Z. G. Luo and Z. F. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{} (2010) 122001. .
Z. G. Wang, Phys. Rev. [**D79**]{} (2009) 094027.
Z. G. Wang, arXiv:0908.1266.
M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. [**B147**]{} (1979) 385, 448.
L. J. Reinders, H. Rubinstein and S. Yazaki, Phys. Rept. [**127**]{} (1985) 1.
J. Sugiyama, T. Nakamura, N. Ishii, T. Nishikawa and M. Oka, Phys. Rev. [**D76**]{} (2007) 114010.
C. Amsler et al, Phys. Lett. [**B667**]{} (2008) 1.
B. L. Ioffe, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**56**]{} (2006) 232.
T. V. Brito, F. S. Navarra, M. Nielsen and M. E. Bracco, Phys. Lett. [**B608**]{} (2005) 69.
P. Colangelo and F. D. Fazio, Phys. Lett. [**B559**]{} (2003) 49.
Z. G. Wang, W. M. Yang and S. L. Wan, Eur. Phys. J. [**C37**]{} (2004) 223.
L. Maiani, F. Piccinini, A. D. Polosa and V. Riquer, Phys. Rev. [**D71**]{} (2005) 014028.
[^1]: E-mail:[email protected].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Comprehensive visual understanding requires detection frameworks that can effectively learn and utilize object interactions while analyzing objects individually. This is the main objective in Human-Object Interaction (HOI) detection task. In particular, relative spatial reasoning and structural connections between objects are essential cues for analyzing interactions, which is addressed by the proposed Visual-Spatial-Graph Network (VSGNet) architecture. VSGNet extracts visual features from the human-object pairs, refines the features with spatial configurations of the pair, and utilizes the structural connections between the pair via graph convolutions. The performance of VSGNet is thoroughly evaluated using the Verbs in COCO (V-COCO) and HICO-DET datasets. Experimental results indicate that VSGNet outperforms state-of-the-art solutions by 8% or 4 mAP in V-COCO and 16% or 3 mAP in HICO-DET. Code is available online.[^1]'
author:
- |
Oytun Ulutan[^2] [^3] A S M Iftekhar^\*^B. S. Manjunath\
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering\
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA
bibliography:
- 'main.bib'
title: 'VSGNet: Spatial Attention Network for Detecting Human Object Interactions Using Graph Convolutions'
---
Introduction
============
The task of detecting human object interaction (HOI) in images refers to detecting the interactions between a human and object pair and localizing them. HOI detection can be considered a part of the task of visual scene understanding [@eslami2016attend; @zhou2019semantic; @xiao2018unified], visual question answering[@fan2018stacked; @yu2017multi; @nam2017dual; @teney2018tips], and activity recognition in videos [@liu2019caesar; @wu2019learning; @ulutan2018actor]. Although there has been significant improvements in recent years for detecting and recognizing objects [@girshick2014rich; @ren2015faster; @he2016deep], HOI detection still poses various challenges. For example, interactions usually happen in a subtle way, same types of relations vary significantly across different settings, multiple humans can interact with the same object or vice-versa, and different relations might have visually subtle differences [@gupta2015visual; @chao2018learning].
![ Visual, Spatial and Graph branches of our proposed VSGNet model. Visual branch analyzes humans/objects/context individually, Spatial branch uses spatial configurations of the pairs to refine visual features and the Graph branch utilizes the structural connections by Graph convolutions which uses interaction proposal scores as edge intensities between human-object nodes. []{data-label="fig:three_branches"}](figures/three_branches.png){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Most of the existing methods in HOI detection task [@li2019transferable; @gao2018ican; @gkioxari2018detecting] follow a similar structure. Using an object detection framework, human and object features are extracted. These features are paired exhaustively along with some other features (e.g. pose, relative geometric locations) [@li2019transferable; @gao2018ican] and then fed into a multi-branch deep neural network to detect the relationship between humans and objects. Even though this approach achieves good results for detecting HOIs, it does not explicitly utilize the interaction information or the spatial relations between pairs. HOIs such as person on a skateboard or a person holding a bat have well defined spatial relations and structural interactions which should be leveraged in this detection task. For utilizing spatial configurations, VSGNet uses a spatial attention branch that explicitly uses the spatial relations of the pairs to refine the visual features. Instead of modeling humans and objects individually, our attention module uses the spatial configurations of the pairs to extract attention weights which refine the visual features. Although a few past works [@chao2018learning; @gao2018ican] have used these types of spatial configurations as features for classification directly, these models do not combine the visual information with spatial information. These features are more useful for refining the visual features and providing an attention mechanism for modeling the interactions of the human-object pairs explicitly.
For modeling the interactions, an image can be defined as a graph. Nodes in this graph are the humans and objects, in which case the edges define the interactions. As the edges between nodes define interactions between pairs, our model utilizes the interaction proposal scores as the intensities of the edges in the graph. Interaction proposal scores are generated from the spatially refined visual features and they quantify if the human-object pair is interacting. To summarize, the proposed VSGNet for HOI detection refines the visual features using spatial relations of humans and objects. This approach amplifies the visual features of spatially relevant pairs while damping the others. Additionally, this model uses graph convolutional networks to model the interactions between humans and objects. The resulting model consists of multiple specialized branches. We evaluate our model on V-COCO[@gupta2015visual] and HICO-DET[@chao2018learning] datasets and demonstrate $4$ mAP ($~8\%$) and $3$ mAP ($~16\%$) improvement over the state of the art methods.
**Technical Contributions:**
- We propose a new spatial attention branch that leverages the spatial configuration of human-object pairs and refines the visual features such that spatially relevant human-object pairs are amplified.
- We use a graph convolutional branch which utilizes the structural connections between humans and objects. The interaction proposal score, generated from the spatially refined features, are used to define the edge intensities between human and object nodes.
- We implement a robust pipeline that contains Visual, Spatial and Graph based branches named VSGNet. This model achieves state-of-the-art results for HOI detection task on V-COCO and HICO-DET datasets.
Related Work
============
[**Object Detection:**]{} For detecting HOIs the first step is to detect humans and objects properly. With the recent object detection frameworks like RCNN [@girshick2014rich], Faster RCNN [@ren2015faster], YOLO [@redmon2016you], Feature Pyramid Network [@lin2017feature] and SSD [@liu2016ssd], models are able to detect multi scale objects robustly in images. Following this we utilize a pre-trained Faster-RCNN model in our network for detecting humans and objects. Additionally, we utilize the region proposal network idea from Faster-RCNN and extend it to interaction proposals which predict if an human-object pair is interacting. [**Human Object Interaction:**]{} Activity recognition is a research area in computer vision that has received interest for a long time. There are different datasets like UCF-101 [@soomro2012ucf101], Thumos [@idrees2017thumos] with a focus on detecting human actions in videos. But in these datasets, the goal is to detect one action in a short video which is not representative of real life scenarios. To extend human activity recognition in images Gupta et al. [@gupta2015visual] introduced V-COCO dataset and Chao et al. [@chao2018learning] introduces HICO-DET dataset. These datasets are different from the previous datasets as they require models to explicitly detect humans, objects and their interactions. This extends the task to include detection of human activities while localizing the humans and the objects.
For the HOI detection task, Gkioxari et al. [@gkioxari2018detecting] proposed a human-centric approach arguing that human appearance provides strong cues in both detecting the action and localizing the object. This method does not consider interactions where the object is far away from the human. Qi et al. [@qi2018learning] proposed a graph based network which depends on detecting an adjacency matrix between various nodes(here, nodes are humans and objects) but does not utilize any spatial relation cues between pairs. Kolesnikov et al. [@kolesnikov2019detecting] incorporates the HOI detection process with the object detection by individually analyzing humans and objects without considering the relationship between the pairs.
Gao et al. [@gao2018ican] proposed an attention network based on the previous work of [@vaswani2017attention]. They derived an attention map from the human and object features over the whole convolutional feature map. Although they used a binary spatial map similar to [@chao2018learning], they use the spatial map to extract features and concatenate them with human visual features. As these are two completely different features defining separate things, concatenation does not enforce spatial configurations as much as an attention mechanism. To address this in our network we use the spatial features as attention maps which refines our visual features.
Li et al. [@li2019transferable] integrated pose estimation with the iCAN [@gao2018ican] and predicted the interaction probabilities between a human and object pair. These methods however, do not explicitly leverage the interaction probabilities to detect the relational structure between the human and object pairs. Our VSGNet addresses this by utilizing a graph network for learning interactions and achieves better results without using poses which shows VSGNet can benefit from pose estimation as well.
Proposed Method
===============
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
This section introduces our proposed VSGNet for detecting human-object interactions(HOI). From each given image, the task is to detect bounding boxes for the humans, objects and correctly label the interactions between them. Each human-object pair can have multiple interaction labels and each scene can include multiple humans and objects in them. We simplify the task by running a pre-trained object detector which detects humans and objects in an image.
Detecting the interactions between human-object pairs is a challenging task. Simple methods such as extracting features from human and object locations individually and analyzing them are ineffective as these methods ignore the contextual information of the surroundings and the spatial relations of the human-object pair. Extensions such as using union boxes to model the spatial relations/context also fall short as they don’t explicitly model the interactions. To address these issues, we propose a multi-branch network with specialized branches. The proposed VSGNet consists of the Visual Branch (Section \[sec:visual\_branch\]) which extracts visual features from human, object and surrounding context individually; the Spatial Attention Branch (Section \[sec:spatial\_att\]) which models spatial relations between the human-object pair; and the Graph Convolutional Branch (Section \[sec:graph\_convs\]) which considers the scene as a graph with humans and objects as nodes and models the structural interactions. The proposed model architecture with the branches is shown in Fig.\[fig:model\_architecture\].
Overview
--------
The inputs to our model is image features $\textbf{F}$ from a backbone CNN (e.g. ResNet-152 [@he2016deep]) and bounding boxes $x_h$ for human $h\in[1,H]$ and $x_o$ for object $o\in[1,O]$. $H$ and $O$ represents the total number of humans and objects in the scene respectively. Bounding boxes are obtained from a pre-trained object detector. We define the objective of this model as:
- Detect if human $h$ is interacting with object $o$ with an interaction proposal score $i_{h,o}$.
- Predict the action class probability vector $\mathbf{p}_{h,o}$ of size $A$ where $A$ is the number of classes.
Visual Branch {#sec:visual_branch}
-------------
This branch focuses on extracting visual features for the human-object pairs. Following the object detection methods, we use region of interest (RoI) pooling on the human/object regions to extract features. This operation is followed by a residual block (Res) [@he2016deep] and global average pooling(GAP) operations to extract the visual feature vectors for objects and humans.
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{f}_h = GAP(Res_h(RoI(\mathbf{F}, x_h))) \\
\mathbf{f}_o = GAP(Res_o(RoI(\mathbf{F}, x_o)))\end{aligned}$$
where $Res_{\{\}}$ represents residual blocks, $\textbf{f}_h$ and $\textbf{f}_o$ are visual feature vectors of sizes $R$. This operation is repeated for each human $h$ and object $o$.
Context plays an important role in detecting HOI. Surrounding objects, background and other humans can help detecting the interactions. We include the context in our network by extracting features from the entire input image followed by a residual block and global average pooling.
$$\mathbf{f}_C = GAP(Res_C(\mathbf{F}))$$
where $\mathbf{f}_C$ is a feature vector of size $R$.
Finally, this branch combines all the visual feature vectors by concatenating them and projecting it by a fully connected layer.
$$\mathbf{f}^{Vis}_{ho} = \mathbf{W}_{vis}(\mathbf{f}_h \oplus \mathbf{f}_o \oplus \mathbf{f}_C)$$
where $\oplus$ is the concatenation operation, $\mathbf{W}_{\{\}}$ is the projection matrix, $\mathbf{f}^{Vis}_{ho}$ is the combined visual feature vector of dimension $D$ which represents the human-object pair $ho$.
The feature $\mathbf{f}^{Vis}_{ho}$ can be used directly for classifying actions. We implement this as a base model for comparisons.
Spatial Attention Branch {#sec:spatial_att}
------------------------
![Spatial Attention Branch. Initially human, object and context visual features are extracted from the image using RoI pooling. Using binary maps of human and object locations, spatial attention features are extracted using convolutions. These attention features encode the spatial configuration of the human-object pair. Attention features are used to refine the visual features by amplifying the pairs with high spatial correlation. []{data-label="fig:spatial_attention"}](figures/spatial_attention.png){width="1.0\linewidth"}
This branch focuses on learning the spatial interaction patterns between humans and objects. The main task is to generate attention features which are used to refine the visual features by amplifying the pairs with high spatial correlation. This branch is visualized in Fig.\[fig:spatial\_attention\].
Given the human bounding box $x_h$ and object bounding box $x_o$, we generate two binary maps. These binary maps have zeros everywhere except in locations defined by human and object box coordinates $x_h$ and $x_o$ for each map respectively. This generates a 2-channel binary spatial configuration map $\mathbf{B}_{ho}$.
Similar to [@chao2018learning; @gao2018ican], we use 2 layers of convolutions to analyze the binary spatial configuration map. This is followed by a GAP operation and a fully connected layer.
$$\mathbf{a}_{ho} = \mathbf{W}_{Spat}(GAP(Conv(\mathbf{B}_{ho})))$$
where $\mathbf{a}_{ho}$ is an attention feature vector of size D and represents the spatial configuration of the human-object pair $ho$. As the objects and humans are defined in different channels, using convolutions on the binary spatial configuration maps $\mathbf{B}_{ho}$ allows the model to learn the possible spatial relations between humans and objects.
Since $\mathbf{a}_{ho}$ encodes the spatial configuration, it can be used directly to classify the HOIs as in [@chao2018learning]. We keep this classification as an auxiliary prediction but mainly use $\mathbf{a}_{ho}$ as an attention mechanism for refining visual features. Auxiliary predictions can be defined as:
$$\mathbf{p}^{Att}_{ho} = \sigma(\mathbf{W}_{Att}(\mathbf{a}_{ho}))$$
where $\mathbf{p}^{Att}_{ho}$ is the action class probabilities of size $A$ and $\sigma$ is the sigmoid function.
The attention vector $\mathbf{a}_{ho}$ and the visual feature vector $\mathbf{f}^{Vis}_{ho}$ are set to be the same size $D$. This allows us to multiply these two vectors together in order to refine the visual features with spatial configuration. We use $\mathbf{a}_{ho}$ as an attention function and multiply $\mathbf{a}_{ho}$ and $\mathbf{f}^{Vis}_{ho}$ elementwise.
$$\mathbf{f}_{ho}^{Ref} = \mathbf{a}_{ho} \otimes \mathbf{f}^{Vis}_{ho}$$
where $\otimes$ is element-wise multiplication and $f_{ho}^{Ref}$ is the spatially refined feature vector of size $D$.
The refined feature vector is then used to predict the interaction proposal score of human-object pair $ho$ and to predict the action class probabilities.
$$\begin{aligned}
i_{ho} = \sigma(\mathbf{W}_{IP}(\mathbf{f}_{ho}^{Ref})) \\
\mathbf{p}^{Ref}_{ho} = \sigma(\mathbf{W}_{Ref}(\mathbf{f}_{ho}^{Ref}))\end{aligned}$$
where $i_{ho}$ is the interaction proposal probability of size 1 and $\mathbf{p}_{ho}^{Ref}$ is the action class probabilities of size $A$.
Graph Convolutional Interaction Branch {#sec:graph_convs}
--------------------------------------
This branch uses a graph convolutional network to generate effective features for humans and objects. Graph convolutional networks extract features that model the structural relations between nodes. This is done by traversing and updating the nodes in the graph using their edges. In this setting, we propose to use humans and objects as nodes and their relations as edges.
![ Graph Convolutional Branch. This model learns the structural connections between humans and objects. For this task, we define the humans and objects as nodes and only connecting edges between human-object pairs. Instead of using visual similarity as the edge adjacency, we propose to use the interaction proposal scores. This allows the edges to utilize the interactions between human-object pairs and generates better features. []{data-label="fig:graph_convs"}](figures/graph_convs.png){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Instead of having a fully connected graph, we connect each human with every object and each object with every human. However, without this simplification, proposed model can also be extended to fully connected settings.
Given the visual features $\mathbf{f}_h$, $\mathbf{f}_o$ and connecting the edges between humans and objects, graph features $\mathbf{f}'_h$ and $\mathbf{f}'_o$ are defined as follows:
$$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{f}'_h = \mathbf{f}_h + \sum_{o=1}^{O} \alpha_{ho} \mathbf{W}_{oh}(\mathbf{f}_o) \\
\mathbf{f}'_o = \mathbf{f}_o + \sum_{h=1}^{H} \alpha_{oh} \mathbf{W}_{ho}(\mathbf{f}_h)\end{aligned}$$
where $\alpha_{ho}$ defines the adjacency between $h$ and $o$ and $\mathbf{W}_{oh}$, $\mathbf{W}_{ho}$ are mapping functions which project the object features to human feature space and vice versa. Previous works [@li2019relation; @qi2018learning] defined the adjacency as visual similarity. In our task, however, adjacency defines interactions between nodes of visually unsimilar things which are human and object. Following this idea, we define adjacency values between $h$ and $o$ pair as:
$$\alpha_{ho} = \alpha_{oh} = i_{ho}$$
where $i_{ho}$ is the interaction proposal score which are generated from the spatially refined visual features and measure the interactions of the human-object pair. Pairing up the graph features, classification predictions are calculated as:
$$\mathbf{p}^{Graph}_{ho} = \sigma(\mathbf{W}_{graph}(f'_h \oplus f'_o))$$
where $\oplus$ is concatenation operation and $\mathbf{p}^{Graph}_{ho}$ is the action class probabilities of size $A$.
The graph convolutional branch is visualized in Figure \[fig:graph\_convs\]. This concludes all of the outputs of the proposed network. Finally we combine the action predictions and the interaction proposal scores by multiplying the probabilities similar to previous works [@gao2018ican; @li2019transferable; @gkioxari2018detecting].
$$\mathbf{p}_{ho} = \mathbf{p}^{Att}_{ho} \times \mathbf{p}^{Ref}_{ho} \times \mathbf{p}^{Graph}_{ho} \times i_{ho}
\label{eq:infer}$$
where $P_{ho}$ is the final prediction vector of size $A$.
Experiments
===========
We first introduce the datasets and our evaluation metrics along with our implementation details and then perform extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis on our model and show the improvements over the existing methods.
Datasets and Evaluation Metrics
-------------------------------
**Datasets:** To evaluate our model’s performance, we use the V-COCO [@gupta2015visual] and HICO-DET [@chao2018learning] datasets.
V-COCO is derived from COCO [@lin2014microsoft] dataset. It has 10,346 images. 2533 images are for training, 2867 images are for validating and 4946 images are for testing. The training and validation set images are from COCO training set and the test images are from the COCO validation set. Each person in the images are annotated with a label indicating one of the 29 actions. If an object in the image is related to that action then the object is also annotated. Among these 29 actions, four of them has no object pair and one of them(point) has only 21 samples. Following the previous HOI detection works, we are not going to report our performance in these classes. We report our performance for the rest of the 24 classes.
HICO-DET is a large dataset for detecting HOIs with 38118 training and 9658 testing images. HICO-DET annotates the images for 600 human-object interactions. Following the previous works, in HICO-DET we report our performance in Full, Rare and Non-Rare Categories. These categories are based on the number of training samples [@chao2018learning].
**Metrics:** Following [@gupta2015visual] we evaluate our performance on two types of average precision(AP) metrics: Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. During AP calculation in both metrics, a prediction for a human-object pair is considered correct (1) if the human and object bounding boxes have an IoU greater than 0.5 with the ground-truth boxes and (2) the interaction class label of the prediction for the pair is correct. For the cases when there is no object(human only), in Scenario 1 a prediction is correct if the corresponding bounding box for the object is empty and in Scenario 2 the bounding box of the object is not considered. This makes Scenario 1 much harsher than Scenario 2 [@gupta2015visual]. In HICO-DET our evaluation metrics is similar to the Scenario 1 case of V-COCO.
Implementation Details
----------------------
Resnet-152 [@he2016deep] network is used as the backbone feature extractor. We extract the input feature map before the last residual block of Resnet-152. This serves as the input to the rest of the network. We extract $10 \times 10$ feature maps for all the humans and objects from the input feature map by region of interest pooling [@girshick2015fast]. Extracted RoIs and input feature map(context) pass through a residual block followed by a global average pooling similar to [@gao2018ican]. After these steps, we obtain three feature vectors of size $R=1024$ for human, object and context. These are fed to the rest of the network. For the spatial attention branch we have used $64 \times 64 \times 2$ binary inputs. Before the element wise multiplication with the attention vector in the spatial attention branch, we project all our input feature vectors to a $D=512$ dimensional space followed by a ReLU. In our final classification layer for all the branches, we have one linear layer.
For training the network, we utilize off-the-shelf Faster-RCNN [@ren2015faster] to generate human and object bounding boxes. We have filtered the detected bounding boxes by setting 0.6 confidence threshold for human bounding boxes and 0.3 for object bounding boxes. The threshold values are chosen experimentally. Following [@gkioxari2018detecting] we did not fine tune the backbone CNN Resnet-152 [@he2016deep] and Faster-RCNN during our training process. Faster-RCNN was trained on the COCO [@lin2014microsoft] training set and did not see any image from V-COCO testing sets. Unlike previous works[@gao2018ican; @li2019transferable], we do not use ground truth boxes during training as object proposals. As our object detector is robust, we directly use the bounding boxes generated from the detector which generates sufficient amount of positive and negative boxes.
Initially, we have trained the model on the training set of V-COCO while validating with the validation set. Then we train the model in both training and validation set like [@gkioxari2018detecting]. Our initial learning rate is set to 0.01 with a batch size of 8. As optimizer, Stochastic Gradient Descent(SGD) have been used with a weight decay of 0.0001 and a momentum of 0.9. To reduce the training time we have increased our learning rate to 0.01 for all the layers except for the spatial attention branch between epoch 9 to epoch 21. We trained the whole model for 50 epochs.
For HICO-DET we use the same hyper-parameters from V-COCO. We train the network individually for 20 epochs in HICO-DET training set without any initialization from the V-COCO model.
During inference, we multiply all the prediction outputs from the different branches of our network as in \[eq:infer\]. Additionally, we multiply the final prediction output with the detection confidences of the human and object from the object detector. To differentiate between high and low quality detection scores we have adopted Low grade Instance Suppressive Function (LIS) [@li2019transferable]. We additionally remove the incompatible interaction-object pairs by using a post processing similar to iCAN [@gao2018ican] (e.g. if the object is not phone then the interaction can not be talk on the phone).
While making inference most of the existing[@gao2018ican; @li2019transferable; @gkioxari2018detecting] models multiply all the outputs from different modules but these modules are optimized separately while training. Following [@gupta2019no] we have used a single cross entropy loss function for each action class to optimize the network. One thing to note is that as in Eq. \[eq:infer\], interaction proposal score is also multiplied in these predictions and included in predictions for every class. This allows the proposal score to quantify if there are interactions between the human-object pair regardless of the class of that interaction. Our experiments show that combining all the predictions and using a single loss function improves the performance.
Comparisons with the State of the Art
-------------------------------------
We compare our model’s performance with five recent state of the art methods [@gkioxari2018detecting; @kolesnikov2019detecting; @qi2018learning; @gao2018ican; @li2019transferable] in both of the datasets. We report mean Average Precision (mAP) score in the settings provided by [@gupta2015visual] and [@chao2018learning].
Table \[tab:state\_of\_the\_art\_vcoco\] shows that our method outperforms all the existing models and achieves an improvement of 4 mAP in scenario 1 for V-COCO dataset. We also reported our performance in scenario 2 which outperforms all the available existing methods who reported their results in that scenario.
V-COCO mAP(Sc 1) mAP(Sc 2)
---------------------------------------------- --------------- ---------------
InteractNet [@gkioxari2018detecting] 40.0 47.98
Kolesnikov et al. [@kolesnikov2019detecting] 41.0 -
GPNN [@qi2018learning] 44.0 -
iCAN [@gao2018ican] 45.3 52.4
Li et al. [@li2019transferable] 47.8 -
VSGNet [**51.76**]{} [**57.03**]{}
: Comparison of results in V-COCO [@gupta2015visual] test set on Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. Our method outperforms the closest method by 8%. For actor only classes (no object), scenario 1 requires the model to detect it specifically as no object, whereas scenario 2 ignores if there is an object assigned to that prediction. Some of these methods did not provide results for scenario 2. []{data-label="tab:state_of_the_art_vcoco"}
Table \[tab:state\_of\_the\_art\_hico\] shows the results compared to other methods in HICO-DET and our model achieves the best results among the previous works.
HICO-DET (mAP) Full Rare Non-Rare
-------------------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
HO-RCNN [@chao2018learning] 7.81 5.37 8.54
InteractNet [@gkioxari2018detecting] 9.94 7.16 10.77
GPNN [@qi2018learning] 13.11 9.34 9.34
iCAN [@gao2018ican] 14.84 10.45 16.15
Li et al. [@li2019transferable] 17.03 13.42 18.11
[**VSGNet**]{} [**19.80**]{} [**16.05**]{} [**20.91**]{}
: Comparison of results in HICO-DET [@gupta2015visual] test set. VSGNet outperforms the closest method by 16%. []{data-label="tab:state_of_the_art_hico"}
HOI Class InteractNet [@gkioxari2018detecting] iCAN [@gao2018ican] VSGNet
------------------ -------------------------------------- --------------------- -----------
hold-obj 26.38 29.06 **48.27**
sit-instr 19.88 26.04 **29.9**
ride-instr 55.23 61.9 **70.84**
look-obj 20.2 26.49 **42.78**
hit-instr 62.32 74.11 **76.08**
hit-obj 43.32 46.13 **48.6**
eat-obj 32.37 37.73 **38.3**
eat-instr 1.97 **8.26** 6.3
jump-instr 45.14 51.45 **52.66**
lay-instr 20.99 **22.4** 21.66
talk\_on\_phone 31.77 52.81 **62.23**
carry-obj 33.11 32.02 **39.09**
throw-obj 40.44 40.62 **45.12**
catch-obj 42.52 **47.61** 44.84
cut-instr 22.97 37.18 **46.78**
cut-obj 36.4 34.76 **36.58**
work\_on\_comp 57.26 56.29 **64.6**
ski-instr 36.47 41.69 **50.59**
surf-instr 65.59 77.15 **82.22**
skateboard-instr 75.51 79.35 **87.8**
drink-instr 33.81 32.19 **54.41**
kick-obj 69.44 66.89 **69.85**
read-obj 23.85 30.74 **42.83**
snowboard-instr 63.85 74.35 **79.9**
Average 40.0 45.3 **51.76**
: Per class AP comparisons to the existing methods in V-COCO Scenario 1. Our method demonstrates superior performance in majority of the classes. We only compared to the methods which have reported the per class AP values. Obj refers object cases where instr refers to instrument [@gupta2015visual]. []{data-label="tab:per class Performarmance"}
The closest work to our results is Li et al. [@li2019transferable] which builds on top of iCAN [@gao2018ican] by adding an interaction proposal network and utilizing person poses. Addition of interaction proposal and person poses improve $\sim2$ mAP in V-COCO and $\sim3$ mAP in HICO-DET on top of iCAN with a computational cost of calculating the poses for each human. Our model achieves better results without the pose extraction and can possibly improve another 5% if the pose features are added to our visual feature branch.
In Table \[tab:per class Performarmance\] we report per-class performances compare with the existing methods which reported per-class APs for V-COCO. Our proposed VSGNet achieves better performance in majority of the classes compared to the other methods. Additionally, per-class performances show that some of the action classes perform badly due to the failure of object detectors (e.g. eat instruments which usually have small objects and commonly become occluded in the images). As our main task is to detect HOIs, we did not fine-tune the existing object detectors according to our needs which can also possibly handle these cases.
Ablation Studies
----------------
**Analysis of Individual Branches:** Our overall architecture consists of three main branches. To evaluate how these branches are affecting our overall performance, we evaluate these branches individually in the V-COCO [@gupta2015visual] test set. Our evaluation method and metrics are same as Table \[tab:state\_of\_the\_art\_vcoco\]. We consider the base model as the Visual branch without the spatial attention or the graph convolutions. In this setting, interaction proposal score $I_{ho}$ and the class probabilities $P_{ho}$ are predicted from the visual features $f^{Vis}_{ho}$ directly.
We have added the graph network and the spatial network with our base model individually to evaluate each of the branch’s performance separately. The results are shown in Table \[tab:ablation\]. With addition of the individual branches, model performance has improves gradually. Visual+Spatial branch achieves state of the art results by itself without the Graph branch. Addition of the graph branch adds additional 1.5 mAP and a total of 4mAP over the state of the art.
An important detail is that the graph branch directly depends on the quality of the interaction proposal score $i_{ho}$ as it is used to determine the edge interactions. Without the spatial attention, visual features generate inferior $i_{ho}$ which affects the graph branch. This is the reason that addition of Graph to Visual branch only adds 0.9 mAP whereas addition of Graph to Visual+Spat makes a larger improvement and adds 1.5 mAP.
Spatial attention branch improves the result by 3 mAP when added to the visual branch. This demonstrates the importance of the spatial reasoning and refining the visual features. Graph and Spatial attention combined improves the performance by about 4.5 mAP over the base model.
Branches mAP(Sc 1) mAP(Sc 2)
--------------------------- ----------- -----------
Visual (Base) 47.3 52.15
Visual+Graph 48.19 53.12
Visual+Spatial 50.33 55.32
Visual+Spatial+Graph(VSG) 51.76 57.03
: Analysis of the branches. Our base model consists of only the Visual branch. We add the graph branch and the spatial attention branch to this base model separately to analyze their performances. Individually, both branches improve the performance upon the base model. Visual+Spatial model beats the state of the art results and all three branches combined adds another 1.5 mAP. []{data-label="tab:ablation"}
**Analysis of Backbone CNNs:** In addition to all Resnet models [@he2016deep], we implement our model with various common CNNs used in image analysis. Table \[tab:resnet\] shows the results of VSGNet implemented with these various backbone CNNs in V-COCO with Resnet152 performing the best.
Branch mAP (Scenario 1)
------------------------------------- ------------------ --
VGG-19[@simonyan2014very] 48.37
InceptionV3[@szegedy2016rethinking] 49.39
SqueezeNet[@iandola2016squeezenet] 43.4
Resnet34[@he2016deep] 50.88
Resnet50[@he2016deep] 51.01
Resnet101[@he2016deep] 50.01
Resnet152[@he2016deep] **51.76**
: Effects of the backbone CNN on V-COCO dataset. VSGNet is implemented using various common backbone CNNs. Resnet-152 model with VSGNet achieves the best performance. []{data-label="tab:resnet"}
**Qualitative Results:** Figure \[fig:qualitative\_res\] shows qualitative results and compares the VSGNet with the base model (Visual only). The interaction prediction probabilities for the correct action is visualized. The images show the variance in object sizes, human sizes and different interaction classes. VSGNet performs better than the base model. Even in the cases when the object is not entirely visible (image 9) or the interaction is very subtle (image 2) VSGNet performs well and improves upon the base model.
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
![ Few of the cases where our VSGNet’s prediction is wrong due to the confusing visual and spatial cue from the images. (a) Human-object pair is detected to be interacting but they are not, (b) Label mismatch (hold vs carry), (c) confusing scene and (d) object detector fails to detect the fork. []{data-label="fig:failure_cases"}](figures/failure_cases.png){width="0.75\linewidth"}
**Failure Cases:** When the visual or spatial cues are confusing, the model can fail to predict the correctly. In Figure \[fig:failure\_cases\] a few failure cases are shown. Our method can fail if the spatial configuration is confusing (a), confusing ground truth labels (hold and carry in (b)), multiple humans interacting with the same object with similar spatial configuration (c), the object detector fails to detect the objects of interest (d).
Discussions
===========
Differences with similar works
------------------------------
We compare VSGNet with methods using spatial relations [@chao2018learning; @gao2018ican; @li2019transferable], attention[@gao2018ican] and graph convolutions[@qi2018learning; @li2019relation].
There have been previous works which use spatial relation maps such [@chao2018learning; @gao2018ican; @li2019transferable]. These methods have either used the spatial relation maps directly for classification [@chao2018learning] or concatenated the spatial relation features to their visual features[@gao2018ican; @li2019transferable]. Directly using them for classification ignores the visual features which in turn only learns relationship between the interaction label and spatial configuration. Concatenation of visual and spatial relations is also inferior to our method. As these are two completely different features defining separate things, concatenation does not enforce spatial configurations as much as an attention mechanism. In contrast, we use the spatial relations to extract attention features which are then used to alter the visual features. This is more effective as it models the relations between the visual feature channels and spatial configuration due to the element-wise multiplication.
Attention models also have been used on HOI task. iCAN[@gao2018ican] model uses an attention model inspired from [@vaswani2017attention] and models the attention of the human or object region with the whole input scene individually. However, this approach does not consider the relation between the pairs and they only include the spatial configuration at the end. Our approach uses the spatial configuration directly to alter the visual features of the pairs which amplifies connected ones and dampens irrelevant ones at feature level.
Graph convolutions [@qi2018learning; @li2019relation] have been effective in various tasks. These tasks learn or use visual similarity as adjacency values between nodes and extract graph features. However, for our task, interaction proposal scores already defines the adjacencies between human-object node pairs and are used as edge intensities. This approach effectively extracts graph features by traversing relevant object nodes for the humans and relevant human nodes for objects.
Summary
-------
We presented a novel human-object interaction detection model VSGNet which utilizes Visual, Spatial and Graph branches. VSGNet generates spatial attention features which alter the visual features and uses graph convolutions to model the interactions between pairs. The altered visual features generate interaction proposal scores which are used as edge intensities between human-object node pairs. We demonstrated with thorough experimentation that VSGNet improves the performance and outperforms the state-of-the-art.
[^1]: <https://github.com/ASMIftekhar/VSGNet>
[^2]: Authors Contributed Equally
[^3]: Ulutan is currently with the Vision team of Zoox, Inc.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We present results of systematic fully relativistic first-principles calculations of the uniaxial magnetic anisotropy energy (MAE) of a disordered and partially ordered tetragonal Fe-Co alloy using the coherent potential approximation (CPA). This alloy has recently become a promising system for thin ferromagnetic films with a perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. We find that existing theoretical approaches to homogeneous random bulk Fe-Co alloys, based on a simple virtual crystal approximation (VCA), overestimate the maximum MAE values obtained in the CPA by a factor of four. This pronounced difference is ascribed to the strong disorder in the minority spin channel of real alloys, which is neglected in the VCA and which leads to a broadening of the $d$-like eigenstates at the Fermi energy and to the reduction of the MAE. The ordered Fe-Co alloys with a maximum $L1_0$-like atomic long-range order can exhibit high values of the MAE, which, however, get dramatically reduced by small perturbations of the perfect order.'
author:
- 'I. Turek'
- 'J. Kudrnovský'
- 'K. Carva'
title: 'Magnetic anisotropy energy of disordered tetragonal Fe-Co systems from ab initio alloy theory'
---
Introduction\[s\_intr\]
=======================
The binary ferromagnetic Fe-Co alloy has been known for a long time as a system with the maximum spontaneous magnetization among the transition-metal systems. [@r_1991_hpw] Its basic magnetic properties, such as the concentration dependence of the alloy magnetization (the Slater-Pauling curve) in the ground-state body-centered cubic (bcc) structure, have been reproduced successfully by *ab initio* electronic structure calculations in a number of studies. [@r_1984_smb; @r_1992_sej; @r_1994_tkd] This system attracted renewed interest several years ago, after a theoretical prediction of a giant uniaxial magnetic anisotropy energy (MAE) of the body-centered tetragonal (bct) Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$ alloys. [@r_2004_bne] The uniaxial MAE is defined quantitatively as the difference of total energies for the magnetization direction parallel to the tetragonal $a$ and $c$ axis, $K_{\rm u} = E^{(100)} - E^{(001)}$. The calculated MAE reached high values, $K_{\rm u} \approx
800~\mu$eV/atom, obtained however only in a narrow range of the Co concentration, $0.55 \le x \le 0.65$, and of the tetragonal strain, $1.2 \le c/a \le 1.25$. The combination of the high MAE with the high magnetization makes the bct Fe-Co system a promising material for fabrication of ferromagnetic thin films with a perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (the magnetic easy axis perpendicular to the film plane), which might be relevant as high-density magnetic recording media.
Most of experimental realizations of this tetragonal system employed the possibility to grow epitaxially strained Fe-Co alloy films of a varying composition on different non-magnetic transition-metal substrates with the face-centered cubic (fcc) structure, such as Pd(001), Rh(001), and Ir(001). [@r_2008_ylt; @r_2009_ypm] The different lattice parameters of the substrates enable one to scan a relatively wide interval of the $c/a$-ratio of the Fe-Co films, namely $1.13 \le c/a \le 1.24$ (note that $c/a=1$ and $c/a=\sqrt{2}$ refer respectively to the ideal bcc and fcc lattices). The measurements of the *in situ* magneto-optical Kerr effect [@r_2009_ypm] (MOKE) confirmed the theoretical prediction of Ref. on a qualitative level; in particular, a strong perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the films was observed for compositions and tetragonal distortions in a rough agreement with the calculated trends of the bulk $K_{\rm u}$. However, systematic quantitative experimental studies of the MAE of the films have not been performed yet; available values of the $K_{\rm u}$ for a few selected systems [@r_2006_abw; @r_2007_lfw; @r_2007_wab] are appreciably smaller than the calculated ones. The missing information on the MAE has partly been compensated by measurements of X-ray magnetic circular dichroism (XMCD) spectra, which provide orbital magnetic moments of both alloy constituents. [@r_2008_ylt] The latter measurements, performed on the Rh(001) substrate corresponding to $c/a \approx 1.24$, revealed enhanced orbital moments in Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$ films around $x \approx 0.6$, in a close relation to the predicted maximum of the bulk uniaxial MAE.
Nevertheless, the existing agreement between the theory and the experiment should be taken with caution. The original approach of Ref. employed the so-called virtual crystal approximation (VCA), in which the true species of a random binary alloy are replaced by a single element with an effective atomic number given by the alloy composition. The VCA has been implemented in various *ab initio* methods and used for a number of alloys of neighboring elements in the periodic table. [@r_1992_sej; @r_2007_fth; @r_2010_pch] Its application to the bcc Fe-Co and fcc Co-Ni systems [@r_1992_sej; @r_1992_sje] yields concentration trends of the spin magnetic moment in a very good agreement with experiment; [@r_1991_hpw] the orbital magnetic moments seem to be described reliably in the VCA as well. However, a recent first-principles study of the random bct Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$ alloys, [@r_2011_nsr] based on a supercell technique applied to a few special Co concentrations ($x=0.5$, 0.625, and 0.75), has shown that a realistic treatment of the chemical disorder can reduce the MAE by a factor of 1.5$-$3 as compared to the simple VCA.
The main purpose of this work is to present and discuss the results of a systematic *ab initio* calculation of the MAE for the disordered bulk tetragonal Fe-Co systems obtained by using the coherent potential approximation (CPA) as a basic tool of the theory of metallic alloys. [@r_1982_jsf; @r_2000_ag] For homogeneous bct alloys, we compare results of the VCA and the CPA, show the big difference between them, and identify the underlying physical mechanism in terms of the electronic structure. Moreover, we investigate the effect of a complete and an incomplete atomic long-range order on the MAE; this study is motivated by the existing prediction of a large uniaxial MAE in stoichiometric perfectly ordered tetragonal FeCo and FeCo$_3$ systems. [@r_2011_nsr] Similar theoretical studies have so far been done mainly for tetragonal FePt alloys [@r_2004_sor; @r_2011_asc; @r_2012_ks_j] and very recently also for the FeCo alloy. [@r_2012_ks_e] These works are confined to stoichiometric equiconcentration alloys; in general, their results reveal a decrease of the MAE due to imperfect chemical ordering.
Models and computational details\[s\_mcd\]
==========================================
All calculations of this study employed a bct lattice with the Wigner-Seitz $s$ radius equal to that of pure bcc iron, $s = 2.662\, a_0$ where $a_0 = 5.292\times 10^{-11}$ m denotes the Bohr radius. The neglect of volume relaxations on the MAE in a broad range of lattice parameters and of alloy concentrations is justified by a more general study of Ref. within the VCA. This structure model—the volume conserving tetragonal distortion (the Bain path)—coincides with that used in the original study [@r_2004_bne] and in the recent study of the partially ordered FePt alloy. [@r_2012_ks_j]
The effect of atomic long-range ordering has been studied for the case of $L1_0$ (CuAu) order relevant for compositions not far from the equiconcentration Fe$_{0.5}$Co$_{0.5}$ system. The bct structure is partitioned in two simple tetragonal sublattices (alternating atomic planes perpendicular to the tetragonal $c$ axis). For the Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$ system, an additional concentration variable $y$ is introduced, such that $0 \le y \le \min \{x, 1-x \}$, which defines the chemical composition of both sublattices: Fe$_{1-x+y}$Co$_{x-y}$ in the Fe-enriched planes and Fe$_{1-x-y}$Co$_{x+y}$ in the Co-enriched planes. Note that the homogeneous solid solution corresponds to $y=0$, while the other end of the $y$-interval describes the maximum $L1_0$ order compatible with the given total Co concentration $x$. This model is a natural generalization of the model used for the stoichiometric FePt systems. [@r_2004_sor; @r_2011_asc; @r_2012_ks_j]
The eletronic structure calculations were done by means of the tight-binding linear muffin-tin orbital (TB-LMTO) method in the atomic sphere approximation (ASA) [@r_1984_aj; @r_1997_tdk] with a full inclusion of relativistic effects by solving the one-electron Dirac equation [@r_1991_slg; @r_1996_sdk] with the $spd$-basis of the valence orbitals. The effective spin-polarized potential was constructed in the local spin-density approximation (LSDA) using the parametrization of the exchange-correlation term according to Ref. . The effects of alloying were treated in the CPA for all systems; [@r_1997_tdk; @r_1996_sdk] for the homogeneous random alloys ($y=0$), the simple VCA was used as well.
The reliable evaluation of the MAE in metallic systems represents a difficult task, especially for cubic $3d$ transition metals owing to the weakness of the spin-orbit interaction and the high symmetry of cubic structures. [@r_1995_tje; @r_2000_jk] The situation is more favorable for uniaxial systems (tetragonal, trigonal, hexagonal) [@r_1992_dkb; @r_2004_bej] and for systems with $f$-electrons, see Ref. for a review. In a number of existing studies, including the very recent ones, [@r_2004_bne; @r_2011_nsr; @r_2012_ks_j] the magnetic force theorem [@r_1987_lka] is used and the total energy difference $K_{\rm u}$ is approximated by the change in the sum of occupied valence one-particle eigenvalues. In this study, we go beyond this approximation and evaluate the MAE directly from the total energies of the fully self-consistent solutions for both magnetization directions, [@r_1995_tje; @r_2011_nsr; @r_2001_shh] which requires high accuracy in total-energy calculations. We have used uniform sampling meshes of about $10^5$ ${\bf k}$-points for averages over the full Brillouin zone (BZ) of the bct lattices, while about $5\times 10^4$ ${\bf k}$-points have been used for the BZ of the simple tetragonal Bravais lattices of the $L1_0$ ordered systems. The total energies were converged to 0.1 $\mu$eV/atom for all systems; this accuracy is sufficient in view of the resulting values of $K_{\rm u}$ (see below).
Results and discussion\[s\_redi\]
=================================
Homogeneous random alloys\[ss\_hra\]
------------------------------------
### Magnetic anisotropy energy\[sss\_mae\]
The dependence of the uniaxial MAE of the random Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$ alloys on the chemical composition and the $c/a$-ratio, calculated in the VCA and in the CPA, is shown in Fig. \[f\_2d\_mae\]; for better transparency, only the positive values of the $K_{\rm u}$ are displayed in the plots, while the cases with negative $K_{\rm u}$ have been omitted (marked by white color). The VCA results (Fig. \[f\_2d\_mae\]a) agree nicely with both previous studies; [@r_2004_bne; @r_2011_nsr] in particular, a sharp maximum of the MAE, $K_{\rm u} \approx 809 \, \mu$eV/atom, obtained for $x = 0.6$ and $c/a = 1.24$, is clearly visible. The maximum MAE of $K_{\rm u} \approx 800 \, \mu$eV/atom for $x = 0.6$ and for $c/a$ between 1.22 and 1.24 was reported in Ref. (with a slight sensitivity to the particular model of the volume relaxation employed) and practically the same values were obtained in the original VCA study. [@r_2004_bne] Minor quantitative differences might be ascribed to different computational schemes employed. The MAE in the CPA (Fig. \[f\_2d\_mae\]b) exhibits a similar trend as in the VCA; however, the CPA maximum is significantly smaller, $K_{\rm u} \approx 183 \, \mu$eV/atom. The latter value is obtained for $x = 0.6$ and $c/a = 1.23$, but the maximum is very flat and essentially the same $K_{\rm u}$ values can be found in a broad region of $0.5 \le x \le 0.65$ and $1.21 \le c/a \le 1.28$, see Fig. \[f\_2d\_mae\]b. The maximum $K_{\rm u}$ in the CPA is reduced by a factor of four as compared to that in the VCA, which is an even stronger reduction than that reported in Ref. .
The small MAE values in the CPA might be used to explain the difference between the large $K_{\rm u}$ values predicted in the VCA and the much smaller values inferred from measurements on thin Fe-Co films. [@r_2006_abw; @r_2007_lfw; @r_2007_wab] Undoubtedly, the better description of the chemical disorder in the CPA as compared to the VCA contributes to the reduction of the MAE of prepared alloy thin films. However, a thorough quantitative analysis of this point is impossible at present and it could even be misleading because of the well-known uncertainty of the LSDA to yield quantitatively correct MAEs in $3d$ transition-metal systems. For this reason, an analysis of the trends seems to be more appropriate, see, e.g., Ref. and references therein.
![(Color online) The orbital magnetic moments in the random bct Fe$_{0.4}$Co$_{0.6}$ alloy with magnetization along $z$ axis as functions of the $c/a$-ratio: the alloy orbital moment in the VCA and the species-resolved orbital moments in the CPA. \[f\_orbmm\]](figs2){width="\columnwidth"}
In general, the LSDA underestimates both the MAEs and the orbital magnetism. [@r_1992_sje; @r_1995_tje; @r_2000_he; @r_2011_nsr] A counterexample to this rule is represented by the MAE of the ordered FePt alloy, [@r_2003_sm; @r_2011_asc] which is overestimated in the LSDA probably owing to an interplay of intraatomic Coulomb correlations, weak exchange splitting and strong spin-orbit interaction of Pt atoms. [@r_2003_sm] The present results for the bct Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$ alloys seem to confirm the general rule as can be documented by two facts. First, the effective MAE of strained Fe-Co thin films, given by the difference of the bulk $K_{\rm u}$ and the magnetostatic shape anisotropy energy $K_{\rm sh}$, comes out positive for alloys in the vicinity of $x \approx 0.6$ and $c/a \approx 1.25$ (near the maximum of $K_{\rm u}$ in the CPA). This situation would thus lead to an out-of-plane orientation of the thin-film magnetization, in a qualitative agreement with existing experiments. [@r_2009_ypm; @r_2006_abw; @r_2007_lfw; @r_2007_wab] Note that $K_{\rm sh} = (\mu_0/2) M^2/V$, where $\mu_0$ is the permeability of the vacuum and where $M$ and $V$ denote, respectively, the alloy magnetic moment per atom and the atomic volume. In the present case, $M \approx 2.14 \, \mu_{\rm B}$, where $\mu_{\rm B}$ is the Bohr magneton, one obtains $K_{\rm sh} \approx 132 \, \mu$eV/atom, which lies below the bulk MAE ($K_{\rm u} \approx 180 \, \mu$eV/atom). However, for the case of $x = 0.5$ and $c/a = 1.13$, corresponding roughly to the Fe$_{0.5}$Co$_{0.5}$ films grown on the Pd(001) substrate, our calculated values are $K_{\rm u} = 124 \, \mu$eV/atom, $M \approx 2.27 \, \mu_{\rm B}$, and $K_{\rm sh} \approx 148 \,
\mu$eV/atom, which indicates an in-plane orientation of the magnetization, in contrast to the out-of-plane orientation observed at low temperatures. [@r_2009_ypm] Second, the calculated orbital magnetic moments in the bulk Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$ alloys, plotted in Fig. \[f\_orbmm\] for $x=0.6$, are appreciably smaller than the values obtained from the measured XMCD spectra by employing the sum rules. [@r_2008_ylt] In particular, the measured values for films with $x = 0.6$ and $c/a = 1.24$, namely, $M^{\rm Fe}_{\rm orb} = 0.21 \pm 0.03\, \mu_{\rm B}$ and $M^{\rm Co}_{\rm orb} = 0.32 \pm 0.04\, \mu_{\rm B}$, exceed their bulk theoretical counterparts by a factor of three. A similar relation of the experiment and the LSDA theory (quantified roughly by a factor between 1.5 and 2) was obtained for bcc Fe-Co alloys. [@r_1992_sej; @r_1992_sje; @r_2000_he] Moreover, the data in Fig. \[f\_orbmm\] prove that the VCA and the CPA yield qualitatively different trends of the orbital magnetism versus the $c/a$-ratio: the pronounced maximum at $c/a = 1.24$ in the VCA is replaced by very flat maxima of both local orbital moments in the CPA. This difference indicates that applicability of the VCA to all details of magnetism of the Fe-Co system is limited, being confined probably only to the cubic structures. [@r_1992_sej; @r_1992_sje]
In view of the above mentioned problems to evaluate reliably the MAEs and the orbital magnetic moments, we have not attempted to recalculate our results by techniques going beyond the LSDA, [@r_1995_tje; @r_1998_mr; @r_2000_he; @r_2004_bej] but have focused on the strong difference between the VCA and the CPA and on the role of disorder on the MAE in the tetragonal Fe-Co systems.
### Electronic structure\[sss\_es\]
The giant MAE obtained in the VCA was ascribed originally to the changes in the band structure accompanying the tetragonal distortion of the effective FeCo crystal. [@r_2004_bne] The explanation rests on a coincidence of two particular eigenvalues at the $\Gamma$ point, which occurs in the minority spin (spin-down) channel. For a special alloy composition and a special $c/a$-ratio, this coincidence takes place just at the Fermi energy corresponding to the particular filling of the spin-down band. The large contribution of this eigenvalue pair to the MAE can be understood in terms of the second-order perturbation theory, in which the effect of the weak spin-orbit interaction can be safely included. [@r_1989_pb] In this approach, the enhanced value of the $K_{\rm u}$ of the bulk Fe-Co alloys can be explained due to the coupling between $d_{x^2-y^2}$ and $d_{xy}$ states mediated by the orbital momentum operator $L_z$, see Ref. for details. The physical origin of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the strained Fe-Co films is thus similar to that of Au covered Co monolayers on an Au(111) substrate. [@r_1996_usb] In the latter case, however, the resulting positive MAE is caused by the $L_z$ coupling between $d_{xz}$ and $d_{yz}$ states.
![(Color online) The spin-polarized local densities of states of the random bct Fe$_{0.4}$Co$_{0.6}$ alloy with $c/a = 1.25$ as functions of the energy. The dotted vertical line denotes the position of the Fermi level. \[f\_dos\]](figs3){width="\columnwidth"}
The usual band structures are not relevant for the electronic structure of random alloys, for which more appropriate quantities, such as the densities of states (DOS) and the Bloch spectral functions (BSF), have to be studied. [@r_1982_jsf; @r_1990_pw; @r_2000_ag] Motivated by the above explanation of the giant MAE, we present these quantities for the random bct Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$ alloys in the CPA, evaluated without the spin-orbit interaction, i.e., in the scalar-relativistic approximation. [@r_1997_tdk; @r_1977_kh]
The spin-polarized local DOSs are shown in Fig. \[f\_dos\] for the system with $x = 0.6$ and $c/a = 1.25$. The shapes of the individual DOSs prove a very weak disorder in the majority spin (spin-up) channel, whereas the spin-down band exhibits a regime of a stronger scattering. This type of spin-dependent disorder was found in the bcc Fe-Co system a long time ago; [@r_1984_smb; @r_1994_tkd] it is responsible, e.g., for the observed concentration trend of the residual resistivity. [@r_2009_ktt] Note that the strong disorder is present in the spin-down $d$-band, which is only partially occupied and which thus contributes a lot to the alloy total energy and, consequently, to the MAE.
![(Color online) The spin-polarized symmetry-resolved Bloch spectral functions of the random bct Fe$_{0.4}$Co$_{0.6}$ alloy at ${\bf k} = \Gamma$ as functions of the energy for three values of the $c/a$-ratio. The dotted vertical lines denote positions of the Fermi levels. For details, see the text. \[f\_bsf\]](figs4){width="\columnwidth"}
The spin-polarized BSFs at the $\Gamma$ point for the Fe$_{0.4}$Co$_{0.6}$ alloy with three tetragonal distortions are plotted in Fig. \[f\_bsf\]. The BSFs were resolved according to the irreducible representations of the point group $D_{\rm 4h}$ of the bct lattice. [@r_1960_vh] The odd (ungerade) representations, belonging to $p$ orbitals, have been omitted in the plots since their contribution is negligible in the displayed energy interval. The relevant even (gerade) representations are: $A_{\rm 1g}$ (orbitals $s$ and $d_{z^2}$), $B_{\rm 1g}$ ($d_{x^2-y^2}$), $B_{\rm 2g}$ ($d_{xy}$), and $E_{\rm g}$ ($d_{xz}$ and $d_{yz}$). One can see that all spin-up BSF’s, consisting of narrow Lorentzian peaks, can be interpreted as Bloch-like eigenstates with finite lifetimes due to a weak disorder. The spin-down BSF’s above the Fermi energy (mainly $A_{\rm 1g}$-like) reflect effects of strong disorder (non-quasiparticle behavior); the profiles at and below the Fermi energy are Lorentzian peaks again. However, their widths are clearly bigger than the spin-up widths, in agreement with the spin-dependent disorder manifested in the DOS.
The maximum of the MAE in the VCA is found for an alloy with $x=0.6$ and with the tetragonal strain close to $c/a = 1.25$; its spin-down BSF in the CPA (Fig. \[f\_bsf\], middle panel) shows an analogy of the coincidence of the $B_{\rm 1g}$ ($d_{x^2-y^2}$) and $B_{\rm 2g}$ ($d_{xy}$) levels at the Fermi energy. However, the disorder-induced smearing of both peaks is at least as big as their separation, which suppresses the contribution of this eigenvalue pair to the MAE in the framework of the second-order perturbation theory. This feature proves that the minority-spin Fe-Co disorder is strong enough to reduce significantly the MAE, which explains the very big difference between the VCA and the CPA results, see Section \[sss\_mae\].
Partially ordered alloys\[ss\_poa\]
-----------------------------------
The adopted model of the partially ordered tetragonal Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$ alloys, namely, the model of two sublattices with chemical compositions Fe$_{1-x+y}$Co$_{x-y}$ and Fe$_{1-x-y}$Co$_{x+y}$ (Section \[s\_mcd\]) and the use of the CPA (in contrast to supercell techniques) enable one to study the MAE as a function of three continuous variables: $x$, $y$, and $c/a$. Such a full three-dimensional scan is, however, computationally very demanding; we have thus confined our study to Co concentrations close to $x=0.6$, for which the maximum MAE was found in the homogeneous bct alloys both in the VCA and in the CPA. The dependence of the calculated $K_{\rm u}$ on the tetragonal distortion for $x=0.6$ is shown in Fig. \[f\_maevsr\] for three degrees of the $L1_0$ order. One can see that the very flat low maximum $K_{\rm u} \approx 183 \, \mu$eV/atom for the completely disordered alloy ($y=0$) treated in the CPA is replaced by a significantly enhanced pronounced maximum $K_{\rm u} \approx 450 \, \mu$eV/atom obtained for the alloy with the maximum order ($y=0.4$) compatible with the given Co concentration ($x=0.6$). The latter maximum is about two times smaller than that in the VCA ($K_{\rm u} \approx 809 \, \mu$eV/atom), which can be ascribed to the fact that the system with $x=0.6$ and $y=0.4$ has one sublattice without disorder (pure Co), whereas the other one is disordered, containing the rest Co and all Fe atoms. The MAE of the system with an intermediate degree of the $L1_0$ order ($y=0.2$) exhibits the maximum and the trend very close to the fully disordered alloy.
![(Color online) The uniaxial MAE of the bct Fe$_{0.4}$Co$_{0.6}$ alloy as a function of the tetragonal strain $c/a$ for different degrees of the $L1_0$-like atomic order: the maximum order ($y=0.4$, diamonds), an intermediate order ($y=0.2$, full circles), and the complete randomness ($y=0$, crosses), all treated in the CPA. For a comparison, the MAE of the completely random alloy in the VCA is displayed as well (triangles). \[f\_maevsr\]](figs5){width="\columnwidth"}
![The uniaxial MAE of two bct Fe$_{1-x}$Co$_x$ alloys as a function of the degree of the $L1_0$-like atomic order: for $x=0.5$ and $c/a=1.24$ (full circles), and for $x=0.6$ and $c/a=1.27$ (open squares). \[f\_maevsy\]](figs6){width="\columnwidth"}
The detailed dependence of the $K_{\rm u}$ on the concentration variable $y$ is presented in Fig. \[f\_maevsy\] for two cases: the stoichiometric alloy ($x=0.5$, $c/a = 1.24$) and the previous off-stoichiometric alloy ($x=0.6$, $c/a = 1.27$). The particular values of the $c/a$-ratio chosen in both cases correspond to the maximum $K_{\rm u}$ value obtained for alloys with the maximum order, i.e., for $x=0.6$, $y=0.4$ (Fig. \[f\_maevsr\]) and for $x=y=0.5$. One can see that the perfectly ordered ($y=0.5$) stoichiometric alloy leads to a very high MAE of $K_{\rm u} \approx 580 \, \mu$eV/atom. This value agrees well with Ref. , where the maximum MAE for the same $L1_0$ ordered system was obtained as $K_{\rm u} \approx 520 \, \mu$eV/atom. The convex shape of both dependences in Fig. \[f\_maevsy\] proves that the very high MAEs can be obtained only for systems with the maximum order; even a small amount of additional disorder is detrimental to the MAEs and reduces them to much lower values of the completely random alloys. [@r_2012_ks_e]
Strong sensitivity of the MAE to the degree of the $L1_0$ atomic order has recently been reported for the stoichometric FePt alloy on an fcc lattice with small tetragonal distortions. [@r_2012_ks_j] The results of Ref. indicate that the chemical ordering is a more important factor for high MAE values than the tetragonal distortion. Our results for the Fe-Co system witness that both factors are of equal importance, see Fig. \[f\_maevsr\]. We believe that validity of this type of conclusions depends also on the range of relevant variables: the tetragonal distortion was varied over a narrower interval ($0.94 \le c/a \le 1.06$) in Ref. , whereas a wider interval ($1.15 \le c/a \le 1.35$) has been covered in our study. Another difference between the two systems lies in the dependence of the MAE on the $c/a$-ratio: the MAE is an ever increasing function of $c/a$ in FePt, [@r_2012_ks_j] in contrast to the maxima found for the Fe-Co systems around $c/a \approx 1.25$, see Fig. \[f\_2d\_mae\] and Fig. \[f\_maevsr\]. These trends reflect probably the different origins of the high MAE in these systems. In the FePt alloys, the iron sites are responsible for strong exchange fields and the platinum sites provide strong spin-orbit interaction, both effects being only little dependent on the tetragonal distortion of the lattice. In the Fe-Co alloys, both species are featured by strong exchange splittings and weak spin-orbit couplings; the high MAEs are heavily based on collective properties (band structure) of the tetragonal systems.
Conclusions\[s\_conc\]
======================
We have shown by means of first-principles LSDA calculations that chemical disorder has a strong influence on the uniaxial MAE of the bulk tetragonal Fe-Co systems. First, the complete neglect of the disorder, inherent to the simple VCA, overestimates the MAE by a large factor, whereas the more sophisticated CPA leads to a drastic reduction of the MAE. The latter low MAEs are quite close to the magnetic shape anisotropy energy and the resulting estimated stability of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of thin strained Fe-Co films comes out probably smaller than the measured one. Second, the disorder-induced reduction of the MAE is due to the strong scattering regime in the minority-spin channel, which smears the Bloch-like eigenstates at the Fermi energy. Third, an analysis of the calculated orbital magnetic moments points to a non-negligible underestimation of the orbital magnetism and, most probably, of the MAEs by the LSDA. Fourth, the $L1_0$-like atomic long-range order leads to an enhancement of the MAE values. The most pronounced enhancement is obtained for the maximum degree of the order, while imperfect ordering reduces the MAE very rapidly as compared to the perfectly ordered systems. Similar correlations between the atomic order and the MAE have recently been found in the FePt alloy [@r_2004_sor; @r_2011_asc; @r_2012_ks_j] and observed in artificially synthesized FeNi films. [@r_2012_kmk] We believe that this interplay should be taken into account in a future search of advanced materials for high-density magnetic recording.
The work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (Grant No. P204/11/1228).
[41]{}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 , ed., @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} in @noop [**]{}, , Vol. , (, ) p. @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [****, ()]{}
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Universal properties of the zero temperature superconductor-insulator transition in two-dimensional amorphous films are studied by extensive Monte Carlo simulations of bosons in a disordered medium. We report results for both short-range and long-range Coulomb interactions for several different points in parameter space. In all cases we observe a transition from a superconducting phase to an insulating Bose glass phase. From finite-size scaling of our Monte Carlo data we determine the universal conductivity $\sigma^*$ and the critical exponents at the transition. The result $\sigma^* = (0.55 \pm 0.06) (2e)^2/h$ for bosons with long-range Coulomb interaction is roughly consistent with experiments reported so far. We also find $\sigma^* = (0.14 \pm 0.03) (2e)^2/h$ for bosons with short-range interactions.'
address:
- 'Department of Theoretical Physics, Royal Institute of Technology, S-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden'
- 'Department of Physics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z1, Canada'
- 'Department of Physics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405'
- 'Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 95064'
author:
- Mats Wallin
- 'Erik S. Sørensen'
- 'S. M. Girvin'
- 'A. P. Young'
date: 'September 20, 1993'
title: |
The superconductor-insulator\
transition in 2D dirty boson systems
---
1000 \#1\#2
Introduction
============
From the work of Abrahams, Anderson, Licciardello, and Ramakrishnan [@gangof4] it is known that no true metallic behavior can be observed for non-interacting electrons at $T=0$ in two dimensions, since all states will be localized by arbitrarily weak disorder. When repulsive interactions are turned on the situation is less clear but the general belief [@lr85] is that a metallic phase still should be absent at $T=0$ in the presence of disorder, although we know of no rigorous proof of this. However, in the presence of attractive interactions, a superconducting phase is expected [@comment0], both at $T=0$ and finite $T$, even for a finite amount of disorder, because disorder is irrelevant [@comment-1] at the finite temperature transition, which is of the Kosterlitz-Thouless [@KT] type discussed below. The onset of superconductivity at $T = 0$ is presumed then, in $d = 2$, to be directly from the insulating phase with no intervening metallic phase. One should therefore in principle be able to observe a direct insulator-superconductor transition at zero temperature in two dimensions as a function of disorder and/or interaction strength. The main topic of this paper is to analyze such a transition and extract its universal features.
Dimensionality and divergent length scales play an important role in continuous phase transitions. The diverging correlation length scale implies that many microscopic details are irrelevant. Furthermore physical quantities containing dimensions of length to some non-zero power typically diverge or vanish at the critical point. Two dimensions is special in that the conductivity contains no length scale units, i.e. the conductance per square is the same as the conductivity. Hence, right at the $T=0$ quantum critical point, the conductivity is not only finite and nonzero but also [*universal*]{}[@fisher90a; @wen], even though it is zero in the insulating phase and infinite in the superconducting phase. This view differs from that of previous work [@chakravarty] which parameterized the transition in terms of the [*normal*]{} state resistivity. The calculation of this universal conductivity is one of the main goals of the present paper. A short account on some of our results has already been published [@sorensen92].
A schematic phase diagram is shown in Fig. \[fig:scphase\] as a function of temperature, $T$, and disorder, $\Delta$. At zero temperature, a critical amount of disorder, $\Delta_c$, separates the superconducting from the insulating phase. Even at finite temperatures the superconducting phase persists whereas a truly insulating phase only exists at $T=0$, because, at finite $T$, electrons can be [*inelastically*]{} scattered from one localized state to another, and hence conduct. This insulating phase, consisting of localized electron pairs, can then be described, close to the critical point, as a Bose-condensed fluid of vortices. The universality class of the transition should therefore be that of the superconductor to Bose glass [@fisher89c].
Let us first discuss the nature of the transition at finite temperatures indicated by the solid line in Fig. \[fig:scphase\]. The finite temperature transition should have many similarities with the 2D XY transition at which logarithmically interacting vortices unbind [@KT]. However, Pearl [@pearl] showed that in a superconducting film vortex pairs only have logarithmic interactions out to a distance $\Lambda_\perp=2\lambda^2/d$ beyond which the interaction energy falls off as $1/r$. Here $\lambda$ is the bulk penetration depth, $d$ the film thickness, and $\Lambda_\perp$ the screening length for magnetic fields. Due to this cutoff, the energy required to create a vortex is always [*finite*]{} and no sharp transition should exist. However, according to the Kosterlitz-Thouless theory [@KT], the value of $\Lambda_\perp(T_c)$ is given [*exactly*]{} by [@halnelson; @DH; @BMO] $ \Lambda_\perp(T_c) = \phi_0^2 / (16 \pi^2 k_B T_c)$, where $\phi_0 = hc / 2e$ is the flux quantum. Numerically $\Lambda_\perp(T_c) = 2 / T_c$ where $T_c$ is in Kelvin and $\Lambda_\perp(T_c)$ is in [*centimeters*]{}. Thus, $\Lambda_\perp$ is so large at $T_c$ that rounding of the transition due to the presence of free vortices below $T_c$ is almost certainly unobservable. In fact, rounding due to finite-size effects is probably more important.
The vortex unbinding transition at $T_c$ is driven by fluctuations in the phase of the superconducting order parameter. At a higher temperature, $T_{c0}$, fluctuations in the amplitude of the order parameter will become important and a crossover to a regime dominated by paraconductivity [@skocpol] will occur. $T_{c0}$ is indicated by the dashed line in Fig. \[fig:scphase\]. For $T_c\le T \ll T_{c0}$ the presence of free vortices destroys the characteristic global properties of the superconducting phase. Nevertheless, a [*local*]{} order parameter still exists between $T_c$ and $T_{c0}$. The presence of free vortices leads to a finite conductivity of the form [@halnelson] $\sigma_v\sim 0.37\sigma_n(\xi/\xi_c)^2$, where $\sigma_n$ is the conductivity of the normal state electrons, $\xi_c$ the core size of a vortex and $\xi$, a typical distance between free vortices, is the Kosterlitz-Thouless [@KT] correlation length which diverges exponentially at $T_c$. The exponential tail in the resistivity caused by the presence of free vortices between $T_c$ and $T_{c0}$ has been observed experimentally [@fiory; @kadin] in superconducting films with high normal state resistivity. In these experiments the “mean field onset temperature”, $T_{c0}$ is determined by fitting the resistance to an Aslamazov-Larkin [@AL] form, and $T_{c0}-T_c$ is found to be of the order of half a Kelvin. In the dirty limit, Beasley et al. [@BMO] derive the relationship $\tau_c\equiv (T_{c0}-T_c)/T_c\sim 0.17 e^2/\sigma_n\hbar$ so, for films with a relatively high sheet resistance, $\tau_c$ can be appreciable. For a review of the finite temperature transition we refer the reader to Refs. . More recently some evidence for a vortex-antivortex unbinding transition in superconducting niobium films [@hsu] with $R_\Box=122\Omega$ has been found. However, the difference between $T_c$ and $T_{c0}$ is very small in the clean limit which makes the Kosterlitz-Thouless behavior difficult to observe.
The superconducting order parameter is a complex scalar, described by both a magnitude and a phase. Our key basic assumption is that universal properties at superconductor-insulator transition are determined only by phase fluctuations, as outlined above, and that the magnitude of the order parameter, and therefore of the gap in the fermionic energy spectrum, remains finite at the critical point. We thus assume that when disorder drives $T_c$ to zero, $T_{c0}$ remains nonzero. If the transition is approached from the insulating side, a local order parameter appears before the onset of global phase coherence at $\Delta_c$. Implicit in our assumption is that Cooper pairs, and thus a gap to fermionic excitations, persists into the insulating phase, even though superconductivity is destroyed by phase fluctuations. On the scale of a diverging [*phase*]{}-correlation length, $\xi$, the individual Cooper pairs will look like point particles. The fermionic degrees of freedom should therefore be highly suppressed at the critical point and an approximate description in terms of point-like bosons should be valid. It is possible that strong disorder destroys the local fermionic gap at a finite density of points, but, provided that the Fermi degrees of freedom are localized, they may still be dynamically irrelevant and our model applicable.
Since we shall be concerned with the transition at $\Delta = \Delta_c, T=0$, vortices in the system will not be excited thermally, but there will be vortices present created by quantum fluctuations [@RANA-GIRVIN]. We therefore need to treat the vortices as quantum mechanical objects and one might expect the transition at $\Delta_c$ to be described by a (2+1)D XY model [@MHL], where the extra dimension arises because we are considering a T=0 quantum phase transition, see e.g. Ref. . However as we shall see in Section \[sec:boshub\], although the physics is indeed described by a (2+1)D system, its symmetry is, in general, [*not*]{} that of the XY model. It is also worth noting that the vortex mobility, $(2e^2/\pi\hbar^2)\xi^2R_\Box$ [@mooij], is significantly augmented in dirty superconducting films. Hence, at $\Delta_c$ the vortices should be seen as fairly light objects that move rather freely. At still higher disorder the Bose glass phase should cross over into an Fermi glass when the individual electrons constituting the bosons become localized. This behavior may have already been observed in a magnetic field [@paalanen92].
Recent experiments seem to confirm that a direct insulator-superconductor transition indeed does take place at zero temperature in many materials. Haviland et al. [@haviland] and Liu et al. [@liu] have performed experiments on Bi films grown in situ. The experimental technique is described in Ref. . These films are believed to be truly amorphous on an atomic scale. The authors report a critical d.c. resistivity, $R_\Box^\ast$, very close to $R_Q$, where $$R_Q=h/4e^2 \approx 6453 \Omega \ .
\label{rq}$$ Furthermore, experiments performed on DyBaCuO films [@wang91; @wang92] and NdCeCuO [@tanda] show clear evidence for a direct superconductor-insulator transition. The reported critical resistivity seems in this case to be somewhat higher, around 10 k$\Omega$ or 1.5 $R_Q$ [@wang91; @wang92]. Lee and Ketterson [@lee90] have presented results from experiments on MoC films again showing very clear evidence for a superconductor-insulator transition occurring at zero temperature, but with $R_\Box^\ast$ slightly lower, in the range 2.8-3.5 k$\Omega\ \sim
0.5 R_Q$. Furthermore, experiments performed on Josephson junction arrays [@geerligs; @zant], which are believed to be in the same universality class, also seem to support the picture of a superconductor-insulator transition. The existence of a superconductor-insulator transition in two-dimensional films at zero temperature thus seems well established but evidence for the universality of the critical resistivity remains weak. It is not clear, however, whether all the experiments are in the critical region. In order to establish that a given experiment is actually probing the critical regime, one must show scaling of the resistivity data. This has been done successfully by Hebard and Paalanen [@hebard90; @hebard92] for the field-tuned transition and partially successfully by the Minnesota group [@GOLDMANscaling]. However it is likely that most measurements to date have failed to probe the critical regime, and further experiments at even lower temperatures are expected to give better agreement among the different estimates of $R_\Box^\ast$.
The situation concerning the relevance of a bosonic picture seems less clear. Hebard and Paalanen [@hebard90; @hebard92] have reported results on amorphous InO films in a magnetic field, supporting the existence of Cooper pairs in the insulating phase. For the $B=0$ transition, Hebard and Paalanen [@HP85] have presented clear transport evidence that $T_{c0}$ remains finite as $T_c$ is driven to zero. On the other hand, direct tunneling measurements by Dynes et al. [@dynes] and Valles et al. [@valles] on homogeneously disordered Pb films shows that the gap goes to zero at the critical point. There seems, however, to be a general agreement that a local superconducting order parameter exists prior to the transition in granular films and in Josephson junction arrays where the individual grains become superconducting above $T_c$. It is possible that tunneling experiments tend to emphasize regions of the samples containing quasilocalized fermion states below the gap which are necessary to achieve tunneling.
A number of theoretical and numerical studies of the superconductor-insulator transition have been performed. Gold [@gold] studied the impurity induced insulating transition in the interacting Bose gas. Giamarchi and Schulz [@giamarchi87] considered the one-dimensional electron gas with attractive interactions in the presence of disorder. They found a transition to a localized phase in the same universality class as that of repulsively interacting bosons in a random potential. This lends strong support to our assumption of the dirty boson universality class in the 2D case. Fisher et al. [@fisher88b; @fisher88a; @fisher89a; @fisher89c] considered the boson Hubbard model and, through a scaling analysis, derived equations for the exponents governing the superconductor-insulator transition as well as the phase diagram for dirty bosons. A renormalization group approach was taken by Weichman et al. [@weichman88] who performed a double epsilon expansion for the dirty boson problem. Following the initial suggestion of a Bose glass phase in the disordered system and a Mott insulator in the clean system, Batrouni et al. [@batrouni90] and Krauth et al. [@krauth91a], showed, by quantum Monte Carlo simulations, the existence of Mott insulating phases in an interacting boson system without disorder, characterized by the exponents predicted by Fisher et al. [@fisher89c] Subsequently, these authors considered the disordered case and evidence for a Bose glass was found.[@scalettar91; @krauth91b] A Bose glass phase was also observed in a real space renormalization group study by Singh et al. [@singh] The universal conductivity was first calculated by a $1/N$ expansion and Monte Carlo methods for the (2+1)D XY model by Cha et al. [@cha91] and Girvin et al. [@nobel; @progtheo] The universal conductivity for disordered bosons was then calculated by Runge [@runge] by exact diagonalization techniques on small lattices. Universal properties for a boson system in the presence of disorder both with and without long-range interactions were calculated by Sørensen et al. [@sorensen92; @thesis] by Monte Carlo simulations, using a path integral representation which, effectively, only includes phase fluctuations in the Bose field. A universal conductivity was also recently found by Kampf et al. [@kampf] in the boson Hubbard model including both phase and amplitude fluctuations. Two recent works have recently been published after the present work was finished. Batrouni et al. [@batrouni93] have calculated the universal conductivity by quantum Monte Carlo simulations directly on the boson Hubbard model, and Makivić et al. [@makivic93] have calculated the exponents and the universal conductivity using a hard-core boson model. The results of these last two papers differ from ours, and we shall comment on this in section \[discuss\].
Here we shall consider two forms of interaction between the bosons: short-range repulsive interaction and long-range Coulomb interaction. The model with short-range interactions is relevant to experiments on the onset of superfluidity in $^4$He films [@cha91]. However, our present results for the zero temperature transition in 2D are not directly applicable to He experiments in porous media such as Vycor or xerogel [@chan; @wong], since these experiments are mainly concerned with the 3D transition at finite temperatures. As stated above, the model with Coulomb interactions is expected to be in the correct universality class to describe the superconductor-insulator transition. However, the model and many of the results presented in this paper are applicable to other systems too. The world lines of the dirty boson model describe a gas of stringlike objects in a random medium. In addition to the superconductor-insulator transition this model may also apply to other problems such as vortex lines in high-temperature superconductors with correlated pinning centers [@nelson-vinokur; @MW-SMG], and polymer solutions. Our results for [*universal*]{} quantities might also be relevant for these problems.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section \[sec:boshub\] we shall construct a form of the boson Hubbard model, including disorder and interactions, which is suitable for Monte Carlo simulations. Here we shall assume, as discussed above, that only bosonic degrees of freedom, i.e. complex order parameter fluctuations, are relevant at the superconductor-insulator transition. In addition, to further simplify the numerical work, we effectively include only phase fluctuations of the bosons, amplitude fluctuations being neglected. Section \[sec:scaling\] describes the scaling theory of the quantities that we are interested in. We discuss, in Section \[sec:fss\], how we determine these quantities in the simulation, and we also treat the finite-size scaling techniques needed to extrapolate our results to infinite size. Section \[sec:methods\] describes our Monte Carlo methods, while Section \[sec:dirtyb\] presents our results for short-range interactions and disorder, relevant to experiments on helium films. In Section \[sec:lr\] long-range Coulomb interactions are included along with disorder. We believe that this model contains all ingredients necessary to make it relevant to experiments on the superconductor-insulator transition; i.e., that it is in the correct universality class. Our results are discussed in Section \[discuss\].
The model {#sec:boshub}
=========
In this section we introduce our basic model and via a sequence of transformations arrive at a form suitable for Monte Carlo simulation. As argued above it should be possible to describe the universal features of the superconductor-insulator transition in terms of boson physics. In this section we shall argue that the relevant starting point is the boson Hubbard model with a random local chemical potential (site energy). If only phase fluctuations are relevant we can map this model onto a dual Villain type model. We shall see that only in the absence of disorder and when there is an integer number of bosons per site, does this model belong to the same universality class as the (2+1)D XY model.
In order to model the superconductor-insulator transition in terms of bosons, we must include an on-site repulsive interaction, otherwise all bosons would collapse into the lowest lying, highly localized state. The on-site repulsion term is the simplest possible way to model Coulomb repulsion. The correct treatment of the long-range part of the interaction will be discussed below. For simplicity we shall take an underlying square lattice of spatial size $N = L \times L$. Changes in the symmetry of the lattice are not expected to modify the critical behavior of the model. We can then write down the boson Hubbard model in presence of disorder[@fisher89c; @fisher89a; @fisher89b]: $$H_{\text{bH}} = H_0+H_1$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H_0&=&\frac{U}{2}\sum_{\bf r}\hat n_{\bf r}^2 -
\sum_{\bf r}(\mu+v_{\bf r} - zt)\hat n_{\bf r}\nonumber\\
H_1&=& - t\sum_{\langle {\bf r},{\bf r'}\rangle }
(\hat \Phi^\dagger_{\bf r}\hat \Phi_{\bf r'}+
\hat \Phi_{\bf r}\hat \Phi^\dagger_{\bf r'}) \ .
\label{eq:bosonhubbard}\end{aligned}$$ Here $U$ is the on-site repulsion, $\mu$ is the chemical potential, z the number of nearest neighbors, and $v_{\bf r}$ represents the random on-site potential varying uniformly in space between $-\Delta$ and $\Delta$. As usual, $\hat n_{\bf r}=\hat \Phi^\dagger_{\bf r}\hat \Phi_{\bf r}$ is the number operator on site ${\bf r}$. The hopping strength is given by $t$, and $\langle {\bf r},{\bf r'}\rangle $ denotes summation over pairs of nearest neighbors, each pair counted once.
In the absence of disorder there is no insulating phase unless we fix the boson density at an integer value, $n_0$. Let us consider this case first. If we set $\hat \Phi_{\bf r}\equiv|\hat \Phi_{\bf r}|e^{i\hat \theta_{\bf r}}$ and integrate out amplitude fluctuations, the boson Hubbard model, Eq. (\[eq:bosonhubbard\]), becomes a model of coupled Josephson junctions, [@fisher89c; @fisher88b] $$H_{\text{JJ}}=\frac{U}{2}\sum_i\hat n_{\bf r}^2
-\sum_{\langle {\bf r},{\bf r'}\rangle }
t \cos(\hat\theta_{\bf r}-\hat\theta_{\bf r'}) \ ,
\label{eq:boshub}$$ where, in this representation, $\hat n_{\bf r}$, which denotes the deviation of the boson number from $n_0$, runs from $-\infty$ to $\infty$ and so Eq. (\[eq:boshub\]) can only be quantitatively compared with the Hubbard model, Eq. (\[eq:bosonhubbard\]), when $n_0$ is very large, but is expected to be in the same universality class for arbitrary integer $n_0$. Note that $t$ in Eq. (\[eq:boshub\]) is $2 n_0 $ times the parameter $t$ in Eq. (\[eq:bosonhubbard\]). The phase operator, $\hat\theta_{\bf r}$ is canonically conjugate to $\hat n_{\bf r}$ so this version of the boson Hubbard model can be written in the angle representation as the quantum rotor model [@cha91; @fisher88b; @fisher89c; @doniach] $$H_{\text{qr}}={U \over 2}\sum_{\bf r}
\left( \frac{1}{i}\frac{\partial}{\partial
\theta_{\bf r}} \right)^2
-\sum_{\langle {\bf r},{\bf r'}\rangle }
t \cos(\theta_{\bf r}-\theta_{\bf r'}) \ .
\label{hqr}$$
Let us write the partition function corresponding to $H_{\text{qr}}$ as $$Z = {\rm Tr}\, \exp[-\beta(T+V)] \ ,
\label{eq:three}$$ where the kinetic energy of the rotors is $$T = -{U \over 2}\sum_{\bf r}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\theta_{\bf r}^2} \ ,$$ (which corresponds to the potential energy of the bosons) and the potential energy of the rotors is $$V = -\sum_{\langle {\bf r},{\bf r'}\rangle }
t \cos(\theta_{\bf r}-\theta_{\bf r'}) \ .$$
We evaluate the trace in the partition function by writing a path integral over $M$ time slices $\tau_j$ between $\tau = 0$ and $\tau = \beta$: $$\begin{aligned}
Z &=& {\rm Tr}\left\{\exp[-\beta(T+V)]/M\right\}^M\nonumber\\
& = & \lim_{M\to\infty}
{\rm Tr}\left\{\exp[-\Delta\tau\ T]\exp[-\Delta\tau V]\right\}^M \ ,
\label{eq:seven}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hbar \tau$ is imaginary time and $$\Delta\tau = \beta / M$$ is the width of one time slice. Note that the limit $\Delta\tau \to 0$ must be taken to correctly represent the underlying quantum mechanics problem. Eq. (\[eq:seven\]) can be rewritten by inserting complete sets of states $$Z \approx \int{\cal D}\theta \prod_{j=0}^{M-1}
\langle\{\theta(\tau_{j+1})\}| \exp[-\Delta\tau T]\exp[-\Delta\tau V]
|\{\theta(\tau_j)\}\rangle \ ,
\label{eq:eight}$$ where $|\{\theta(\tau_j)\}\rangle$ is a coherent state in which site ${\bf r}$ has phase $\theta_{\bf r}(\tau_j)$ at time $\tau_j$ and the trace is enforced by periodic boundary conditions $$\{\theta(\tau_M)\} = \{\theta(\tau_0)\} \ .
\label{eq:nine}$$ The coherent states are eigenstates of the potential so $$\exp[-\Delta\tau V] \Big|\{\theta(\tau_j)\}\Big\rangle =
\exp\left\{\Delta\tau t \sum_{\langle
{\bf r,r^{\prime}}\rangle}
\cos\left[\theta_{\bf r^{\prime}}(\tau_j)
- \theta_{\bf r}(\tau_j)\right]\right\}
\Big|\{\theta(\tau_j)\}\Big\rangle \ ,
\label{eq:10}$$ where the sum is over all nearest neighbor spatial pairs, and hence Eq. (\[eq:eight\]) becomes $$Z\approx \int{\cal D}\theta\prod_{j=0}^{M-1}
\exp\left\{K_x \sum_{\langle
{\bf r,r^{\prime}}\rangle}
\cos[\theta_{\bf r^{\prime}}(\tau_j)
- \theta_{\bf r}(\tau_j)]\right\} T_j \ ,
\label{eq:11}$$ where $$T_j\equiv\langle\{\theta(\tau_{j+1})\}
|e^{-\Delta\tau T}|\{\theta(\tau_j)\}\rangle \ ,
\label{eq:12}$$ and $$K_x = t \Delta\tau \ .
\label{Kx}$$ Since the kinetic energies on different sites commute, we can consider each site separately: $$T_j = \prod_{\bf r}\left\langle
\theta_{\bf r}(\tau_{j+1})\left|\exp\left[
\frac{\Delta\tau U}{2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial\theta^2_{\bf r}}\right]
\right|\theta_{\bf r}(\tau_j)\right\rangle \ .
\label{eq:13}$$ Let $J^\tau_{\bf r}(\tau_j)$ be the integer-valued angular momentum at ${\bf r}$ at time $\tau_j$. The corresponding state has wave function $$\langle\theta_{\bf r}(\tau_j)|J^\tau_{\bf r}(\tau_j)\rangle =
e^{iJ^\tau_{\bf r}(\tau_j)\theta_{\bf r}(\tau_j)} \ ,
\label{eq:14}$$ which is an eigenfunction of the kinetic energy. Inserting this complete set of states, we have $$T_j = \sum_{\{J\}}\prod_{\bf r}\Big\langle
\theta_{\bf r}(\tau_{j+1})\big|J^\tau_{\bf r}(\tau_j)
\Big\rangle
\exp\left\{-\frac{\Delta\tau U}{2}\left[J^\tau_{\bf r}(\tau_j)\right]^2\right\}
\Big\langle J^\tau_{\bf r}(\tau_j)\big|\theta_{\bf r}(\tau_j)\Big\rangle \ ,
\label{eq:15}$$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
Z\approx \int{\cal D}\theta \sum_{\{J\}}
& \exp & \left\{K_x \sum_{\langle
{\bf r,r^{\prime}}\rangle}\sum_{j=0}^{M-1}
\cos\left[\theta_{\bf r^{\prime}}(\tau_j)
- \theta_{\bf r}(\tau_j)\right]\right\}\nonumber\\
\times & \exp & \left\{-\frac{\Delta\tau U}{2}
\sum_{\bf r}\sum_{j=0}^{M-1}
\left[J^\tau_{\bf r}(\tau_j)\right]^2\right\}\nonumber\\
\times & \exp & \left\{i\sum_{\bf r}\sum_{j=0}^{M-1}
J^\tau_{\bf r}(\tau_j)\left[\theta_{\bf r}(\tau_j)
- \theta_{\bf r}(\tau_{j+1})\right]\right\} \ .
\label{eq:16}\end{aligned}$$ We can now proceed in two possible ways. We can either integrate out the angular variables $\{\theta\}$ to obtain a statistical mechanics problem in the integer variables $\{J\}$, or we can sum over the $\{J\}$ to obtain a classical (2+1)-dimensional XY model. Let us start with the latter.
Because $\Delta\tau$ is small, the sum over the $\{J\}$ is slowly convergent. We may remedy this by using the Poisson summation formula $$\begin{aligned}
F(\theta) \equiv \sum_J e^{-\Delta\tau UJ^2/2}e^{iJ\theta}
&=& \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dJ\,e^{2\pi iJm}
e^{-\Delta\tau UJ^2/2}e^{iJ\theta}\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} \sqrt{\frac{2\pi} {\Delta\tau U}}
e^{-\frac{1}{2\Delta\tau U}(\theta - 2\pi m)^2} \ .
\label{poisson}\end{aligned}$$ This periodic sequence of narrow Gaussians is the Villain approximation [@villain] to the periodic function $$F(\theta) \approx e^{K_\tau \cos(\theta)} \ ,
\label{eq:18}$$ where we have dropped an irrelevant constant prefactor, and $$K_\tau \equiv { 1 \over U \Delta\tau} \ .
\label{Ktau}$$ Using this result in Eq. (\[eq:16\]) we finally arrive at the partition function of the anisotropic (2+1)D classical XY model $$Z = \int{\cal D} \theta \exp\left\{\sum_{\langle
{\bf l,l^{\prime}}\rangle} K_{\langle {\bf l,l^{\prime}}\rangle}
\cos(\theta_{\bf l^{\prime}} - \theta_{\bf l})\right\} \ ,
\label{eq:19}$$ where the sum is now over all near-neighbor bonds in both the space and time directions, i.e. ${\bf l}=(x,y,\tau)$. For spatial bonds, $$K_{\bf l,l^{\prime}} = K_x \ ,$$ given by Eq. (\[Kx\]), while for temporal bonds $$K_{\bf l,l^{\prime}} = K_\tau \ ,$$ given by Eq. (\[Ktau\]). It is implicitly assumed here that the difference between the Villain action and the cosine term (which is small for small $\Delta\tau$) is in fact irrelevant in the renormalization group sense.
Note that we need to take the limit $\Delta\tau \to 0$ which implies $K_x \to 0$ and $K_\tau \to \infty$ such that the geometric mean, $$K = \left(K_x K_\tau \right)^{1/2} = {t \over U} \ ,$$ is finite. Universality properties are unaffected [@comment4] if we rescale space and time so that we obtain finally an [*isotropic*]{} (2+1)D XY model $$Z = \int{\cal D}\theta \exp\left\{ K \sum_{\langle
{\bf l,l^{\prime}}\rangle}\cos(\theta_{\bf l^{\prime}}
- \theta_{\bf l}) \right\} \ .
\label{eq:isotropic}$$ We are interested in the behavior of the boson Hubbard model at $T=0$, which means taking the number of time slices, $M$, to infinity. The coupling constant, $K$, then controls the quantum rather than thermal fluctuations [@doniach; @RANA-GIRVIN].
Allowing for a non-integer boson density and/or including the random potential in the boson Hubbard model, Eq. (\[eq:bosonhubbard\]), makes the model more realistic but complicates the situation by breaking the particle-hole symmetry of the bosons. This corresponds to broken time-reversal symmetry for the quantum rotors (since particle number is represented by angular momentum) and hence leads to [*complex*]{} weights in the corresponding classical statistical mechanical problem [@fisher88a] which is no longer in the universality class of the (2+1)D XY model. The difficulty of complex weights can be avoided by considering the alternative approach to Eq. (\[eq:16\]) in which we integrate out the $\{\theta\}$ variables. Let us do this first for the case of integer boson density and no disorder. Adding the effects of disorder and non-integer density will then be easy and will lead to a [*real*]{} action.
We first reexpress the cosine in Eq. (\[eq:16\]) as the best Villain approximation to it, i.e. $$\exp ( K_x \cos \theta ) \longrightarrow \sum_{m=-\infty}^\infty \exp \left\{
{1 \over 2 \tilde K_x} (\theta - 2\pi m )^2 \right\} \ .
\label{villainform}$$ To determine $\tilde K_x$ we require that the range of the functions on the two sides of Eq. (\[villainform\]) (as $\theta$ varies from 0 to $\pi$) are the same (the precise angular dependence of the two sides will be different but this is presumably irrelevant). Using the Poisson summation formula, Eq. (\[poisson\]) and noting that $K_x \to 0$ from Eq. (\[Kx\]), one finds [@JKKN] $$\tilde K_x = {1\over 2} \ln\left(2 \over K_x \right) \ .
\label{Ktildex}$$ Inserting Eq. (\[villainform\]) into Eq. (\[eq:16\]) and Fourier transforming [@JKKN] one can carry out the $\{\theta\}$ integrations exactly. Their effect is to enforce conservation of integer-valued currents defined by $${\bf J} = \left(J^x,J^y,J^\tau \right) \ .$$ In other words, the current should be divergenceless at every site in space and time, i.e. it should obey a continuity equation $$\partial_{\nu} J^{\nu} = 0 \ .
\label{eq:zerodiv}$$ If $J_{(x,y,\tau)}^x$ lies on the bond between sites $(x,y,\tau)$ and $(x+1,y,\tau)$ then it is convenient to define $J_{(x,y,\tau)}^{-x}=-J_{(x-1,y,\tau)}$, etc. The divergence constraint is then imposed at each site by requiring that $\sum_{\nu} J_{({\bf r},\tau)}^{\nu} = 0$, where $\nu$ runs over $\pm x, \pm y, \pm \tau$. We thus obtain $$Z \approx {\sum_{\{{\bf J}\}}}^{\prime} \exp\left\{
-{1\over 2} \sum_{({\bf r},\tau)} \sum_{\nu =
x,y,\tau}\tilde K_\nu\left(J^\nu_{({\bf r},\tau)}\right)^2\right\} \ ,
\label{eq:25}$$ where the sum is over all integer values of the $J^{\nu}$ from $-\infty$ to $\infty$, the prime indicates the constraint that ${\bf J}$ be everywhere divergenceless, and the couplings are $$\tilde K_\tau = U \Delta\tau$$ and $\tilde K_y = \tilde K_x$ given by Eq. (\[Ktildex\]). Note that in taking the quantum limit, $\Delta\tau \to 0$, the spatial couplings $\tilde K_x$ and $\tilde K_y$ diverge, while the coupling in the time direction, $\tilde K_\tau$, tends to zero. This is the opposite of what we found in the phase representation, see Eqs. (\[Kx\]) and (\[Ktau\]).
We interpret $J^\nu$ as the “relativistic” 3-vector current with $(J^x,J^y)$ being the spatial current and $J^\tau$ being the particle density. Consider the divergenceless current configuration represented by the closed loop in the $x$-$\tau$ plane shown in Fig. \[fig:1\]. The physical interpretation of this is that at time $\tau_1$ a boson hops from position $x_1$ to position $x_2$ creating an instantaneous burst of spatial current. This represents a tunneling event in which we assume the barrier is high enough that the tunneling time is small compared to the separation between time slices in our lattice and hence the event can be treated as instantaneous. This approximation affects the ultraviolet details of the calculation but is irrelevant to the universal zero-frequency behavior. The two vertical lines represent time-like components of the current indicating that there is now a missing boson at $x_1$ and an excess of one boson at $x_2$. After some additional random motion, a boson hops back to the original site, leaving the system in the vacuum state at time $\tau_2$.
This interpretation of the current is confirmed by consideration of the effect of an external vector potential which modifies the potential energy of the quantum rotors to $$V = -t \sum_{({\bf r},\tau)}\sum_{\nu=x,y}
\cos\left(\theta_{({\bf r},\tau)} - \theta_{({\bf r}+\nu,\tau)} +
A^\nu_{\bf r}\right) \ ,
\label{eq:28}$$ where $A^\nu_{\bf r}$ stands for the line integral of the vector potential along the link from site ${\bf r}$ to its neighbor in the $\nu$-th direction. Making this substitution modifies Eq. (\[eq:25\]) with the result $$Z \approx {\sum_{\{{\bf J}\}}}^{\prime} \exp\left\{ -
\sum_{({\bf r},\tau)} \left[\sum_{\nu =
x,y,\tau} {\tilde K_\nu \over 2}
\left(J^\nu_{({\bf r},\tau)}\right)^2
+ i\sum_{\nu=x,y}J^\nu_{({\bf r},\tau)}A^\nu_{({\bf r},\tau)}\right]
\right\} \ .
\label{vectorpot}$$ We note that $$\left\langle J^\nu_{({\bf r},\tau)}\right\rangle =
-i\frac{\delta \ln Z}{\delta A^\nu_{({\bf r},\tau)}} \ ;
\,\,\nu=x,y \ ,$$ which means that $J^\nu_{\bf r}$ must thus be the full, physical, gauge-invariant current, not simply the paramagnetic piece of the current.
From our interpretation that $J^\tau$ is the particle density it is now straightforward to include both disorder and a value of the chemical potential which gives a non-integer density, and one finds $$Z = {\sum_{\bf J}}^{\prime} \exp\left\{-
\sum_{({\bf r},\tau)}\left[\sum_{\nu =
x,y,\tau} {\tilde K_\nu \over 2} \left(J^\nu_{({\bf r},\tau)}\right)^2
-\Delta\tau (\mu+v_{\bf r}) J^\tau_{({\bf r},\tau)}\right]
\right\} \ .$$ We now assume, as in Eq. (\[eq:19\]), that the universality class is unchanged if we make the couplings isotropic, i.e.$$Z = {\sum_{\bf J}}^{\prime} \exp\left\{- {1\over K}
\sum_{({\bf r},\tau)} \left[
{1 \over 2} {\bf J}^2_{({\bf r},\tau)}
- (\tilde\mu + \tilde v_{\bf r}) J^\tau_{({\bf r},\tau)}\right]
\right\} \ ,
\label{eq:pf}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \mu & = & {\mu \over U} \nonumber \\
\tilde v_{\bf r} & = & {v_{\bf r} \over U} \ ,\end{aligned}$$ and $K$ is a dimensionless coupling constant which has to be adjusted to bring the system to the critical point. Varying $K$ corresponds to changing the ratio $t/U$ in the boson Hubbard model, Eq. (\[eq:bosonhubbard\]), keeping $\mu/U$ and $\Delta/U$ fixed. Noting the invariance of the action under $$\begin{aligned}
J^\tau &\longrightarrow& J^\tau + 1\nonumber\\
\tilde \mu + \tilde v &\longrightarrow& \tilde \mu + \tilde v + 1 \ ,\end{aligned}$$ we take for simplicity the “largest possible” disorder by choosing $\tilde \mu = 1/2, \tilde \Delta \equiv \Delta / U =1/2$. The average particle density is then $1/2$. Note that this choice of parameters has a statistical particle-hole symmetry [@comment5] since, [*upon ensemble averaging*]{} the Hamiltonian is invariant under the transformation $J^\tau
\to -J^\tau$, although the presence of the random potential destroys microscopic particle-hole symmetry. We have argued above that lack of [*microscopic*]{} particle-hole symmetry [@comment5] changes the universality class from that of the (2+1)D XY model, so one can ask whether having [*statistical*]{} particle-hole symmetry changes the universality class from that of the generic Bose glass to superfluid transition. At least in one dimension, the answer is no, as shown by Fisher [@fisherphysica], and we shall assume that the same is true in $d=2$.
We have thus arrived at a representation of the original quantum problem, involving integer link variables. Noting that the $J^\tau$ represent the boson density, it can be thought of as an imaginary time “world-line” path-integral representation of the problem, simplified to the extent that it treats just the phase fluctuations of the underlying Hamiltonian.
The partition function, Eq. (\[eq:pf\]) can be written in terms of an effective (2+1)D classical Hamiltonian or action, given by $$H_{\text{V}}=
{1\over K}
\sum_{({\bf r},\tau)} \left[
{1 \over 2} {\bf J}^2_{({\bf r},\tau)}
- (\tilde\mu + \tilde v_{\bf r}) J^\tau_{({\bf r},\tau)}\right] \ .
\label{eq:nocoul}$$ Evidently, when $\tilde v_{\bf r}=0$, integer values of $\tilde \mu$ can be absorbed into the definition of $J^\tau_{({\bf r},\tau)}$, so the model reduces to the (2+1)D Villain model, which is in the same universality class as the (2+1)D XY model. These points, are, however, just special multicritical points and the generic behavior is [*not*]{} that of the XY model [@fisher89c].
We have already noted that the time component, $J^\tau_{({\bf r},\tau)}$, of the link variables corresponds to the particle density or boson occupation number. Long-range Coulomb forces can then be introduced in the following way. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ourH}
H &=& H_V+H_{\text{C}}\\
H_{\text{C}} &=&
\frac{{e^{\ast}}^2}{K}\sum_{\tau}\sum_{\langle {\bf r},{\bf r}^{\prime}
\rangle }
(J_{({\bf r},\tau)}^{\tau}-n_0)G({\bf r}-{\bf r}^{\prime})
(J_{({\bf r}^{\prime},\tau)}^{\tau}-n_0) \ .\end{aligned}$$ Here $e^{\ast}$ is the effective boson charge, and $n_0$, which represents the compensating background charge, is the average particle density, and $G$ is the Coulomb interaction. In our simulations with long-range interactions, the particle number was always kept constant, as opposed to the case where only short-range interactions were present where we always allowed the particle number to fluctuate. Calculations of the Coulomb interaction, $G({\bf r})$ must allow for the finite lattice size and periodic boundary conditions. We do this by the usual Ewald method [@totsuji; @fisher79]. Another way is by a lattice Green’s function: $$G({\bf r})=\frac{2\pi}{L^2}\sum_{{\bf k}\neq 0}
\frac{\cos ({\bf k \cdot r})}
{[4 - 2 \cos(k_x) - 2 \cos(k_y)]^{1/2}} \ ,
\label{eq:green}$$ where ${\bf k} = (2\pi/L)(n_x, n_y)$, with $n_x,n_y=0, \dots, L-1$, The term with ${\bf k}=0$ is removed to ensure charge neutrality. For large distances and large lattices the Ewald sum and the lattice Green’s function become almost identical and approach $1/r$. However, close to the origin the two forms are somewhat different. If the critical properties are universal they should not depend on the specific form of the potential close to the origin. We use this as a test of our computer codes and of the universality of our results. Indeed as we shall see the two forms yield equivalent results.
Scaling Theory {#sec:scaling}
==============
In order to better understand the universal features of the phase transition it is very useful to consider the scaling behavior of various physical quantities in the regime of the diverging correlation length. Such considerations not only tell us why the conductivity is universal but will tell us how to analyze experimental and Monte Carlo data to determine that one is actually in the critical (scaling) regime.
From now on, we shall denote the number of time slices by $L_\tau$, rather than $M$, so the space-time lattice is of size $L \times L \times L_\tau$. Periodic boundary conditions will be applied. Note that the ground state [*energy*]{} density of the original 2D quantum problem is related to the [*free energy*]{} density of the (2+1)D equivalent classical problem since $$f = -\lim_{T \to 0} {k_B T \over (aL)^2} \ln Z =
-{\hbar \over V} \ln \mbox{Tr} e^{-H} \ ,
\label{fedensity}$$ where $H$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:ourH\]), $V = (aL)^2 L_\tau \Delta\tau \hbar$ is the “volume” of the (2+1) D space-time system, with $a$ the lattice spacing in the spatial directions and $\hbar \Delta\tau$ the lattice spacing in the (imaginary) time direction.
Since space and time are not equivalent we have two correlation “lengths”, $\xi$ in the space direction and $\xi_\tau$ in the time direction. These two correlation lengths will diverge with different exponents at the critical point and we can define the dynamical exponent, $z$, through the relation $$\xi \sim \delta^{-\nu},\ \ \ \xi_\tau \sim \xi^z \ ,$$ where $\delta$ measures the distance from the critical point, $K_c$, i.e. $\delta = (K - K_c) / K_c$. There is a microscopic frequency, $\omega_c$, related to the lattice spacing $\hbar\Delta\tau$, in the time direction by $ \omega_c = 2 \pi /( \hbar \Delta\tau), $ so we can relate $\xi_\tau$ more precisely to $\xi$ as $$\xi_\tau= {1 \over \omega_c} \left( \frac{\xi}{b} \right)^z \ ,
\label{omegac}$$ where $b$ is a microscopic length of order the lattice spacing, $a$.
Stiffness
---------
First we discuss the scaling theory describing the singular behavior of the free energy density near the critical point. From Eq. (\[fedensity\]) one sees that $f/\hbar$ has dimensions of inverse (length$^d$ $\times$ time). Hyperscaling [@mef] states that multiplying the singular part of this free energy density, $f_s$, by the (2+1)D correlation volume, $\xi^d \xi_\tau$, one obtains a constant, $A$ say, of order unity as the critical point is approached, i.e. $${f_s \over \hbar} \xi^d \xi_\tau = A \ .$$ In this section, we will frequently give results for arbitrary space dimension, $d$, even though we are ultimately interested in the case of $d =
2$. One can consider $A$ to be a critical amplitude for a [*dimensionless*]{} quantity (or combination of quantities) which is finite at criticality. According to two-scale factor universality [@stauffer; @aharony74; @hohenberg76; @aharony76; @weichman91], such quantities are not only constants, but are also [*universal*]{}.
We next discuss the scaling of the extra free energy cost to impose a twist on the phase of the condensate. We will use this to locate the critical point, $K_c$, to high accuracy. The extra free energy density is related to the superfluid stiffness, also called the helicity modulus [@helicity], which is proportional to the superfluid density of the system. A uniform twist in the phase of the order parameter can be introduced by applying a twist of size $\Theta$ at the boundary, in (say) the $x$ direction. This will then give rise to a phase gradient $$\nabla \theta=\Theta/(aL) \ .$$ The (zero-frequency) stiffness, $\rho$, is then defined by [@helicity; @hertz85; @cha91] $${\delta f_s \over \hbar}=\frac{1}{2}\rho (\nabla \theta)^2 \ ,
\label{eq:stiffluc}$$ so $$\rho = {(aL)^2 \over \hbar} { \partial^2 f_s \over \partial \Theta^2} \ .
\label{eq:31}$$ Since $\Theta$ is dimensionless, $\rho $ has dimensions of inverse (length$^{d-2}$ $\times$ time). Hence using hyperscaling and two-scale factor universality we obtain $$\rho \xi^{d-2} \xi_\tau = C \ ,
\label{rho:univ}$$ where $C$ is another universal constant. Consequently, $$\rho \sim \xi^{-(d + z - 2)} \ ,
\label{rho:scale}$$ which is a generalization of the Josephson scaling relation for the classical transition, $\rho_s \equiv (m / \hbar)^2 \hbar \rho \sim
\xi^{d - 2}$. The difference is that $d$ is replaced by $d+z$ for the quantum transition. This replacement also holds for other hyperscaling relations (i.e. those scaling relations involving the space dimensionality).
Conductivity {#subsec:cond}
------------
We can extend the notion of a superfluid stiffness, $\rho$, to a frequency-dependent stiffness, $\rho(i\omega_n)$, where $\omega_n = 2 \pi n k_B T / \hbar$ is the Matsubara frequency. The conductivity is then related to $\rho(i\omega_n)$ by the Kubo formula [@cha91] $$\sigma(i\omega_n) = 2\pi G_Q
\frac{\rho(i\omega_n)}{\omega_n} \ ,
\label{eq:kubo}$$ where $G_Q = R_Q^{-1}$, with $R_Q$ defined in Eq. (\[rq\]), is the quantum of conductance. The quantity $\rho$ defined in the previous section is given by $\rho \equiv \rho(0)$. We emphasize that $\rho$ is the stiffness and not the resistivity. Close to the critical point we can generalize Eq. (\[rho:univ\]) to finite frequency [@fisher90a] by the following scaling assumption $$\rho(i\omega_n)
= \xi^{2-d}\xi_{\tau}^{-1}\widetilde\rho(\omega \xi_\tau) \ .
\label{eq:rhoomega}$$ Since the argument of the scaling function $\widetilde\rho$ is dimensionless, and so has no non-universal metric factors associated with it, the [*entire scaling function*]{} $\widetilde\rho(x)$ is universal. Clearly, $\widetilde\rho(0) = C$, the same universal constant that appears in Eq. (\[rho:univ\]). Furthermore, since $\rho(i\omega_n)$ is finite at finite frequency even at the critical point, one must have, for large $x$, the asymptotic behavior $$\widetilde\rho(x) = D x^{(d+z -2)/z} \ ,$$ where $D$ is again universal, in order that the dependence on $\xi$ and $\xi_\tau$ cancels at criticality. Substituting this into Eq. (\[eq:kubo\]) and noting Eq. (\[omegac\]), one has, at criticality, $$\sigma^\ast \equiv
\lim_{\omega_n\rightarrow 0}\sigma(i\omega_n)=2\pi D\, \sigma_Q\,b^{2-d}
\left (\frac{\omega}{\omega_c} \right)^{(d - 2)/z} \ .
\label{sigma:crit}$$ Immediately we see that when $d=2$ all microscopic lengths and frequencies drop out so the d.c. conductivity is universal [@fisher90a] at the critical point, given only by fundamental constants and the universal dimensionless number $D$. The universality of the d.c. conductivity is analogous to the universal jump [@NK] in $(\hbar/ m)^2 \rho_s / k_BT_c$ at the finite-temperature Kosterlitz transition [@KT]. In fact this quantity corresponds, essentially, to Eq. (\[eq:kubo\]) with $\hbar \omega_n$ replaced by $ k_B T_c$.
Strictly speaking Eq. (\[sigma:crit\]) only refers to the singular part of the conductivity. However since we approach an insulating phase where the conductivity must be zero, the conductivity cannot have an analytic part at the critical point.
Compressibility
---------------
The compressibility, $\kappa$, is defined by $$\kappa = {\partial n \over \partial \mu} =
{\partial^2 f \over \partial \mu^2} \ ,
\label{compress}$$ where $n$ is the boson density and $\mu$ the chemical potential. We can write an expression equivalent to Eq. (\[eq:stiffluc\]) for the compressibility by noting [@fisher89c] that the Josephson relation (for imaginary time) is $\delta \mu = \partial \theta /
\partial \tau$, so $$\delta f = \frac{1}{2}\kappa (\partial_\tau \theta)^2 \ ,
\label{eq:kappafluc}$$ i.e. we apply a twist in the (imaginary) time direction instead of along one of the space directions. Note that it is the [*total*]{} compressibility which enters this expression [@fisher89c]. Following the arguments that led to Eqs. (\[rho:univ\]) and (\[rho:scale\]) one finds $${ \kappa \over \hbar} \xi^d \xi_\tau^{-1}
\equiv { \kappa \over \hbar} \xi^d \omega_c \left( b \over \xi \right)^z
= \mbox{const.}
\label{kappa:univ}$$ so $$\kappa \sim \xi^{-(d - z)} \ .
\label{kappa:exponent}$$ Fisher et al. [@fisher89c] have argued that $z = d$ at the Bose glass to superfluid transition and so the compressibility is finite at criticality. We shall see that our numerical results support this. Note that even in this case, the compressibility is non-universal at criticality, because the non-universal factors $b$ and $\omega_c$ appear in Eq. (\[kappa:univ\]). One can also determine the form of the wave-vector dependent compressibility at criticality, following the scaling arguments that we used above to determine the conductivity. One finds $$\kappa(k) \sim k^{d-z} \ .
\label{eq:kk}$$
Quantities of Interest and Finite Size Scaling {#sec:fss}
==============================================
In this section we show how to calculate the quantities of interest from the Monte Carlo simulations, and we discuss the finite size scaling techniques which we will need. Having demonstrated in the last section, that the lattice spacings, $a$ and $\hbar\Delta\tau$, do not enter expressions for universal quantities, such as the conductivity at the critical point, we set these lattice spacings (and $\hbar$) to unity from now on.
To perform the quenched disorder averages it is necessary to first do a “thermal” average over the $J^{\nu}$ variables, denoted by $\langle \cdots\rangle $, for a fixed realization of the quenched disorder potential, and then average observables over the quenched disorder $v_{\bf r}$, which we indicate by $[\cdots]_{\text{av}}$.
Stiffness {#subsec:stiff}
---------
To calculate the uniform stiffness, $\rho(0)$, note from Eq. (\[eq:28\]) that a uniform twist in the $x$ direction becomes equivalent to considering the system in the presence of an external vector potential of the form $$A^x_{\bf r} = \partial_x \theta \delta_{x,\nu} \ .
\label{eq:30}$$ From Eqs. (\[eq:28\]), (\[eq:31\]) and (\[eq:30\]) one finds that $$\rho(0) = \frac{1}{L^d L_\tau}
\left [ \left\langle\left(\sum_{({\bf r},\tau)}
J^x_{({\bf r},\tau)}\right)^2\right\rangle \right ]_{\text{av}} \ .$$
Near the critical point, the correlation length is much larger than the size of the system, so finite-size effects will be important. We therefore need to derive a finite-size scaling form [@privman] for the stiffness. The basic finite-size scaling hypothesis is that the size of the system only appears in the ratio $L/\xi$, and, for quantum problems, the corresponding ratio in the time direction, $L_\tau/\xi_\tau$. Thus we have $$\rho(0) = \xi^{-(d+z - 2)} P(L/\xi,\ L_\tau/\xi_\tau) \ ,$$ which can be more conveniently expressed as $$\rho(0) = {1 \over L^{d+z - 2}} \bar\rho \left(
L^{1/\nu} \delta,\ {L_\tau \over L^z} \right) \ ,
\label{eq:rfinscale}$$ where $P$ and $\bar \rho$ are scaling functions. It is thus essential to work with system shapes for which the aspect ratio $$c = L_\tau/L^{z}
\label{aspect}$$ is a constant, otherwise the scaling function $\bar \rho$ depends on two variables and is complicated to analyze. If this is done, $L^{d+z-2}\rho$ is [*independent*]{} of $L$ at the critical point $\delta = 0$. Furthermore, in the disordered state, the system is insensitive to changes in the boundary conditions if the size is bigger than the correlation length, so $L^{d+z-2} \rho$ will [*decrease*]{} (exponentially) with increasing $L$. By contrast, in the ordered state, $\rho$ tends to a constant so $L^{d+z-2} \rho$ [*increases*]{} with increasing $L$. Thus, the critical point is located at the intersection of curves for $L^{d+z-2} \rho$ as a function of coupling $K$ for different lattice sizes. One can then determine $\nu$ from Eq. (\[eq:rfinscale\]) by requiring that the data for different sizes (but fixed aspect ratio) collapse on top of each other in a plot of $\rho(0)L^{d+z-2}$ against $L^{1/\nu}\delta$. Note that in order to choose the sample shapes in the simulation, we need (unfortunately) to have already made a choice for $z$.
Since the current is divergenceless, we can divide the configurations into different topological classes according to the winding number of the boson world lines around the torus of size $L$ in the space direction $$n_x \equiv L^{-1} \sum_{({\bf r},\tau)} J^x_{({\bf r},\tau)} \ ,
\label{eq:32}$$ so that the stiffness is simply proportional to the mean-square winding number $$\rho(0) = \frac{1}{L_\tau} \left [ \left\langle n^2_x
\right\rangle \right ]_{\text{av}} \ .
\label{eq:33}$$ It is instructive to comment on the analogy to the Feynman ring exchange picture of superfluidity in liquid helium [@feynman]. Rather than viewing a nonzero winding of a boson world line as an event involving a single boson, we can view it as formed by adding up a chain of hops of many bosons. This is closely analogous to a Feynman ring exchange, and adds some perspective on the transition in our model. The superfluid stiffness arises due to macroscopic condensation of ring exchanges of global currents carrying nonzero winding number, and the critical point is where the gain in free energy from the “entropy” of the ring exchanges matches their energy cost. In the presence of macroscopic ring exchanges which wind around the sample, the free energy is sensitive to Aharonov-Bohm flux (boundary condition twists) and hence the system exhibits off-diagonal long-range order in the conjugate phase variable.
Conductivity {#conductivity}
------------
The frequency-dependent stiffness involves the Fourier transform of the current-current correlation function $$\rho(i\omega_n) = \frac{1}{L^2L_{\tau}} [\langle | \sum_{({\bf r},\tau)}
e^{i\omega_n\tau}
J^x_{({\bf r},\tau)} |^2 \rangle ]_{\text{av}} \ ,
\label{eq:rhon}$$ where, with the lattice spacings in the space and time directions set to unity, the Matsubara frequency is given by $\omega_n = 2\pi n/L_\tau$, and $\tau$ is now an [*integer*]{}, $1 \le \tau \le L_\tau$, denoting a particular time slice. In these units, the conductivity is still given by Eq. (\[eq:kubo\]).
Compressibility
---------------
From Eq. (\[compress\]) it follows that the zero wave vector compressibility is given by $$\kappa(0) = \frac{1}{L^2L_{\tau}}[\langle N_b ^2\rangle -\langle
N_b\rangle ^2]_{\text{av}} \ ,
\label{eq:kappa}$$ where $N_b$ is the total number of particles, $$N_b = {1\over L_\tau} \sum_{({\bf r},\tau)}J_{({\bf r},\tau)}^{\tau} \ .$$ The last term in Eq. (\[eq:kappa\]) involves the square of a thermal average. This term is thus likely to give systematic errors [@young88] if determined within one replica, so we evaluate it as $[ \langle N_{\alpha}\rangle \langle N_{\beta}\rangle ]_{\text{av}}$, where the indices refer to two different replicas.
If global moves are not included, the boson density is a constant, and consequently $\kappa$, as defined, is zero. However, the wave-vector dependent compressibility $\kappa(k)$ is nonzero, and one can obtain [@batrouni90], estimates of $\kappa=\kappa(0)$ by taking the limit $k \rightarrow 0$, even when global moves are not performed.
The finite-size scaling form for the compressibility follows from arguments similar to those used above for the stiffness and is $$\kappa= {1 \over L^{d-z} } \widetilde\kappa
\left( L^{1/\nu}\delta,\ \frac{L_\tau}{L^z} \right) \ .
\label{eq:compfin}$$
Correlation functions {#subsec:cf}
---------------------
Consider the following correlation function $$C({\bf r,r'},\tau,\tau') = [\langle e^{i(\hat\theta_{\bf r}(\tau)-
\hat\theta_{\bf r'}(\tau'))}\rangle ]_{\text{av}} \ ,$$ where the $\hat\theta$’s are operators for for the phase of the bosons, and $e^{i\hat\theta_{\bf r}(\tau)} =
e^{\tau H}e^{i\hat\theta_{\bf r}}e^{-\tau H}$. We shall see that this correlation function gives information on a third critical exponent, $\eta$, defined in Eq. (\[eq:crscale\]) below, in addition to the exponents $\nu$ and $z$ already discussed. Due to translational invariance, $C({\bf r,r'},\tau,\tau')=C({\bf r-r'},\tau-\tau')$.
We shall here only consider two basic types of correlations. The equal-time correlation function where $\tau=0,{\bf r}=(x,0)$, and the time-dependent correlation function at time $\tau$ and ${\bf r}=0$. By redoing the argument which led from Eqs. (\[hqr\]) to (\[eq:25\]) for the correlation function rather than for the partition function, one finds that the equal-time correlation function can be expressed as $$C_x(r) = [\ \langle \prod_{{\bf r}\; \rm \in path}
\exp \left\{ -\frac{1}{K} (J_{( {\bf r},\tau)}^\nu+\frac{1}{2}) \right\}
\ \rangle\ ]_{\text{av}} \ ,
\label{eq:cr}$$ where “path” is any path on the lattice at fixed $\tau$ connecting two points a distance $r$ apart along the $x$-direction. For each link on the path $\nu = x$ or $y$, depending on whether the link is along the $x$ or $y$ direction. The simplest case, which was used in the simulations, is the straight line path, in which case all the link variables in Eq. (\[eq:cr\]) are $J^x$. A very similar result is is found for the usual Villain model [@JKKN]. Since the Hamiltonian is invariant under a sign change of $J_x$, it follows that $C_x(r)=C_x(-r)$.
We now turn to the time-dependent correlation function, $$C_+(\tau) \equiv C({\bf r} = 0, \tau) =
[\langle e^{i(\hat\theta_{\bf r}(\tau)-
\hat\theta_{\bf r}(0))}\rangle ]_{\text{av}} \ .
\label{cplustau}$$ Physically this is the Green’s function for creating a particle at imaginary time 0 and destroying it at time $\tau$. This correlation function can be expressed in terms of the link variables in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
C_+(\tau)& = &
\Bigl[ \Bigl\langle
\prod_{\tau \rm\; \in path}
\exp
\Biggl\{ -\frac{1}{K}
(\frac{1}{2}+J_{({\bf r},\tau)}^{\tau} -\tilde\mu_{\bf r}) \nonumber\\
& & -\frac{{e^{\ast}}^2}{K}
\left[{\sum_{{\bf r}}^{\prime}}
(J_{({\bf r}^{\prime},\tau)}^{\tau}-n_0)
G({\bf r}-{\bf r}^\prime) +
\frac{1}{2L^2}\sum_{{\bf r}}(G(0)-G({\bf r}))\right]
\Biggr\}\
\Bigr\rangle \ \Bigr]_{\text{av}} \ .
\label{eq:ct+}\end{aligned}$$ In this expression, “path” is the straight line path between two points with the same space coordinate, ${\bf r}$, starting at imaginary time equal to 0, say, and ending at a later time $\tau$. A more general expression for a path wandering in the space directions can also be derived.
One can also consider $$C_-(\tau) = [\langle e^{-i(\hat\theta_{\bf r}(\tau)-
\hat\theta_{\bf r}(0))}\rangle ]_{\text{av}} \ ,
\label{cminustau}$$ which is the Green’s function for creating a [*hole*]{} at imaginary time 0 and destroying it at $\tau$. In terms of the link variables $$\begin{aligned}
C_-(\tau)&=&
\Bigl[ \Bigl\langle
\prod_{\tau \rm\; \in path}
\exp
\Biggl\{ -\frac{1}{K}
(\frac{1}{2}-J_{({\bf r},\tau)}^{\tau} -\tilde\mu_{\bf r}) \nonumber\\
& & +\frac{{e^{\ast}}^2}{K}
\left[{\sum_{{\bf r}}^{\prime}}
(J_{({\bf r}^{\prime},\tau)}^{\tau}-n_0)
G({\bf r}-{\bf r}^\prime) -
\frac{1}{2L^2}\sum_{{\bf r}}(G(0)-G({\bf r}))\right]
\Biggr\} \
\Bigr\rangle \ \Bigr]_{\text{av}} \ .
\label{eq:ct-}\end{aligned}$$ Except when there is statistical particle-hole symmetry [@comment5], $C_+(\tau)\neq C_-(\tau)$ [@comment2]. However, one can show that $C_+(\tau)=C_-(L_\tau-\tau)$, which corresponds to the equivalence between a particle traveling forwards in time and a hole traveling backwards. This will be useful in the simulation because the statistics get worse with increasing $\tau$ so, for $\tau >
L_\tau / 2$, it is better to compute $C_-(L_\tau - \tau)$ than $C_+(\tau)$. As required, the correlation functions are periodic, i.e. $C(\tau)=C(\tau+L_\tau)$ for both $C_-$ and $C_+$.
Following Ref. we now make the assumption that the long-distance, large-time behavior of the correlation functions will be given by the scaling form $$C({\bf r},\tau)=r^{-(d + z -2+\eta)}f(r/\xi,\tau/\xi^z) \ ,
\label{eq:crscale}$$ which defines the exponent $\eta$. If ${\bf r}$ approaches zero but $\tau$ remains finite, the correlation functions must remain finite and nonzero. Thus we obtain $$C({\bf r = 0},\tau) = \tau^{-(d + z -2+\eta)/z}g(\tau/\xi^z) \ .
\label{eq:ctscale}$$ At the critical point we should therefore have $$\begin{aligned}
C_x(r) &\sim& r^{-y_x}\nonumber\\
C_\tau(\tau) &\sim& \tau^{-y_\tau} \ , \nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
y_x &=& d + z-2 +\eta\nonumber\\
y_\tau &=& (d + z-2 +\eta)/z \ .
\label{eq:expo}\end{aligned}$$ Thus the power law fall-off of the correlation functions at criticality determines both $\eta$ and $z$ provided the correlation functions can be evaluated for large enough system sizes that finite-size corrections are unimportant.
Monte Carlo Methods {#sec:methods}
===================
To satisfy the zero divergence criterion in Eq. (\[eq:zerodiv\]) our basic (local) Monte Carlo move consists of changing all the link variables around one plaquette simultaneously in the manner shown in the lower left corner of the Fig. \[fig:linkcur\], thus changing the local current. Two of the link variables are increased by one, the other two decreased by one. An equivalent move going in the other direction is also used, i.e. the plusses and minuses are interchanged. In addition, we need to include non-local moves to fully equilibrate the system. The global moves consist of changing by $\pm 1$ a line of link variables stretching all through the system. Nonlocal moves are included in all three directions $\delta=x,y,\tau$, except when the model has long-range interactions, in which case no global moves in the time direction are performed in order to keep the particle number constant. Global moves in the time direction amount to either introducing or destroying a boson. It is easy to see that global moves in the space directions correspond to a change in the winding number [@batrouni90; @scalettar91], defined in Eq. (\[eq:32\]). The nonlocal moves we use are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:linkcur\]. One Monte Carlo sweep of the lattice consists of a sweep of local moves followed by a sweep of global moves.
Due to the continuity equation, Eq. (\[eq:zerodiv\]), the sum of $J_{\bf r}^{\tau}$ at a given time slice, $\sum_{\bf r} J_{\bf r}^{\tau}$, is always the same for any value of $\tau$, albeit this constant may vary as a function of Monte Carlo time because of global moves in the time direction. Likewise, the sum of $J^x$ in any $y$-$\tau$ plane will be the same for all such planes at a fixed Monte Carlo time, and similarly for the sum of the $J^y$.
Expectation values of observables have to be computed by quenched disorder averaging, which is known from the study of spin glasses [@young86] to have many potential pitfalls. Close to the critical point we typically have to average over from 200 to 1000 different realizations of the disorder, and somewhat fewer away from the critical point. It is crucial to carefully assure that the $J^{\nu}$ variables are thermally equilibrated. The equilibration time at the critical point for our update scheme varies with system size $L$ as $\tau_{\rm mc} \sim L^{z_{\rm mc}}$, where $z_{\rm mc}$ is the Monte Carlo dynamic exponent. For the short-range interaction case we have determined [@MW-SMG] $z_{\rm mc} \approx 6$ so that extreme caution is required in attempting to equilibrate large lattices. We take an approach similar to what has been done for spin glass systems [@young88]. Two identical replicas are run in parallel for a given realization of the disorder. We define the “Hamming” distance between replicas $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as: $$h_{\alpha,\beta}^{\nu}(t)
= \sum_{( {\bf r},\tau)}\left[ J^{\nu}_{ ( {\bf r},\tau),\alpha} (t_0 + t)
-J^{\nu}_{({\bf r},\tau),\beta} (t_0 + t) \right]^2 \ ,$$ where $t_0$ is the number of Monte Carlo sweeps (MCS) used for equilibration, and $t$ is the number of subsequent MCS. We also define a “Hamming” distance for one replica at two different Monte Carlo times, $$h_{\alpha}^{\nu}(t)
= \sum_{( {\bf r},\tau)}\left[ J^{\nu}_{ ( {\bf r},\tau),\alpha}(t+t_0)
-J^{\nu}_{({\bf r},\tau),\alpha}(t_0) \right]^2 \ .$$ We determine $[ h_{\alpha,\beta}^{\nu}(t_0) ]_{\text{av}}$ and $[h_{\alpha}^{\nu}(t_0)]_{\text{av}}$ for a sequence of values of $t_0$ increasing exponentially, $t_0=10,30,100,300,1000, \dots$, up to $t_0 = T_0$, so $T_0$ is both the number of MCS for measurement and the number of MCS for equilibration. If $t_0$ is sufficiently large that the system has equilibrated, one has $[ h_{\alpha,\beta}^{\nu}(t_0) ]_{\text{av}} =
[h_{\alpha}^{\nu}(t_0)]_{\text{av}}$, and we made sure that this condition was fulfilled, at least for $t_0 =
T_0$. To achieve equilibration we took $T_0$ to be of order 3,000 for the smaller system sizes but found that we needed up to 30,000 for the larger sizes. Since the different disorder realizations give statistically independent thermal averages, we can estimate the statistical error from the standard deviation of the results for different samples. Note that there are big sample to sample fluctuations, so it is necessary to average over a large number of samples. In order to study as many samples as possible within the available computer time, we only run each sample for the minimum number of MCS necessary to get a few statistically independent measurements. This is why the number of sweeps for averaging is the same as the number used for equilibration.
Short range interactions {#sec:dirtyb}
========================
In this section we shall assume that no long-range Coulomb interactions are present. Furthermore, we shall always take the random chemical potential to be specified by $$\tilde\mu=\frac{1}{2},\;\;\tilde\Delta=\frac{1}{2} \ .$$ The reason for this choice of $\tilde\mu$ is that we want to be as far away as possible from any Mott insulator phase [@fisher89c], and these are centered on integer values of $\tilde\mu$ for weak disorder. The choice of $\tilde\Delta$ was influenced by the need to make the disorder not too small (otherwise the effects of disorder would only be seen for large sizes which we are unable to simulate) and also not too large, because this effectively makes $U$ small, and so, again, the asymptotic behavior may only set in for large sizes. In the absence of more detailed information, it seems sensible to make all the important couplings of comparable size. We again emphasize that universal quantities like the critical conductivity are independent of these details.
Some inequalities involving the critical exponents, $\nu,\ \eta,$ and $z$ have been obtained. First of all, Fisher et al. [@fisher89c] have argued that the compressibility is finite at the transition and so $$z = d \ .$$ Fisher et al. [@fisher89c] also argue that $$\eta \le 2 - d \ ,
\label{eq:detaeq}$$ on the grounds that the density of states should diverge as the transition is approached from the Bose glass side. In addition, since the correlations must decay with distance at criticality, it follows from Eq. (\[eq:crscale\]) that $$d + z - 2 + \eta > 0 \ .$$ Note that since $z > 0$ one can have a negative $\eta$ even in two dimensions. There is also a general inequality applicable to random systems [@chayes86; @chayes89] $$\nu \ge {2 \over d} \ ,
\label{eq:exharris}$$ which is a generalization of the Harris criterion [@harris]. The value of the dimension that should be inserted into this expression is the number of dimensions in which the system is random, i.e. the space dimension $d$ and not $d+1$ or $d+z$.
As noted in the discussion below Eq. (\[aspect\]) we need to know the dynamical exponent $z$ in order to choose sample shapes which allow a simple finite-size scaling analysis, i.e. the samples should be of size $L \times L \times c L^z$, where $c$ is the aspect ratio. Most of the simulations were done assuming $z = 2$, the value predicted by Fisher et al. [@fisher89c]. We have done additional simulations with shapes corresponding to other values of $z$, but find that the scaling is much less good if $z$ is significantly different from 2. For $z=2$ we have taken two different aspect ratios 1/2 and 1/4, with the following systems sizes: $4\times4\times8,\ 6\times6\times18$, and $8\times8\times32$ for aspect ratio 1/2, and $6\times6\times9,\
8\times8\times16$, and $10\times10\times25$ for aspect ratio 1/4. We were unable to study larger lattices because the relaxation times were too long.
As a test of our program we checked that we were able to reproduce the results of Ref. in the absence of disorder and with $\tilde\mu=0$. We found complete agreement [@thesis] between the two simulations.
Equilibration
-------------
We test for equilibration using the method described in Section \[sec:methods\]. As an example, Fig. \[fig:deqquartxz\] shows the Hamming distance for the $x$ and $\tau$ link variables for a system of size $8\times8\times16$, at the critical point. We see that the system equilibrates rather quickly in about 1,000 MCS. Also, we see that the $x$ and $\tau$ link variables equilibrate in roughly the same time, as one would expect since they are coupled through local moves.
Determination of the Critical Point
-----------------------------------
We start the analysis by locating the critical point. Since, as discussed above, we assume that $z=d=2$, the relevant quantity to plot, according to the finite-size scaling analysis in subsection \[subsec:stiff\], is $\rho(0)L^2$. Results for aspect ratio 1/4 are shown in Fig. \[fig:dquartcross\]. Since the critical point is located where the curves cross, the figure demonstrates clearly that there is a transition close to $K=0.25$ between a superfluid phase for $K > K_c$ with finite superfluid density, $\rho_s$ (remember that $\rho_s\sim\rho(0)$), and an insulating phaseafor $K < K_c$ with zero superfluid density. Our best estimate of the critical coupling is $K_c=0.248\pm0.002$. A substantial amount of computation went into the production of this figure. Close to the critical point 1000 to 2000 disorder realizations were performed, with, for the largest size, an equilibration time of $T_0 = 10,000$ followed by 10,000 MCS for averaging with a measurement every 10 MCS.
Simulations with aspect ratio $1/2$ were also performed and the same critical coupling was found, as expected since this is a bulk property.
The Compressibility
-------------------
We now turn to the compressibility. Fig. \[fig:dkphalf\] shows the compressibility, as calculated from Eq. (\[eq:kappa\]), for a range of different couplings centered around the critical coupling $K_c=0.248$, for lattices with aspect ratio 1/4. We see that the compressibility remains finite through the transition, including in the insulating phase, $K < K_c$. This is consistent with the prediction that the insulating phase should be a Bose glass with finite compressibility in the presence of disorder [@fisher89c]. According to the scaling theory, Eq. (\[kappa:exponent\]) a finite compressibility at criticality implies $z = d\ ( = 2)$, as argued by Fisher et al. [@fisher89c]. By contrast, simulations performed [@thesis] with no disorder and $\tilde\mu=0$, where the model becomes equivalent to a (2+1)D XY model, find that the compressibility vanishes in the insulating phase, consistent with it being a Mott insulator.
Fig. \[fig:dkwquart\] shows the wave-vector dependent compressibility for the aspect ratio 1/4, at the critical point $K_c=0.248$. Similar results have been obtained for the aspect ratio 1/2. Clearly there is no dependence on the wave vector as expected from Eq. (\[eq:kk\]) and the result $z=d$.
From the above we have established that the insulating phase is indeed a Bose glass and not a Mott insulator, at least for the strength of the disorder that we have been considering here, $\tilde\Delta=1/2$. This is in agreement with previous studies [@krauth91b; @singh; @gold; @runge].
As further evidence of the existence of the Bose glass we now turn to a discussion of the correlation functions in the insulating phase. One important prediction of the scaling theory [@fisher89c] is that the Green’s function should vary with a power of imaginary time, $$C({\bf r}=0,\tau)\sim\rho_1(0)/\tau \ ,$$ rather than exponentially, as might have been expected. Here $\rho_1(0)$ is the single-particle density of states at zero energy. In order to check this prediction we did simulations deep in the insulating phase, $K < K_c$. Fig. \[fig:dcorkp\] shows the time-dependent correlation function, $C_+(\tau) \equiv C({\bf r}=0,\tau)$, for a system of size $8\times8\times16$ at a coupling equal to $K=0.175$, well below $K_c \simeq 0.248$. The right hand part of the figure is obtained by calculating $C_-(\tau)$, and using the relation $C_+(\tau)=C_-(L_\tau-\tau)$ discussed in subsection \[subsec:cf\]. For each disorder realization, 30,000 MCS were performed, followed by another 30,000 MCS to do the thermal averaging, and finally we averaged over 100 different disorder realizations. The relatively elaborate thermal averaging was done in order to obtain small error bars at large $\tau$. The dashed line is a power-law fit to the form $0.170(2)(\tau^{-1.10(8)}+(L_\tau-\tau)^{-1.10(8)})$ where the numbers in parentheses indicates uncertainties on the last digit. This fit used all data points shown and gave a goodness of fit of 0.84 and $\chi^2=7.9$. Here we define the goodness of fit to be $\Gamma((N-2)/2,\chi^2/2)$, where $N$ is the number of data points and $\Gamma$ is the incomplete gamma function. No sign of an exponential dependence on $\tau$ was observed. The errors indicated are statistical and do not include possible systematic errors. A fit at $K=0.15$ yielded a similar value for the exponent of $1.05\pm0.04$. We conclude that the time-dependent correlation functions clearly display power-law behavior in the Bose glass phase and, furthermore, the associated exponent is close to 1 as predicted by scaling theory [@fisher89c].
The Conductivity
----------------
In the thermodynamic limit, $L \to \infty$, at vanishingly small $T$ ($L_\tau \to \infty$), and for $\omega_n \to 0$, the conductivity at the critical point should tend to a finite, universal value, $\sigma^\ast$, as discussed in subsection \[subsec:cond\]. In the simulation there will be various corrections to this. First of all, one might ask whether the order of limits $T \to 0$ and $\omega_n \to 0$ affects the value of $\sigma^\ast$, even in the thermodynamic limit. For the case of no disorder and integer filling, where the transition is to the Mott insulator, the answer is certainly yes [@cha91]. In this case the conductance is finite if the $T \to 0$ limit is taken first whereas $\sigma^\ast =
\infty$ if one first takes the zero frequency (d.c.) limit because a persistent current can flow in the absence of umklapp processes, which vanish as $T \to 0$. However, in the presence of disorder, the d.c. conductivity is finite as $T \to 0$ and so we see no reason why the order of the limits, $T \to 0$ and $\omega_n
\to 0$ should play a role for transition to the Bose glass phase discussed here. We shall see that allowing for a dependence on $\omega_n / T \propto \omega_n L_\tau$ does give a slighly better fit for the case of short-range interactions, but the value of $\sigma^\ast$ is not changed significantly. Given the rather limited range of sizes that we can study, we feel that the results are consistent with there being [*no*]{} dependence on $\omega_n / T$. One might also be concerned about finite-size corrections to the conductivity, but our results are consistent with their being very small. Of course, the conductivity is frequency dependent and so will differ from the universal value when $\omega_n$ becomes comparable with some other scale, such as the ultraviolet cutoff set by the lattice spacing.
Fig. \[fig:dres\] shows the resistance per square (which is the same as the resistivity) plotted against frequency [@comment3], evaluated from Eq. (\[eq:kubo\]) for aspect ratio 1/4 at the critical point $K_c=0.248$. Again considerable computation has gone into the production of this graph in order to obtain good statistics. For the two smallest system sizes about 2,000 disorder configurations were generated while for the largest size only 1,000 were done. From 3,000 to 10,000 MCS were done for equilibration followed by the same number of sweeps for measurements. The data collapse is excellent.
To determine the universal conductivity we have to analytically continue the MC data to real frequency and extrapolate to $\omega=0$. For typical quantum MC simulations, this analytic continuation is extremely difficult to perform. However it turns out to be straightforward in the present case, since the data for the resistivity varies linearly at small $\omega_n$, which implies, $$\sigma(i\omega_n) = { \sigma^{\ast} \over (1+|\omega_n|\tau_0) } \ .$$ This is easily seen to analytically continue to the Drude form of the conductivity: $$\sigma(\omega+i\delta) = { \sigma^{\ast} \over (1-i\omega\tau_0) } \ .$$ Thus the boson system at the critical point is neither insulator nor superfluid but rather a Drude metal. The Drude parameter $\tau_0 \sim 1/\omega_c$ is a non-universal relaxation time controlled in our model by the ultraviolet cutoff.
Assuming this linear variation of the resistivity with $\omega_n$, a least squares fit has a very small error. The main source of error in the determination of the d.c. conductivity therefore comes from the uncertainty in the determination of the critical point. We estimated this error by making the same linear fit to the resistivity data at the ends of the interval given by the error bars of the critical coupling. From all our data for two different aspect ratios we finally estimate $$\sigma^\ast = (0.14 \pm 0.03) G_Q \ ,
\quad R_\Box^\ast = (7.4 \pm 1.6 ) R_Q \ .
\label{sigma:univ}$$
The universal conductivity has previously been calculated for the case of no disorder and integer boson filling [@cha91], where the insulating phase is a Mott insulator, rather than the Bose glass discussed here. In that case $\sigma^{\ast} \simeq 0.285 G_Q$. Thus we find that even though the present model is somewhat more realistic, including the disorder takes us [*further*]{} from the experimental value which is in the vicinity of unity. A suitably defined universal conductance can be calculated exactly in 1D [@cha91] both with and without disorder. The exact solution in 1D shows that the ratio of $\sigma^{\ast}$ in the dirty case and in the pure case is exactly 3/4. This is of the same order of magnitude as the ratio $0.14/0.285 \simeq 0.5$ between the MC results in 2D. Hence we see that the trend of decreasing critical conductivity upon adding disorder is the same as for the exact solution in 1D.
The Exponent $\nu$
------------------
To determine the correlation length exponent we try to collapse the data in a scaling plot of $\rho(0)L^2$ versus $\delta L^{1/\nu}$, based on Eq. (\[eq:rfinscale\]). The plot is shown in Fig. \[fig:dscale\], for which the parameters used are $K_c=0.248$ and $\nu=0.9$. From this and other plots for different values of the aspect ratio we estimate $$\nu=0.90\pm0.10 \ .
\label{nu}$$ Interestingly, the inequality, $\nu\ge2/d$, (with $d=2$ here) derived by Chayes et al. [@chayes86] is only just satisfied and may, in fact, be an equality for this model. The equality, $\nu = 2/ d$, has been found for certain models of correlated disorder [@weinrib].
The Correlation Functions
-------------------------
So far, we have determined the universal values of $\nu$ and $\sigma^\ast$. We have also found that the finite-size scaling works best with $z=2$ and, according to the scaling theory, our results for the compressibility agree with this. In this subsection we conclude our discussion of the model with short-range interactions by looking at the correlation functions, which give us the value of the third exponent, $\eta$, and another estimate for $z$.
The data for $C_x(r)$ for sizes $L=8$ and 10 with aspect ratio 1/4 at $K_c = 0.248$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:dcxfive\]. In order to make full use of all the points we fit the correlation functions to the following form $$C_x(r) = c(r^{-y_x}+(L-r)^{-y_x}) \ ,
\label{yx}$$ which takes the periodic boundary conditions into account. For $L=8$ the best fit had the form $0.18(1)(r^{-2.02(1)}+(L-r)^{-2.02(1)})$. For $L=10$ the fit was $0.18(1)(r^{-1.94(2)}+(L-r)^{-1.94(2)})$. These fits are indicated by the dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:dcxfive\].
In order to obtain $\eta$ and $z$ from Eq. (\[eq:expo\]) we also need to obtain results for the time-dependent correlations. Since $\tilde\mu = 0.5$ there is statistical particle-hole symmetry [@comment5] and so $C_-(\tau)=C_+(\tau)$. Fig. \[fig:dczfour\] shows the results at the critical point $K_c=0.248$ for an aspect ratio of 1/4, where the data for $\tau\ge L_\tau/2$ were obtained from $C_-(L_\tau-\tau)$. The linear sizes were $L = 6$ and 8. We fit to the form $$c(\tau^{-y_\tau}+(L_\tau-\tau)^{-y_\tau}) \ ,$$ and we find for $L=6$ the optimal fit has the form $0.266(4)(\tau^{-1.03(1)}+(L-\tau)^{-1.03(1)})$. For $L=8$ the best fit has the form $0.256(4)(\tau^{-0.94(1)}+(L-\tau)^{-0.94(1)})$. We see that the exponent governing the power-law behavior is about 1/2 of the equivalent exponent in the space direction, indicating from Eq. (\[eq:expo\]) that the dynamical exponent $z$ must be close to 2. Combining all our estimates for $z$ we find $$z=2.0\pm0.1 \ .$$
Our estimate for $\eta$ obtained from Eq. (\[eq:expo\]), including results from the two aspect ratios, is $$\eta=-0.1\pm0.15 \ .$$ This agrees with the inequality Eq. (\[eq:detaeq\]) $\eta \le 2-d\ ( =0)$, which is possibly satisfied as an equality. Noting that $\nu$ is given by Eq. (\[nu\]) and $\sigma^\ast$ by Eq. (\[sigma:univ\]), this concludes our discussion of the universal properties of the short-range model.
Long-range coulomb interactions {#sec:lr}
===============================
We shall now include long-range Coulomb interactions. Throughout this section we again take $$\tilde\mu=\frac{1}{2},\;\;\tilde\Delta=\frac{1}{2} \ ,$$ but, in addition, take the charge of the bosons to be nonzero. Most of our studies used $${e^\ast}^2=\frac{1}{2} \ ,$$ but we also have some results for ${e^\ast}^2=1/4$ as a check that the strength of the Coulomb term is irrelevant. The long-range interactions force us to keep the total boson number fixed, since it has to be compensated by a (fixed) background charge to avoid an energy which is infinite in the thermodynamic limit. We do not, therefore, allow global moves in the time direction (the $\tau$-link variables).
As in the section above on short-range interactions we first discuss what inequalities and estimates there are for the exponents. The result $z = d$, quoted earlier is only applicable to short-range interactions. For a $1/r$ potential, Fisher [@fisher90b], has argued that $$z=1 \ .$$ A simple way to see this [@fisher:priv.comm] is to compute the characteristic energy, $\Delta\varepsilon$, given by the potential energy at $r=\xi$, i.e. $\Delta\varepsilon=G(r=\xi)\sim\xi^{-1}$, where $G$ is the $1/r$ Coulomb potential. If this is the relevant energy scale in the problem then $\Delta\varepsilon\sim\xi^{-z}$ with z = 1. This argument is trivially generalized to interactions falling off with some arbitrary power of the distance, $G(r) \sim r^{-\lambda}$, and leads to $z = \lambda$. We expect that this is valid for $\lambda$ smaller than $d$, the value for short-range interactions, and that for larger $\lambda$, the the dynamical exponent sticks at its short-range value, $z=d$. Based on scaling of a renormalized charge Fisher et al. [@fisher90a] derive the inequality $$z\le 1 \ ,$$ and an argument that the second sound velocity should not diverge at the critical point [@fisher89c] gives, quite generally, $$z\ge 1 \ .$$ Hence there is quite strong evidence that $z=1$ for the $1/r$ interaction. This is convenient for the Monte Carlo work, because, although the computer time per update increases by adding the long-range interaction, the number of lattice points is not so large as for the short-range case because we only have to scale $L_\tau$ with the first power of $L$, rather than its square.
In the section above on short-range range interactions, the inequality $\eta \le 2 - d$ was discussed. This was derived [@fisher89c] with the assumption that the density of single-particle states in the Bose glass phase is finite at zero energy, an assumption which is no longer correct with $1/r$ interactions [@shklovskii; @efros]. In a classical model, called the “Coulomb glass”, Efros and Shklovskii [@shklovskii; @efros] \[ES\] argue that that the single-particle density of states, $\rho_1(\varepsilon)$, vanishes at $\varepsilon = 0$, due to the “Coulomb gap”. Assuming that $$\rho_1(\varepsilon) \sim \varepsilon^a \ ,
\label{cg:expt}$$ ES obtain a bound on the density of states for small $\varepsilon$, $$\rho_1(\varepsilon) \le C \varepsilon^{d-1} \ ,$$ so that $$a \ge d - 1 \ .
\label{bgphase}$$ The value of $a$ in 2D does not seem to be precisely known[@DLR].
Since the Coulomb glass model is classical, the statistics of the particles does not matter, so Eq. (\[bgphase\]) should be applicable to the Bose glass phase, provided quantum fluctuations are unimportant in this region, as is argued for the electron case [@shklovskii; @efros]. It is then straightforward to determine the long time behavior of the Green’s function in the Bose glass phase. For $\tau > 0$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
C(\tau) & = & \int_0^\infty d\varepsilon
e^{-\varepsilon |\tau|}\rho_1(\varepsilon) \\ \nonumber
& \sim & \frac{1}{\tau^{1+a}} \ .\end{aligned}$$ The same argument, together with Eq. (\[eq:expo\]), indicates that at criticality $\rho_1(\varepsilon) \sim \varepsilon^{(d - 2 + \eta)/z}$. We now assume, following Fisher et al. [@fisher89c], that $\rho_1(\varepsilon)$ at small $\varepsilon$ grows as the critical point is approached, in order to match onto the delta-function density of states in the superconducting state. In other words, the density of states exponent is smaller at the critical point than in the Bose glass phase, i.e. $(d -2+\eta)/z \le a $, or $$\eta \le 2 - d + a z \ ,
\label{eta:coulomb}$$ which, as expected, reduces to Eq. (\[eq:detaeq\]) for a constant density of states, $a = 0$. The bound $\nu\le2/d$, Eq. (\[eq:exharris\]), should also be valid in the case of long-range interactions.
We now discuss the results from the simulations. Since there are strong arguments, discussed above, that $z=1$, we work with systems with shape $L \times L \times L$ with $L = 6, 8, 10$ and 12. In most cases we perform 3,000 MCS for equilibration followed by 3,000 MCS with a measurement every 10 MCS. Close to the critical point the number of sweeps was generally larger for the larger sizes. The number of disorder realizations varied from 200 to 1000. As was the case for short-range interactions we carefully check for equilibration by computing the “Hamming distances” discussed in Section \[sec:methods\].
Determination of the Critical Point
-----------------------------------
Since $z=1$ it follows from the discussion after Eq. (\[aspect\]) that we should look for the intersections of data for $\rho(0)L$ against $K$ for different lattice sizes. Our results are presented in Fig. \[fig:ccross\] for the case of the Ewald-sum form of the potential with ${e^\ast}^2=1/2$. Clearly the lines cross close to $K=0.240$ and, more precisely, we estimate the critical coupling to be $K_c=0.240\pm0.003$, quite close to the value for the short-range case. Since all four sizes intersect very close to the same point, Fig. \[fig:ccross\] provides strong evidence that $z=1$, in agreement with the scaling arguments.
An equivalent analysis can be performed with the Green’s function form for the potential, Eq. (\[eq:green\]), with ${e^\ast}^2=1/4$. The two forms of the potential are different on short length scales, and the values of ${e^\ast}^2$ are therefore not directly comparable. Although we don’t have enough data for the largest size, $12\times 12\times 12$, to perform a conclusive analysis, we can determine the critical coupling to be $K_c \simeq 0.275$, somewhat higher than for the Ewald form, with reasonable certainty.
The Conductivity
----------------
Following the approach used above for the short-range case, we plot, in Fig. \[fig:cres\], the resistivity, $R_\Box^\ast$ in units of $R_Q$, against frequency at the critical point, $K_c=0.240$. This data is for ${e^\ast}^2=1/2$, with the Ewald method used to evaluate the Coulomb potential. The collapse of the data is excellent, without any correction involving $T/\omega_n$, which was used for the short-range case. This implies that we can interchange the two limits $\omega\rightarrow 0$, and $T\rightarrow 0$ as expected. As for the short-range case, the data varies linearly with $\omega_n$, implying a Drude form for the conductivity. Making a least square fit to the data with $\omega_n/\omega_c < 0.44$ we find $R_\Box^\ast/R_Q$= 1.82(2).
We can now try to investigate the universality of $R_\Box^\ast$ by studying the model with ${e^\ast}^2=1/4$ and the potential evaluated by the Green’s function method. Fig. \[fig:cgreenres\] shows the resistivity at the critical point $K_c=0.275$, along with the data already presented in Fig. \[fig:cres\]. We see two interesting things. Firstly, the actual form of the resistivity as a function of frequency is clearly different in the two cases. However, the extrapolation to zero frequency is the same within the uncertainties. For the Green’s function potential the best fit is $R_\Box^\ast/R_Q = 1.91(7)$, again for points with abscissa less than 0.44. The agreement between the zero-frequency limit of the two sets of data in Fig. \[fig:cgreenres\] provides strong support for the resistivity being universal at the transition.
We have also studied the effect of the aspect ratio on the resistivity. This is important because the aspect ratio is related to quantities relevant for experiments, as we shall now show. An important concept in mesoscopic physics is the phase coherence length $\xi_{\rm inc}$. This length is expected to diverge as $T \to 0$, and so, at criticality, should be proportional to the Bose glass correlation length, $\xi$, making the usual assumption that there is only one divergent length scale. To determine how $\xi$ varies as a function of $T \sim L_\tau^{-1}$ note that from finite-size scaling, the finite-size relaxation time $\xi_\tau$ at criticality should be proportional to $L_\tau$ and so characteristic lengths should scale as $\xi_\tau^{1/z}$. Consequently $\xi_{\rm inc} \sim T^{-1/z}$, which means that the the aspect ratio can be expressed as $$c \equiv {L_\tau \over L^z} \ \sim {1 \over T L^z}
\ \sim \left({\xi_{\rm inc} \over L} \right)^z \ ,$$ i.e. it is proportional to a power of the ratio of the phase coherence length to the lattice size. Experiments are generally carried out in the range $L \gg \xi_{\rm inc}$ so one should view the conductivity as arising from [*incoherent*]{} self-averaging of domains whose size is $\xi_{\rm inc}$. In the opposite limit, $L \ll \xi_{\rm inc}$, we expect large variations from sample to sample (“bosonic universal conductance fluctuations”), and the average conductance will not necessarily be the same as that obtained in the regime $L \gg \xi_{\rm inc}$. Thus, the conductivity at zero frequency but finite temperature is given by a scaling function, $\widetilde\sigma(1/TL^z)$, where the argument is proportional to the the aspect ratio. The experimental situation corresponds to the limit of zero aspect ratio, whereas, the simulations are done for a finite value.
We have therefore performed calculations for two other aspect ratios, 1/2 and 3/2 respectively. In both cases we used the Ewald form of the potential with ${e^\ast}^2=1/2$. In order to obtain scaling plots for aspect ratios different from 1 it is necessary to include corrections of the form $1 / L^2$. Including this correction term, our estimates for $R_\Box^\ast$ agree with those for aspect ratio unity, within the errors. Thus any dependence of $R_\Box^\ast$ on aspect ratio seems to be quite small.
In conclusion, we estimate the universal conductivity at the critical point from all our data to be: $$R_\Box^\ast=(1.82\pm0.20)R_Q \ , \;\; \sigma^\ast=(0.55\pm0.06)G_Q \ .$$ No dependence on the aspect ratio, the microscopic form of the potential, the strength of the Coulomb interaction, or particle density was observed.
The Wave-Vector Dependent Compressibility
-----------------------------------------
Because of the long-range interactions, the system is incompressible. As a result the wave-vector dependent compressibility should vary at criticality as $\kappa(k) \sim k$ from Eq. (\[eq:kk\]) with $z=1$. Fig. \[fig:ckw\] shows the data at the critical point $K_c=0.240$, for aspect ratio 1, and the Ewald form of the potential with ${e^\ast}^2=1/2$. The solid lines shown are cubic splines fitted to the data points. The data for small $k$ seems to be roughly linear, as expected if $z=1$ but one would need substantially smaller wave vectors to draw a firm conclusion.
Similar results results were obtained for aspect ratios $1/2$ and $3/2$.
The Exponent $\nu$
------------------
To determine the correlation length exponent we try to collapse the data in a scaling plot of $\rho(0)L$ versus $\delta L^{1/\nu}$, based on Eq. (\[eq:rfinscale\]). Fig. \[fig:cscale\] shows the data for $\nu=0.90$ and $K_c=0.240$, with aspect ratio 1, and the Ewald form of the potential with ${e^\ast}^2=1/2$. By considering all our data we estimate $$\nu=0.9\pm0.15 \ .$$ The estimate of $\nu$ is again consistent with the inequality of Chayes et al. [@chayes86], $\nu\ge 2/d$, being satisfied as an equality.
The Correlation Functions
-------------------------
Assuming $z=1$ we expect the spatial correlation functions to have an asymptotic form of $C_x(r)\sim
r^{-y_x}$ with $y_x = 1+\eta$, see Eq. (\[eq:expo\]). We have calculated the equal-time correlation functions for three different system sizes, $L \times L \times L$ with $L = 8, 10$ and 12. The Ewald form of the potential was used with ${e^\ast}^2=1/2$, and the calculation was performed at the critical point $K_c=0.240$. Despite there being quite a lot of noise in the data at large arguments, we can fit to the form in Eq. (\[yx\]) with the result $y_x = 1.8\pm0.4$. Assuming that $z=1$ this then tells us that $\eta=0.8\pm0.4$ in agreement with the previously derived inequality, Eq. (\[eta:coulomb\]) $\eta \le az$, with $a \ge 1$.
In principle, the time-dependent correlation functions can also be determined. However, unlike the equal-time correlation functions, these involve injecting an extra particle and then destroying it at a later time. Long-range interactions complicate the simulation of this correlation function and we have not attempted it. Hence we cannot independently confirm the value $z=1$ of the dynamical exponent found in the scaling of $\rho(0) L^z$, but believe it to be accurate. Similarly, we have not attempted to obtain the time decay of the correlation functions deep in the Bose glass phase, which could give us information on the Coulomb gap exponent, $a$ in Eq. (\[cg:expt\]).
Discussion {#discuss}
==========
We have investigated universal properties of the $T=0$ Bose glass to superfluid transition in two dimensions both for particles with short-range interactions and for particles with long-range $(1/r)$ Coulomb interactions. We used a version of the path integral approach which corresponds to including only phase fluctuations of the condensate.
For the case of long-range Coulomb interactions we find: $\nu = 0.90\pm 0.15,\ \eta = 0.8\pm 0.4,\ z \simeq 1.0$, and $\sigma^\ast = (0.55 \pm 0.06)\ G_Q$ where $G_Q^{-1} \equiv R_Q
\equiv h/(2e)^2 \approx 6.45$ k$\Omega$. This model should be in the right universality class to describe the superconductor-insulator transition in disordered thin films. Experimental results [@haviland; @liu; @wang91; @wang92; @lee90; @GOLDMANscaling] do not show much support for the universality of $\sigma^\ast$, the values of $\sigma^\ast / G_Q$ varying from about 0.6 to 2. However, it is possible that many of these experiments were not at sufficiently low temperature to probe the critical regime. We are not aware of any other theoretical calculations with which to compare our results.
For the case of short-range interactions we find $\nu = 0.9 \pm 0.1,\ \eta = -0.10 \pm 0.15$, and $z = 2.0 \pm 0.10$. The universal conductivity is in this case $\sigma^\ast = (0.14 \pm 0.03) G_Q$. These results are in reasonable accord with those of Runge [@runge], who studied a hard-core boson model on small lattices of size up to $4
\times 4$ by diagonalization, and obtained $\nu = 1.4 \pm 0.3$ and $z = 1.95 \pm 0.25$. He also found $\sigma^\ast
/ G_Q = 0.16 \pm 0.01$, in agreement with our estimate, though the error bar may be rather optimistic, since different assumptions for the finite-size corrections led to significantly different values.
Since this work was completed, two groups have reported results for the short-range model which differ from ours. Batrouni et al. [@batrouni93] have performed world-line quantum Monte Carlo simulations directly on the boson Hubbard model. They find $\sigma^\ast=(0.45\pm0.07)\ G_Q$, but do not report values for the exponents. We do not have an explanation for this discrepancy, though we note that their data for $L^2\rho(0)$ do not splay out in the insulating phase, $K < K_c$, as do ours (see Fig. \[fig:dquartcross\]), which makes the location of the critical point harder.
Results which are totally different from ours and also different from those of Batrouni et al. [@batrouni93] have been found by Makivić et al. [@makivic93] who performed world-line quantum Monte Carlo simulations on a hard-core Bose system finding $\sigma^\ast=(1.2\pm0.2)\ G_Q$, with $z=0.5\pm0.05$ and $\nu=2.2\pm0.2$. They used a large lattice of size $64 \times 64 \times 48$ in the zero winding number sector, and did finite-size scaling by considering sub-regions of sizes $L_{\rm sub} \times L_{\rm sub} \times 48$ with $L_{\rm sub}$ between 4 and 32. Now the equilibration time varies as $L^{z_{\rm mc}}$, where, for this model, the Monte Carlo dynamical exponent, $z_{\rm mc}$, is [@MW-SMG] $\approx 6$. It is therefore surprising to us that such a large lattice can be equilibrated in the $3 \times 10^5$ sweeps that were used. It is also unclear if their data would not have been consistent with a larger dynamical exponent, had they scaled the the size of the sub-regions in the time direction like $L_{\rm sub}^z$ (and taken different values for $z$), rather than leaving this size fixed at $L_\tau = 48$. Furthermore, the two temperatures used seem to be rather high since the critical coupling changed by a factor of two between them. Makivić et al. [@makivic93] propose that the difference between their results and ours is that amplitude fluctuations, neglected in our model but included in the boson Hamiltonians, are relevant, so the two models are in different universality classes. While this idea certainly can not be ruled out, we don’t yet feel that it has been conclusively demonstrated. First of all, the only evidence for it is the numerical results, about which we have some reservations discussed above. It would be more compelling if there were additional evidence, such as a calculation of the exponent for amplitude fluctuations, showing that it is indeed relevant in the renormalization group sense. Furthermore, this explanation does not explain the differences between the results of Makivić et al. [@makivic93] and those of Batrouni et al. [@batrouni93] and Runge [@runge], which also included amplitude fluctuations.
For the future, it would be very interesting to study the field-tuned transition [@hebard90; @hebard92] by Monte Carlo simulations, since this is expected to be in a different universality class [@fisher90b] from the disorder-tuned transition discussed here. The problem is that one needs to find a representation of the problem in terms of a [*real*]{} classical (D+1) dimensional effective Hamiltonian which incorporates both the magnetic field and lack of microscopic particle-hole symmetry. Unfortunately, the phase representation, Eq. (\[eq:isotropic\]), though it can be generalized to include a field and is still real for the particle-hole symmetric case, is complex in the absence of particle-hole symmetry, and the link representation used here becomes complex in the presence of a field, as can be seen from Eq. (\[vectorpot\]). We are therefore unaware of any representation of the problem suitable for Monte Carlo simulations.
We thank M. P. A. Fisher, A. Hebard, R. Dynes, J. M. Valles, A. M. Goldman, M.-C. Cha, K. Runge, N. Trivedi, G. Zimanyi, I. Affleck, J. Gan, M. Gingras, H. J. Schulz, R. Scalettar, and S. Kivelson for a large number of valuable suggestions and discussions. APY and ESS acknowledges the kind hospitality of Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, and CEA, Saclay, where a major part of this work was done, as well as generous cpu-time allocations at the CCVR, Saclay, and San Diego Supercomputer Cray facilities. ESS also acknowledges support from the Danish Natural Research Council, as well as from NSERC and CIAR of Canada. MW is supported by the Swedish Natural Science Research Council. SMG is supported by DOE grant DE-FG02-90ER45427 and NCSA Grant No. DMR-910014N. APY and ESS are supported by NSF DMR-91-11576.
E. Abrahams, P. W. Anderson, D. C. Licciardello, and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**42**]{}, 673 (1979).
P. A. Lee and T. V. Ramakrishnan, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**57**]{}, 287 (1985) and references therein.
As we shall discuss extensively in this paper, the long-distance properties of superconductivity can, at least to some extent, be described in terms of (repulsively interacting) bosons. It thus appears that fermions with repulsive interactions are always localized (i.e. insulating at $T=0$) in $d = 2$, whereas bosons can (super)conduct if the disorder is not too strong. Unlike the situation for fermions, the repulsive interaction is [*essential*]{} for bosons otherwise they all condense into the lowest localized state. Thus it appears that weak repulsion actually tends to [*delocalize*]{} the bosons, see e.g. G. Batrouni and R. T. Scalettar, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{} 9051 (1992), and W. Krauth, N. Trivedi, and D. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2307 (1991).
The criterion for weak disorder being relevant is [@harris] $\nu < 2/d$, where $\nu$ is the correlation length of the pure system and $d$ the dimensionality. At the Kosterlitz-Thouless transition [@KT], $\nu
= \infty$, corresponding to an exponential, rather than power-law, divergence, so disorder is highly irrelevant.
J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, J. Phys. C [**6**]{}, 1181 (1973); J. M. Kosterlitz, J. Phys. C [**7**]{}, 1046 (1974).
M. P. A. Fisher, G. Grinstein, and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 587 (1990).
X. G. Wen and A. Zee, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B [**4**]{}, 437 (1990).
S. Chakravarty, G.-L. Ingold, S. Kivelson, and A. Luther, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 2303 (1986); S. Chakravarty, S. Kivelson, G. T. Zimanyi, and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B [**35**]{}, 7256 (1987).
E. S. Sørensen, M. Wallin, S. M. Girvin, and A. P. Young, Phys.Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 828 (1992).
M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 546 (1989).
J. Pearl, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**5**]{}, 65 (1964); in [*Low Temperature Physics LT9*]{}, ed. J. D. Gaunt, D. O. Edwards, F. J. Milford, and M. Yaqub (Plenum, New York, 1965), p. 566.
B. I. Halperin and D. R. Nelson, J. Low. Temp. Phys. [**36**]{}, 599 (1979).
S. Doniach and B. A. Huberman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**42**]{}, 1169 (1979).
M. R. Beasley, J. E. Mooij, and T. P. Orlando, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**42**]{}, 1165 (1979).
For a review see: W. J. Skocpol and M. Tinkham, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**38**]{}, 1049 (1975).
A. F. Hebard and A. T. Fiory, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**44**]{}, 291 (1980); [**50**]{}, 1603 (1983); A. T. Fiory and A. F. Hebard, Phys. Rev. B [**25**]{}, 2073 (1982); A. T. Fiory, A. F. Hebard, and W. I. Glaberson, Phys. Rev. B [**28**]{}, 5075 (1983).
K. Epstein, A. M. Goldman, and A. M. Kadin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{}, 534 (1981); Phys. Rev. B [**26**]{}, 3950 (1982); A. M. Kadin, A. M. Goldman, and K. Epstein, Phys. Rev. B [**27**]{}, 6691 (1983).
L. G. Aslamazov and A. I. Larkin, Phys. Lett. [**26A**]{}, 238 (1968).
J. E. Mooij, in [*Advances in Superconductivity*]{}, ed. B. Deaver and J. Ruvalds (Plenum Press, New York, 1983), p. 433; in [*Percolation, Localization, and Superconductivity*]{}, ed.A. M. Goldman and S. A. Wolf (Plenum Press, New York, 1984), p. 325.
J. W. Hsu and A. Kapitulnik, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 4819 (1992).
A. E. Rana and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 360 (1993).
M. Ma, B. I. Halperin, and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**34**]{}, 3136 (1986).
M. A. Paalanen, A. F. Hebard, and R. R. Ruel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 1604 (1992).
D. B. Haviland, Y. Liu, and A. M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 2180 (1989).
Y. Liu, K. A. McGreer, B. Nease, D. B. Haviland, G. Martinez, J. W. Halley, and A. M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2068 (1991).
H. M. Jaeger, D. B. Haviland, B. G. Orr, and A. M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 182 (1989).
T. Wang, K. M. Beauchamp, D. D. Berkley, B. R. Johnson, J.-X. Liu, J. Zhang, and A. M. Goldman. Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 8623 (1991).
T. Wang, K. M. Beauchamp, A. M. Mack, N. Chandrasekhar, N. E. Israeloff, G. C. Spalding, and A. M. Goldman, to be published.
S. Tanda, S. Ohzeki, and T. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 530 (1992).
S. J. Lee and J. B. Ketterson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**64**]{}, 3078 (1990).
L. J. Geerligs, M. Peters, L. E. M. de Groot, A. Verbruggen, and J. E. Mooij, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 326 (1989).
H. S. J. van der Zant, L. J. Geerligs, and J. E. Mooij, Europhys. Lett. [**19**]{}, 541 (1992); H. S. J. van der Zant, F. C. Fritschy, W. J. Elion, L. J. Geerligs, and J. E. Mooij, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 2971 (1992).
A. F. Hebard and M. A. Paalanen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 927 (1990).
A. F. Hebard and M. A. Paalanen, Helv. Phys. Acta [**65**]{}, 197 (1992).
Y. Liu, K. A. McGreer, B. Nease, D. B. Haviland, G. Martinez, J. W. Halley, and A. M. Goldman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2068 (1991).
A. F. Hebard and M. A. Paalanen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 2155 (1985).
R. C. Dynes, A. E. White, J. M. White, and J. P. Garno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 2195 (1986).
J. M. Valles, R. C. Dynes, and J. P. Garno, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 6680 (1989); Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 3567 (1992).
A. Gold, Z. Phys. B [**52**]{}, 1 (1983); [**81**]{}, 155 (1990).
T. Giamarchi and H. J. Schulz, Europhys. Lett. [**3**]{}, 1287 (1987); Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 325 (1988).
M. P. A. Fisher and G. Grinstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**60**]{}, 208 (1988).
D. S. Fisher and M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1847 (1988).
M. P. A. Fisher and D. H. Lee, Phys. Rev. B [**39**]{}, 2756 (1989).
P. B. Weichman, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 8739 (1988); P. B. Weichman and K. Kim, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 813 (1989).
G. G. Batrouni, R. T. Scalettar, and G. T. Zimanyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 1765 (1990).
W. Krauth and N. Trivedi, Europhys. Lett. [**14**]{}, 627 (1991).
R. T. Scalettar, G. G. Batrouni, and G. T. Zimanyi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**66**]{}, 3144 (1991).
W. Krauth, N. Trivedi, and D. Ceperley, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**67**]{}, 2307 (1991).
K. G. Singh and D. S. Rokhsar, Phys. Rev. B [**46**]{}, 3002 (1992).
M.-C. Cha, M. P. A. Fisher, S. M. Girvin, M. Wallin, and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B [**44**]{}, 6883 (1991).
S. M. Girvin, M. Wallin, E. S. Sørensen, and A. P. Young, Physica Scripta [**T42**]{}, 189 (1992).
S. M. Girvin, M. Wallin, M.-C. Cha, M. P. .A. Fisher, and A. P. Young, Prog. Theo. Phys. Suppl. [**107**]{}, 135 (1992).
K. Runge, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 13136 (1992).
E. S. Sørensen, Ph. D. thesis, University of California Santa Cruz, (1992).
A. P. Kampf and G. T. Zimanyi, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 279 (1993).
G. G. Batrouni, B. Larson, R. T. Scalettar, J. Tobochnik, and J. Wang, preprint.
M. Makivić, N. Trivedi, and S. Ullah, preprint.
M. H. W. Chan, K. I. Blum, S. Q. Murphy, G. K. S. Wong, and J. D. Reppy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**61**]{}, 1950 (1988).
G. K. S. Wong, P. A. Crowell, H. A. Cho, and J. D. Reppy, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 2410 (1990).
D. R. Nelson and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**68**]{}, 2398 (1992).
M. Wallin and S. M. Girvin, Phys. Rev. B [**47**]{}, 14642 (1993).
M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**62**]{}, 1415 (1989).
S. Doniach, Phys. Rev. B 24, 5063 (1981). R. M. Bradley and S. Doniach, Phys. Rev. B [**30**]{}, 1138 (1984).
J. Villain, J. de Phys. (Paris) [**36**]{}, 581 (1975).
While it is clear that the universality class will not change if the anisotropy among the different lattice directions is finite, one might possibly worry that crossover to some new behavior could occur in the limit when the anisotropy tends to infinity, as happens here. However, there is at least one model, the 1-dimensional (quantum) Ising model in a transverse field, which can be mapped on to the classical (1+1) dimensional classical Ising model in the limit of infinite anisotropy, and which can be solved exactly. One finds, P. Pfeuty, Ann. Phys. (NY) [**27**]{}, 79 (1970), that the critical behavior of the quantum problem is the [*same*]{} as that of the isotropic classical model. It is therefore reasonable to assume here that no change in critical behavior occurs in the infinitely anisotropc limit.
J. V. José, L. P. Kadanoff, S. Kirkpatrick, and D. R. Nelson, Phys. Rev. B [**16**]{}, 1217 (1977).
Statistical particle-hole symmetry occurs when $\tilde\mu = n/2$ with $n$ an integer. Microscopic particle-hole symmetry, which means that Hamiltonian is invariant under $ J^\tau \to - J^\tau$ for a single sample, occurs when there is no disorder and $\tilde\mu$ is an integer (or a half-integer), i.e. the boson filling is an integer (or a half-integer). The Hamiltonian in the phase representation is only real for no disorder and integer filling.
M. P. A. Fisher, Physica A [**177**]{}, 553 (1991).
H. Totsuji, Phys. Rev. B [**17**]{}, 399 (1978).
D. S. Fisher, B. I. Halperin, and R. Morf, Phys. Rev. B [**20**]{}, 4692 (1979).
See e.g. M. E. Fisher in [*Critical Phenomena*]{}, Vol. 186 of [*Lecture Notes in Physics*]{} edited by F. J. W. Hahne (Springer, Berlin, 1983), p. 1.
D. Stauffer, M. Ferer, and M. Wortis, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**29**]{}, 345 (1972).
A. Aharony, Phys. Rev. B [**9**]{}, 2107 (1974).
P. C. Hohenberg, A. Aharony, B. I. Halperin, and E. D. Siggia, Phys. Rev. B [**13**]{}, 2986 (1976).
A. Aharony, Phys. Rev. B [**13**]{}, 3081 (1976).
K. Kim and P. B. Weichman, Phys. Rev. B [**43**]{}, 13583 (1991).
M. E. Fisher, M. N. Barber, and D. Jasnow, Phys. Rev. B [**8**]{}, 111 (1973).
J. Hertz, Physica Scripta [**T10**]{}, 1 (1985).
D. R. Nelson and M. J. Kosterlitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**39**]{}, 1201 (1977).
V. Privman, in , ed. V. Privman (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990), p. 1.
R. P. Feynman, [*Statistical Mechanics*]{}, (Addison-Wesley, 1972), ch. 11.
R. N. Bhatt and A. P. Young, Phys. Rev. B [**37**]{}, 5606 (1988).
It might be thought, from the definitions, Eqs. (\[cplustau\]) and (\[cminustau\]), that $C_+(\tau) = [C_-(\tau)]^\ast$. However, this is not correct. Both correlation functions are real, but different from each other except when there is statistical particle-hole symmetry. The point is that, except with integer filling and no disorder (for which there is exact particle-hole symmetry), the Hamiltonian is not real in the phase representation, so taking the complex conjugate is not trivial.
K. Binder and A. P. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**58**]{}, 801 (1986).
J. T. Chayes, L. Chayes, D. S. Fisher, and T. Spencer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**57**]{}, 2999 (1986).
J. T. Chayes, L. Chayes, D. S. Fisher, and T. Spencer, Commun. Math. Phys. [**120**]{}, 501 (1989).
A. B. Harris, J. Phys. C [**7**]{}, 1671 (1974).
The horizontal axis is really $\omega_n / \omega_c -
\alpha L^{-2}(\omega_c / \omega_n)$, where $\alpha = 0.179$ and $\omega_c = 2 \pi$ is the lattice cutoff. The correction factor involving alpha is proportional to $T/\omega_n$ as discussed in the text. The value of $\alpha$ is considerably smaller than the best fit for the case of no disorder [@cha91] which gave $\alpha = 0.74$. The data scale fairly well even for $\alpha = 0$ and this fit gives a very similar value of $\sigma^\ast$. As discussed in the text, it is expected that the correct value is $\alpha = 0$.
A. Weinrib and B. I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. B [**27**]{}, 413 (1983).
M. P. A. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**65**]{}, 923 (1990).
M. P. A. Fisher, (private communication).
B. I. Shklovskii and A. L Efros, (Springer Verlag, New York, 1984).
A. L. Efros and B. I. Shklovskii, in , ed. A. L. Efros and M. Pollak (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1985).
J. D. Davies, P. A. Lee, and T. M. Rice, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**49**]{}, 758 (1982).
=14 cm
=14 cm
=14 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
=16 cm
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Using numerical calculations, we compare three versions of the Barrett–Crane model of 4-dimensional Riemannian quantum gravity. In the version with face and edge amplitudes as described by De Pietri, Freidel, Krasnov, and Rovelli, we show the partition function diverges very rapidly for many triangulated 4-manifolds. In the version with modified face and edge amplitudes due to Perez and Rovelli, we show the partition function converges so rapidly that the sum is dominated by spin foams where all the spins labelling faces are zero except for small, widely separated islands of higher spin. We also describe a new version which appears to have a convergent partition function without drastic spin-zero dominance. Finally, after a general discussion of how to extract physics from spin foam models, we discuss the implications of convergence or divergence of the partition function for other aspects of a spin foam model.'
address:
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of California\
Riverside, California 92521 USA
- |
Department of Mathematics\
University of Western Ontario\
London, ON N6A 5B7 Canada
author:
- 'John C. Baez'
- 'J. Daniel Christensen'
- 'Thomas R. Halford'
- 'David C. Tsang'
date: 'July 21, 2002'
title: Spin Foam Models of Riemannian Quantum Gravity
---
Introduction
============
Despite increasing interest in spin foam models of 4-dimensional quantum gravity [@Baez2; @Oriti], most work so far has focused on the formal properties of these models, rather than the crucial question of whether they yield reasonable physics at experimentally accessible length scales. Apart from the predilections of the researchers working in this field, there are two main reasons for this.
First, it is not obvious which computations would settle this issue. Second, it is difficult to do any sort of computation with these models. If the discreteness of a typical spin foam occurs at the Planck scale, a brute-force simulation of a region of space the size of a proton for the time it takes light to cross this region would require summing over spin foams having roughly $10^{80}$ vertices. Of course, it would be interesting to simulate even a much smaller spin foam. However, in the Barrett–Crane model of 4-dimensional quantum gravity we must compute a quantity called the $10j$ symbol for each spin foam vertex [@BC; @BC2]. In the Lorentzian versions of this theory, no efficient way to compute the $10j$ symbol is known so far: the only existing methods are Monte Carlo calculations that sometimes require over $10^{10}$ samples to achieve reasonable accuracy [@BaezC]. This makes even very small spin foams difficult to deal with.
The situation is a bit better for Riemannian versions of the Barrett–Crane model. An efficient algorithm has been developed which computes the Riemannian $10j$ symbols in $O(j^5)$ time using $O(j^2)$ memory, where $j$ is the average of the ten spins involved [@CE]. As an example, on a 1GHz Pentium III CPU, this algorithm takes about 5 milliseconds to compute the $10j$ symbol with all spins equal to $\frac{5}{2}$, and about 2.5 seconds to compute the $10j$ symbol with all spins equal to $10$. This makes it feasible to compare the qualitative behavior of different versions of the Riemannian Barrett–Crane model by means of computer calculations for small spin foams. As it turns out, the results are dramatic and enlightening.
In what follows, we start with a quick review of the existing spin foam models of Riemannian quantum gravity. Then we study three versions of the Barrett–Crane model of 4-dimensional Riemannian quantum gravity. In all three versions the spin foam vertex amplitudes are given by the Riemannian $10j$ symbols; they differ only in their formulas for edge and face amplitudes. In Section \[BC\] we show that in the model due to De Pietri, Freidel, Krasnov and Rovelli [@DFKR], the partition function diverges very rapidly for the simplest triangulation of the 4-sphere, and probably for many other triangulated 4-manifolds as well. In Section \[PR\] we turn to the model due to Perez and Rovelli [@PerezRovelli]. Here it is already known that the partition function converges for any nondegenerate triangulation of any compact 4-manifold [@Perez; @Perez2]. We show that in fact the partition function converges so fast that the sum over spin foams is dominated by those where almost all the spins labelling faces are zero. In Section \[new\] we describe a new model with intermediate behavior. This model seems to have a convergent partition function without drastic spin-zero dominance. In Section \[implications\] we discuss the implications of our results.
Review
======
Spin foam models are an attempt to describe the geometry of spacetime in a way that takes quantum theory into account from the very start. A spin foam is a 2-dimensional analogue of a Feynman diagram. Abstractly, a Feynman diagram can be thought of as a graph with edges labelled by group representations and vertices labelled by intertwining operators. Similarly, a spin foam is a 2-dimensional cell complex with polygonal faces labelled by representations and edges labelled by intertwining operators. Like Feynman diagrams, spin foams serve as a basis of ‘quantum histories’: the actual time evolution of the system is described by a linear combination of these quantum histories, weighted by certain amplitudes. Feynman diagrams are 1-dimensional because they describe quantum histories of collections of point particles; spin foams are 2-dimensional because in loop quantum gravity, the gravitational field is described not in terms of point particles but 1-dimensional ‘spin networks’.
An ordinary quantum field theory provides a recipe for computing the amplitude for any Feynman diagram in terms of amplitudes for edges and vertices. Similarly, a spin foam model consists of a recipe to compute an amplitude for any spin foam as a product of face, edge and vertex amplitudes. The partition function in a spin foam model is computed as a sum or integral of these spin foam amplitudes. Using suitably weighted sums and normalizing by dividing by the partition function, one can also compute expectation values of observables.
A number of spin foam models have been developed for both Lorentzian and Riemannian quantum gravity. By ‘Lorentzian quantum gravity’, we mean any quantum theory whose partition function is, at least morally speaking, given by $$\int e^{iS} ,$$ where $S$ is the Einstein–Hilbert action for a Lorentzian metric on spacetime, or some closely related action. If all goes well, a theory of this sort should reduce in a suitable limit to the classical Einstein equations for Lorentzian metrics. ‘Riemannian quantum gravity’ is the same sort of thing, but for Riemannian metrics. It is important not to confuse Riemannian quantum gravity with ‘Euclidean quantum gravity’, which also uses the Einstein–Hilbert action for a Riemannian metric, but where the partition function is given by $$\int e^{-S} .$$ With the help of analytic continuation to imaginary times, Euclidean quantum gravity is a widely used (though controversial) tool for studying Lorentzian quantum gravity. Riemannian quantum gravity is a wholly different theory, which at best will reduce in some limit to the classical Einstein equations for Riemannian metrics. Thus the large body of conventional wisdom about Euclidean quantum gravity may not apply to spin foam models of Riemannian quantum gravity — only further work can decide this.
Riemannian quantum gravity seems to have limited relevance to real-world physics. Nonetheless, spin foam models of Riemannian quantum gravity have proved to be a useful warmup for work on spin foam models of Lorentzian quantum gravity. The Riemannian models are simpler because the rotation group is compact, unlike the Lorentz group. For a compact group, the irreducible unitary representations are finite-dimensional and indexed by discrete rather than continuous parameters. This means that in Riemannian spin foam models there is no difficulty showing the convergence of a single spin foam amplitude, and the partition function is computed as a sum rather than an integral over spin foams.
In retrospect, the very first spin foam model was the Ponzano–Regge model of 3-dimensional Riemannian quantum gravity [@PR]. In this model, one triangulates a given 3-manifold and expresses the partition function $\int e^{iS}$ as a sum over spin foams lying in the dual 2-skeleton of the triangulation. The gauge group in this theory is the double cover $\operatorname{Spin}(3) = \operatorname{SU}(2)$ of the 3d rotation group. A heuristic argument suggested that the result was actually independent of the triangulation. In fact the sum diverges, and contrary to Ponzano and Regge’s original expectations, the naive way of regularizing it does not give triangulation independent results.
Much later, Turaev and Viro [@TV] discovered that one could regularize the Ponzano-Regge model by replacing $\operatorname{SU}(2)$ with the corresponding quantum group, $\operatorname{SU}_q(2)$. In this $q$-deformed model the partition function converges for any compact 3-manifold. Even better, it turns out to be triangulation independent. By now it is clear that this partition function is that of 3-dimensional Riemannian quantum gravity with a positive cosmological constant; the deformation parameter $q$ is related to the cosmological constant by a simple formula [@AW; @MT].
In 1997, one week before the concept of spin foam was formalized [@Baez], Barrett and Crane proposed a spin foam model of 4-dimensional Riemannian quantum gravity [@BC]. Here the partition function is computed as a sum over spin foams lying in the dual 2-skeleton of a triangulated 4-manifold. The spin foam faces are all labelled by ‘balanced’ representations of $\operatorname{Spin}(4) = \operatorname{SU}(2) \times
\operatorname{SU}(2)$, that is, those of the form $j {\otimes}j$. The edges are all labelled by a specific intertwiner called the Barrett–Crane intertwiner. The idea behind these choices was to express Riemannian quantum gravity as a constrained version of the spin foam model for topological gravity due to Turaev, Ooguri, Crane and Yetter [@CY; @Ooguri; @Turaev]. This idea also motivated using the $10j$ symbols for the vertex amplitudes.
Barrett and Crane wisely refrained from giving formulas for edge and face amplitudes, which later turned out to be the most controversial aspect of the whole theory. Unfortunately, without these, their model was incomplete. In particular, it was impossible to say whether or not the partition function converges. They did note that one can $q$-deform their model, obtaining a model based on the quantum group $\operatorname{SU}_q(2)
\times \operatorname{SU}_{\overline{q}}(2)$. In this $q$-deformed version the partition function becomes a finite sum, so it converges regardless of the choice of edge and face amplitudes. However, nobody has been able to find a nontrivial choice of edge and face amplitudes that makes the result triangulation independent. By analogy with the 3-dimensional case, it is widely expected that the $q$-deformed Barrett–Crane model is related to 4-dimensional Riemannian quantum gravity with positive cosmological constant. Since this is not a topological field theory, there is actually no reason to expect a triangulation-independent partition function.
Further progress was made by De Pietri, Freidel, Krasnov and Rovelli [@DFKR], who showed that the Barrett–Crane model naturally arises from a quantum field theory on a product of 4 copies of the 3-sphere, thought of as a homogeneous space of the group $\operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)$. Feynman diagrams in this ‘group field theory’ correspond precisely to the spin foams appearing in the Barrett-Crane model, and the vertex amplitudes are the same as well. There are two important differences, however. First, the group field theory approach gives specific formulas for edge and face amplitudes! Second, instead of summing over spin foams lying in the dual 2-skeleton of a fixed triangulation of a fixed 4-manifold, one computes the partition function by summing over spin foams lying in the dual 2-skeleta of [*all*]{} triangulations of [*all*]{} compact 4-manifolds — and even a more general class of well-behaved ‘pseudomanifolds’, namely spaces made by gluing finitely many 4-simplices together pairwise along their tetrahedral faces. In short, the DFKR approach naturally extends the Barrett–Crane model to incorporate a sum over triangulations and even a sum over topologies. This sidesteps the awkward need for an arbitrary choice of triangulation, but makes the convergence of the partition function even less likely.
Later, Perez and Rovelli [@PerezRovelli] modified the DFKR proposal, describing a group field theory that corresponds to a version of the Barrett–Crane model with modified edge and face amplitudes. Their goal was to eliminate divergences from the model, and they made substantial progress: Perez [@Perez; @Perez2] was able to prove that in this modified model, the sum of spin foam amplitudes converges if we restrict to spin foams lying in the dual 2-skeleton of a given well-behaved pseudomanifold, so long as each triangle of this pseudomanifold lies in at least three 4-simplices. The issue of pseudomanifolds not satisfying this condition remains a challenge, as does the sum over pseudomanifolds.
As we shall see in Section \[implications\], it is not completely obvious that one needs a convergent partition function for a well-behaved spin foam model. After all, for physics we need to compute, not the partition function, but expectation values of observables. Only after we can compute these can we tackle the important question of whether a given spin foam model reduces to general relativity (possibly coupled to matter) in the large-scale limit. Nonetheless, it appears that convergence or divergence of the partition function is closely tied to other important qualitative features of a spin foam model. This makes it worthwhile to study the convergence issue. In the next three sections, we do this for three versions of the Riemannian Barrett–Crane model: the DFKR version, the Perez–Rovelli version, and a new version. We only consider the convergence issue for one pseudomanifold at a time, not the sum over pseudomanifolds.
The De Pietri–Freidel–Krasnov–Rovelli model {#BC}
===========================================
We begin by recalling the general idea of the Riemannian Barrett–Crane model. As mentioned already, this model can be defined for any simplicial complex formed by taking a finite set of 4-simplices and attaching distinct ones pairwise along their tetrahedral faces until all faces are paired. In what follows we shall restrict attention to manifolds, but only to simplify the terminology; everything generalizes painlessly to these well-behaved pseudomanifolds.
Let $M$ be a triangulated compact 4-manifold and let $\Delta_n$ be the set of $n$-simplices in the triangulation. By definition, 4-simplices, 3-simplices and 2-simplices correspond to vertices, edges and faces of the dual 2-skeleton, respectively. In all versions of the Riemannian Barrett–Crane model, a spin foam $F$ simply amounts to a labelling of each face $f \in \Delta_2$ by a spin $j(f) \in \{0,
\frac{1}{2}, 1, \dots\}$. Note that there are four faces incident to each edge in the dual 2-skeleton. We require that the spins $j_1,
\dots, j_4$ labelling the faces incident to any edge be ‘admissible’, meaning that there exists a nonzero $\operatorname{SU}(2)$ intertwining operator $f
{\colon}j_1 {\otimes}j_2 \to j_3 {\otimes}j_4$.
In all versions of the Riemannian Barrett–Crane model, the amplitude of a spin foam is computed by a formula of this sort: $$Z(F) = \prod_{f \in \Delta_2} A(f)
\prod_{e \in \Delta_3} A(e)
\prod_{v \in \Delta_4} A(v)
\label{spin.foam.amplitude}$$ and the partition function is given by $$Z(M) = \sum_F Z(F) .
\label{partition.function}$$ Here the complex numbers $A(f), A(e)$ and $A(v)$ are called face, edge and vertex amplitudes, respectively. Each face amplitude is computed only using the spin $j(f)$ labelling that face. Each edge amplitude is computed using the spins labelling the 4 faces incident to that edge; we call these spins $j_1(e), \dots, j_4(e)$. Finally, each vertex amplitude is computed using the spins labelling the 10 faces incident to that vertex; we call these spins $j_1(v), \dots, j_{10}(v)$.
To give formulas for these amplitudes we use the standard graphical notation for $\operatorname{SU}(2)$ spin networks [@CFS; @KL]. Normalization issues are crucial here. We call a triple of spins $j_1,j_2,j_3$ ‘admissible’ if there exists a nonzero intertwining operator $f {\colon}j_1 {\otimes}j_2 \to j_3$; this happens precisely when these spins satisfy the triangle inequality and sum to an integer. Given an admissible triple of spins, we normalize the canonical intertwining operator $f {\colon}j_1 {\otimes}j_2 \to j_3$ so that $${
\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.5pc/
[r]
^{j_1}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.5pc/
[r]
_{j_3}
\ar@{-}
[r]^{j_2}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}
} = 1.$$ As this normalization sometimes requires dividing by the square root of a negative number, it introduces a potential sign ambiguity. Luckily, in our calculations trivalent vertices always come in matching pairs, so these signs cancel.
Actually, in what follows almost all our diagrams will be balanced spin networks [@BC; @Yetter]. In such a spin network, labelling an edge by the spin $j$ really means that it is labelled by the irreducible representation $j {\otimes}j$ of the group $\operatorname{Spin}(4) = \operatorname{SU}(2) \times
\operatorname{SU}(2)$. Such representations are called ‘balanced’. Also, in a balanced spin network, an unlabelled 4-valent vertex is really labelled by the Barrett-Crane intertwiner. This is defined in terms of $\operatorname{SU}(2)$ spin networks by: $${
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{\ar@{-}[dr]^{j_1} & & \ar@{-}[dl]_{j_2} \\
& *{\bullet} & \\
\ar@{-}[ur]_{j_3} & & \ar@{-}[ul]^{j_4}\\}}}
} = \sum_k \, (-1)^{2k} (2k+1) \;
{
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{\ar@{-}[dr]^{j_1} & & \ar@{-}[dl]_{j_2} \\
& *{\bullet} \ar@{-}[d]^{k} \\
& *{\bullet} \\
\ar@{-}[ur]_{j_3} & & \ar@{-}[ul]^{j_4}}}}
} {\otimes}{
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{\ar@{-}[dr]^{j_1} & & \ar@{-}[dl]_{j_2} \\
& *{\bullet} \ar@{-}[d]^{k} \\
& *{\bullet} \\
\ar@{-}[ur]_{j_3} & & \ar@{-}[ul]^{j_4}}}}
}
, \label{BC.intertwiner}$$ where we sum over spins $k$ such that the triples $j_1,j_2,k$ and $j_3,j_4,k$ are both admissible.
In terms of balanced spin networks, the face, edge and vertex amplitudes of the DFKR model are given as follows: $$\begin{array}{lcc}
A(f) &=& {
\rule[-1ex]{0mm}{4ex}
\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@
{-}
@(ul,dl)
[]
_{j(f)}
\\}
} \\
&& \\
A(e) &=& \frac{\displaystyle 1}
{\ \ {
\xymatrixcolsep{2.6pc}
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{*{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.7pc/
[r]
^{j_1(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.7pc/
[r]
_{j_4(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{j_2(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{j_3(e)}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
}\ \ } \\
&& \\
A(v) &=& {\begin{xy}
\xygraph{!{<5pc,0pc>:}
!P5"A"{~><{@{{}{-}*{\bullet}}} ~>>{_{j_{\xypolynode}(v)}}}
"A1" -@-_{j_6(v)} "A3"
"A2" -@-_{j_7(v)} "A4"
"A3" -@-_{j_8(v)} "A5"
"A4" -@-_{j_9(v)} "A1"
"A5" -@-_{j_{10}(v)} "A2"
}
\end{xy}
}.
\end{array}
\label{BC.amplitudes}$$ Here the intertwiner in the first spin network is just the identity operator, so the face amplitude $A(f)$ is just the dimension of the representation $j(f) {\otimes}j(f)$, that is, $(2j(f) + 1)^2$. The ‘$4j$ symbol’ $${
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.5pc/
[r]
^{j_1}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.5pc/
[r]
_{j_4}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{j_2}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{j_3}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
}$$ equals the dimension of the space of $\operatorname{SU}(2)$ intertwining operators $$f {\colon}j_1 {\otimes}j_2
\to j_3 {\otimes}j_4 .$$ This in turn equals the number of spins $k$ such that the triples $j_1,j_2,k$ and $j_3,j_4,k$ are both admissible. Finally, the vertex amplitude $A(v)$ is called the ‘$10j$ symbol’. There is no simple formula for this, so to compute it we shall need the algorithm developed by Christensen and Egan [@CE].
At this point some comments might be helpful. The above formulas were first derived by De Pietri, Freidel, Krasnov and Rovelli [@DFKR] using the group field theory approach. However, they also arise naturally from the idea that the Barrett–Crane model is a constrained version of the $\operatorname{SU}(2) \times \operatorname{SU}(2)$ Turaev–Ooguri–Crane–Yetter model. In the latter model one works with spin foams where faces are labelled by arbitrary irreducible representations of $\operatorname{SU}(2) \times
\operatorname{SU}(2)$ and edges are labelled by arbitrary intertwiners [*chosen from an orthonormal basis*]{}. Here one uses the fact that intertwiners $f
{\colon}H \to H'$ between finite-dimensional unitary group representations naturally form a Hilbert space with $$\langle f, g \rangle = {{\rm tr}}(f^* g) .$$ To get the above version of the Barrett–Crane model, one restricts the Turaev–Ooguri–Crane–Yetter formulas to spin foams where faces are labelled by balanced intertwiners and edges are labelled by the [*normalized*]{} Barrett–Crane intertwiner. The Barrett–Crane intertwiner in equation (\[BC.intertwiner\]) is not normalized; instead, its inner product with itself is $${
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.5pc/
[r]
^{j_1}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.5pc/
[r]
_{j_4}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{j_2}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{j_3}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
} ,$$ so to normalize it we must divide by the square root of this quantity. However, since each Barrett–Crane intertwiner in the $10j$ symbols appears twice in the formula for the $Z(F)$ — once for each of the two 4-simplices incident to a given 3-simplex — we obtain a factor of $$\frac{\displaystyle 1}
{\ \ {
\xymatrixcolsep{2.6pc}
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{*{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.7pc/
[r]
^{j_1(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.7pc/
[r]
_{j_4(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{j_2(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{j_3(e)}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
}\ \ } ,$$ which gives the edge amplitude $A(e)$.
We can study the convergence of the partition function (\[partition.function\]) by imposing a cutoff on the spins labelling spin foam faces. Since these spins determine the areas of the corresponding 2-simplices in the triangulation of the spacetime manifold, we can think of this as a sort of ‘infrared cutoff’ which rules out large areas. Let us write $|F|$ for the maximum of the spins labelling the faces of the spin foam $F$. Imposing a spin cutoff $|F| \le J$, the partition function becomes a finite sum $$Z_J(M) = \sum_{|F| \le J} Z(F) .
\label{cutoff.partition.function}$$ For a simple but interesting example, we can take $M$ to be a 4-sphere triangulated as the boundary of a 5-simplex. In Table 1 we show the results of computing $Z_J(M)$ in this case for various low values of $J$.
1em 1em
It seems that $Z_J(M)$ grows at a spectacular rate as $J$ increases. We can begin to understand this by estimating the face, edge and vertex amplitudes in equation (\[BC.amplitudes\]). In the limit of large spins, the face amplitudes clearly grow as $O(j^2)$ where $j$ is the spin labelling the face in question. For the edge amplitudes, we can use the fact that $${
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.5pc/
[r]
^{j_1}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.5pc/
[r]
_{j_4}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{j_2}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{j_3}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
}$$ equals the number of spins $k$ such that both $j_1, j_2, k$ and $j_3,
j_4, k$ are admissible triples. In general, if $j_1, \dots, j_4$ are admissible and of order $j$, the number of such spins $k$ is also of order $j$, so the edge amplitudes grow as $O(j)$ when all spins are rescaled by the same factor. The only exception occurs when $j_1,\dots,j_4$ lie at the ‘border of admissibility’, that is, when $${
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.5pc/
[r]
^{j_1}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.5pc/
[r]
_{j_4}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{j_2}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{j_3}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
} = 1 .$$ In this case the $4j$ symbol remains equal to one as all four spins are rescaled.
The asymptotic behavior of the vertex amplitude is much more subtle. Starting from the integral formula for the $10j$ symbols and doing a stationary phase approximation, Barrett and Williams [@BW] computed the asymptotics of the $10j$ symbols as all ten spins are multiplied by some factor $j$ which approaches infinity. This calculation yields a factor of $j^{-9/2}$ times an oscillating function of $j$. Unfortunately, computer calculations show a different rate of decay and no significant oscillatory behavior [@BCE]. It now seems clear that the stationary phase points do not dominate the integral. In general, it appears that the $10j$ symbols decay as $O(j^{-2})$ as all spins are rescaled by the same factor. The only exception occurs when the four spins labelling edges incident to some vertex lie at the border of admissibility; then the $10j$ symbols decay more rapidly. The more vertices lie at the border of admissibility, the more rapid the decay.
The triangulation of the 4-sphere as the boundary of a 5-simplex gives spin foams with 20 faces, 15 edges and 6 vertices. Thus, for a spin foam $F$ with all faces labelled by spins of order $j$, with no vertices lying on the border of admissibility, the amplitude is $$Z(F) = O(j^{2 \cdot 20} j^{-1 \cdot 15} j^{-2 \cdot 6})
= O(j^{13}) .$$ Together with the fact that $Z(F)$ is always nonnegative [@BaezC], so that no cancellations are possible, this is already enough to show that $Z_J(M) \to +\infty$ as $J \to +\infty$. In fact, just by summing over spin foams where all faces are labelled by the same spin, we already see that $Z_J(M)$ must tend to infinity at a rate no slower than $J^{14}$. However, this is a drastic underestimate. In fact, doing a least squares fit to a log-log plot of the above tabulated values of $Z_J(M)$, we estimate that $Z_J(M)$ grows as approximately $J^{23}$.
From these considerations it is clear that the partition function in the DFKR model will diverge, not just in this example, but for many triangulated 4-manifolds. Since the divergence is mainly due to rapid growth of the face amplitudes with increasing spin, it seems the partition function only has a chance of converging if there are few spin foam faces compared to spin foam edges and vertices. Spin foams of this sort come from triangulations where there are few triangles compared to tetrahedra and 4-simplices. Since the number of tetrahedra in a nondegenerate triangulation is always $\frac{5}{2}$ times the number of 4-simplices, this occurs when the average number of 4-simplices meeting along each triangle is high.
As explained more carefully in Section \[implications\], we can try to extract physical information from spin foam models by computing expectation values of observables. These are weighted averages of functions assigning to each spin foam a real number, where the weight associated to each spin foam is its amplitude. The Metropolis algorithm [@Metropolis] is a powerful tool for numerically computing weighted averages, but only when the weights are nonnegative. Quantum amplitudes are usually complex, so the Metropolis algorithm is normally applicable to quantum theory problems only after one has converted them into statistical mechanics problems via Wick rotation. Luckily, the amplitude for a spin foam in the DFKR model is always nonnegative! In fact, this is true for all the versions of the Riemannian Barrett–Crane model that we consider here [@BaezC]. This allows us to apply the Metropolis algorithm without becoming enmeshed in the subtleties of Wick rotation. As we shall see, this algorithm provides great insight into which spin foams dominate the partition function.
For readers unfamiliar with the Metropolis algorithm, let us briefly describe how it works in general before turning to our application here. This algorithm is a random walk technique for sampling configurations from some finite set $\Lambda$ with desired relative frequencies given by some function $p {\colon}\Lambda \to [0,\infty)$. To use the algorithm one must first choose a finite set of ‘moves’ $f_j {\colon}\Lambda \to \Lambda$. Starting at an arbitrary configuration $x_{0} \in \Lambda$, one then generates a random sequence of configurations $x_i$ as follows. For each $i$, choose a move $f_{j}$ uniformly at random. Let $x_{i+1} = f_{j}(x_{i})$ with probability $p(f_{j}(x_{i}))/p(x_{i})$ and otherwise let $x_{i+1} =
x_{i}$. (If $p(f_{j}(x_{i}))/p(x_{i}) > 1$, always set $x_{i+1} =
f_{j}(x_{i})$.) If the moves are chosen appropriately, the distribution of the entries $x_{i}$ in the sequence will tend to the desired distribution $p$ as $i$ tends to infinity.
To get the right limiting distribution, the moves must be chosen ‘large enough’ so that the algorithm is ergodic, i.e., so that any configuration $x$ with $p(x)>0$ has a nonzero chance of occurring. However, to get reasonably fast convergence to the limiting distribution, the moves must be chosen ‘small enough’ so that the algorithm spends much of its time moving between highly weighted configurations, rather than spinning its wheels rejecting configurations with small $p$. Choosing the moves to balance these opposing needs is a bit of an art. In practice, one determines experimentally whether one’s moves work well.
To use the Metropolis algorithm to compute expectation values of observables in some version of the Riemannian Barrett–Crane model, we want to sample spin foams with relative frequencies given by their amplitudes. To do this we take $\Lambda$ to be some finite set of spin foams and let $p {\colon}\Lambda \to [0,\infty)$ assign to each spin foam its amplitude. We also need to choose a set of moves for going from one spin foam to another. For our example of the 4-sphere triangulated as the boundary of a 5-simplex, we chose to use moves that consist of picking a tetrahedron in the dual 2-skeleton and adding or subtracting $\frac{1}{2}$ to each of the spins labelling the four faces of this tetrahedron. The $10j$ symbols vanish unless the sum of the spins labelling faces incident to each edge is an integer. Our moves preserve this constraint. If subtracting $\frac{1}{2}$ from a spin would make it negative, we leave all the spins unchanged, but still count this process as a move. In our experiments, this collection of moves produces very fast convergence of the Metropolis algorithm, and the predicted answer is accurate in all cases in which we have been able to compute the exact answer by other means.
It is interesting to compare the behavior of this algorithm for various versions of the Barrett–Crane model. Unfortunately, in the DFKR version, the divergence of the partition function means that the random walk will drift toward spin foams with ever larger spins, since these have the largest amplitudes and there are many of them. Table 2 shows a small portion of a typical run of the Metropolis algorithm for this version, with a spin cutoff of $J = \frac{5}{2}$. The first column is the iteration number. In steps that are not shown, the program stayed at the same labelling. The second column displays the twenty spins labelling faces, each multiplied by two. The third column shows the amplitude of the corresponding spin foam. One can see that the sum over spin foams is dominated by those with many spins close to the cutoff.
1em
3em
The Perez–Rovelli Model {#PR}
=======================
In the Perez–Rovelli model, the face, edge and vertex amplitudes are as follows: $$\begin{array}{lcc}
A(f) &=& {
\rule[-1ex]{0mm}{4ex}
\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@
{-}
@(ul,dl)
[]
_{j(f)}
\\}
} \\
&& \\
A(e) &=& \frac{{
\xymatrixcolsep{2.6pc}
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{*{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.7pc/
[r]
^{j_1(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.7pc/
[r]
_{j_4(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{j_2(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{j_3(e)}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
} }
{ {
\rule[-1ex]{0mm}{4ex}
\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@
{-}
@(ul,dl)
[]
_{j_1(e)}
\\}
}\; {
\rule[-1ex]{0mm}{4ex}
\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@
{-}
@(ul,dl)
[]
_{j_2(e)}
\\}
} \;
{
\rule[-1ex]{0mm}{4ex}
\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@
{-}
@(ul,dl)
[]
_{j_3(e)}
\\}
} \; {
\rule[-1ex]{0mm}{4ex}
\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@
{-}
@(ul,dl)
[]
_{j_4(e)}
\\}
} } \\
&& \\
A(v) &=& {\begin{xy}
\xygraph{!{<5pc,0pc>:}
!P5"A"{~><{@{{}{-}*{\bullet}}} ~>>{_{j_{\xypolynode}(v)}}}
"A1" -@-_{j_6(v)} "A3"
"A2" -@-_{j_7(v)} "A4"
"A3" -@-_{j_8(v)} "A5"
"A4" -@-_{j_9(v)} "A1"
"A5" -@-_{j_{10}(v)} "A2"
}
\end{xy}
}.
\end{array}
\label{PR.amplitudes}$$ Here again a comment is in order: the original papers by Perez and Rovelli [@Perez; @PerezRovelli] give a different formula for the edge amplitudes, but that formula does not really follow from their group field theory. Above we use the corrected formula which appears in a forthcoming review article by Perez [@Perez2]; we have carefully translated from his normalization conventions to our own.
With these formulas, Perez has shown that the partition function converges for any well-behaved pseudomanifold satisfying the condition that each triangle lies in at least three 4-simplices. This includes the triangulation of $S^4$ as the boundary of a 5-simplex. Nonetheless it is illuminating to compute the cutoff partition function $Z_J(M)$ in this example with various choices of the spin cutoff. The results appear in Table 3.
1em
1em
This time it appears that the [*convergence*]{} is spectacularly rapid. But again, this is easy to understand: it is mainly due to the denominator of the edge amplitude in formula (\[PR.amplitudes\]). Since each triangle in this triangulation of the 4-sphere is the face of 3 tetrahedra, the factors of $${
\rule[-1ex]{0mm}{4ex}
\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@
{-}
@(ul,dl)
[]
_{j(f)}
\\}
} = (2j(f) + 1)^2$$ appearing in the edge and face amplitudes combine to give $$Z_J(M) = \sum_{|F| \le J} \;
\prod_{f \in \Delta_2} (2j(f) + 1)^{-4}
\prod_{e \in \Delta_3}{
\xymatrixcolsep{2.6pc}
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{*{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.7pc/
[r]
^{j_1(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.7pc/
[r]
_{j_4(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{j_2(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{j_3(e)}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
}
\prod_{v \in \Delta_4} A(v).$$ The factors of $(2j(f) + 1)^{-4}$ strongly suppress faces labelled by nonzero spins. The $10j$ symbols also tend to suppress nonzero spins. While the $4j$ symbols grow with increasing spin, they do so too slowly to make much of a difference.
In particular, $Z_0(M) = 1$ because there is one spin foam with all faces labelled by spin $0$, and every balanced spin network with all edges labelled by spin $0$ evaluates to $1$. In computing $Z_{1/2}(M)$, we must also consider spin foams where some faces are labelled by spin $\frac{1}{2}$. At each spin foam edge, if one of the incident faces is labelled by a nonzero spin, then at least one other must be as well, or else the Barrett-Crane intertwiner there will vanish. This is a powerful constraint. For the 4-sphere triangulated as the boundary of a 5-simplex, it implies that if there is one spin foam face labelled by a nonzero spin, then there must be at least four. When four of the faces are labelled by spin $\frac{1}{2}$, the factors of $(2j(f) + 1)^{-4}$ multiply to give $2^{-16}$. Spin foams with more nonzero spins, or spins greater than $\frac{1}{2}$, will be suppressed even further.
In fact, it is instructive to work out by hand the contribution to the partition function given by spin foams with four spin foam faces labelled by $\frac{1}{2}$ and the rest zero. To give a nonzero result, the four faces must form a tetrahedron in the dual 2-skeleton. This results in a triangular spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ loop in four of the $10j$ symbols. Since $${
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.5pc/
[r]
^{\frac{1}{2}}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.5pc/
[r]
_{0}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{0}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
} = 1 , \qquad
{
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.5pc/
[r]
^{0}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.5pc/
[r]
_{0}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{0}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{0}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
} = 1 ,$$ $${\begin{xy}
\xygraph{!{<4pc,0pc>:}
!P5"A"{~><{@{{}{-}*{\bullet}}} ~>>{_{\outerlab}}}
"A1" -@-_{\innerlab1} "A3"
"A2" -@-_{\innerlab2} "A4"
"A3" -@-_{\innerlab3} "A5"
"A4" -@-_{\innerlab4} "A1"
"A5" -@-_{\innerlab5} "A2"
}
\end{xy}
}= 1 , \qquad \text{and} \qquad
{\begin{xy}
\xygraph{!{<4pc,0pc>:}
!P5"A"{~><{@{{}{-}*{\bullet}}} ~>>{_{\outerlabe}}}
"A1" -@-_{\innerlabe1} "A3"
"A2" -@-_{\innerlabe2} "A4"
"A3" -@-_{\innerlabe3} "A5"
"A4" -@-_{\innerlabe4} "A1"
"A5" -@-_{\innerlabe5} "A2"
}
\end{xy}
}= \frac{1}{2} ,$$ each spin foam of this sort contributes an amplitude of $2^{-16} \cdot
(\frac{1}{2})^4 = 2^{-20}$. There are $\binom{6}{4} = 15$ spin foams of this sort, so their total contribution to the partition function is $15 \cdot 2^{-20} \cong .0000143051$. Glancing at Table 3, we see that together with the spin foam having all faces labelled by spin zero, this accounts for the first seven decimal places of the partition function.
As a result, when we use the Metropolis algorithm to randomly walk through spin foams in this example, it focuses attention on spin foams where almost all spins are zero. Table 4 shows a complete run of the algorithm with a cutoff of $5/2$ and 5 million iterations. As in Table 2, the first column is the iteration number. In steps that are not shown, the program stayed at the same labelling. The second column displays the twenty spins labelling faces, each multiplied by two. The third column shows the amplitude of the corresponding spin foam. One can see that that after 256 steps the initial spin foam has randomly walked to the spin foam with all faces labelled by by spin zero. Except for a brief foray to a spin foam with four spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ faces between moves 611050 and moves 611136, the algorithm spends all the rest of its time at the spin foam with all spin-zero faces.
1em
1em
Generalizing from this example, we can easily guess the behavior of the Perez–Rovelli model on an arbitrary triangulated 4-manifold. The partition function will be dominated by spin foams having mostly spin-zero faces, and a low density of small islands of faces with higher spin. In fact, we can use the ‘dilute gas’ approximation [@Baez3] to estimate the density of a particular sort of island in the spin foams that would most often be sampled by the Metropolis algorithm. For example, if we consider tetrahedra in the dual 2-skeleton, most of them will have all faces labelled by spin $0$. About one in $2^{20}$ will have all four faces labelled by spin $\frac{1}{2}$, and an even smaller fraction will have faces labelled by higher spins. We discuss the implications of this ‘spin-zero dominance’ in Section \[implications\].
A New Model {#new}
===========
Since the partition function of the DFKR model diverges rapidly, while that of the Perez–Rovelli model converges so rapidly that the sum is dominated by spin foams with almost all faces labelled with spin zero, it seems worthwhile to seek a model with intermediate behavior. It would be nice to derive this model from a group field theory. However, one can also take an exploratory attitude and simply seek face, edge and vertex amplitudes that give partition functions ‘near the brink of convergence’, but on the convergent side.
Comparing various candidates, we found this model to be the most promising: $$\begin{array}{lcc}
A(f) &=& 1 \\
&& \\
A(e) &=& \frac{\displaystyle 1}
{\ \ {
\xymatrixcolsep{2.6pc}
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{*{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.7pc/
[r]
^{j_1(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.7pc/
[r]
_{j_4(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{j_2(e)}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{j_3(e)}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
}\ \ } \\
&& \\
A(v) &=& {\begin{xy}
\xygraph{!{<5pc,0pc>:}
!P5"A"{~><{@{{}{-}*{\bullet}}} ~>>{_{j_{\xypolynode}(v)}}}
"A1" -@-_{j_6(v)} "A3"
"A2" -@-_{j_7(v)} "A4"
"A3" -@-_{j_8(v)} "A5"
"A4" -@-_{j_9(v)} "A1"
"A5" -@-_{j_{10}(v)} "A2"
}
\end{xy}
}.
\end{array}
\label{new.amplitudes}$$ The first thing to note is this model’s simplicity. As in the DFKR model, the edge amplitudes arise naturally from normalizing the Barrett–Crane intertwiners in the $10j$ symbol. But unlike the DFKR model, this new model has trivial face amplitudes. Thus the only real ingredient of this model is the $10j$ symbol built from normalized Barrett–Crane intertwiners. The absence of loops $${
\rule[-1ex]{0mm}{4ex}
\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@
{-}
@(ul,dl)
[]
_{j}
\\}
}$$ in the above formulas is the main reason the model lies near the brink of convergence. These loops grow rapidly as a function of $j$, so they tend to make the partition function diverge or converge very quickly, depending on whether more of them appear in the numerator or denominator in the partition function.
Table 5 shows the partition function of our new model for the triangulation of $S^4$ as the boundary of a 5-simplex, as a function of the spin cutoff $J$. Though the partition function appears to be converging, it is hard to be sure from this limited data. Unfortunately, the calculation of $Z_{5/2}(M)$ already involved a sum over approximately $3.6$ trillion spin foams. (There are a total of $6^{20}$ ways to label all twenty faces with spins from $0$ to $\frac{5}{2}$, but of these, only $6^{20}/2^{10} \cong 3.6 \cdot
10^{12}$ satisfy the constraint that the spins labelling faces incident to any edge sum to an integer; only these can give a nonzero result, so we only summed over these.) This calculation occupied 28 CPUs for 23 hours. Going further with this brute-force approach would require much longer.
1em
1em
In Section \[implications\] we describe an indirect method which gives stronger evidence that the partition converges for this triangulation of $S^4$. Of course, one would really like a mathematical proof that the partition function converges — and not just in this case, but more generally. Numerical calculations show that it diverges for the well-behaved pseudomanifold formed by taking two 4-simplices and gluing them together along all their tetrahedral faces. However, this leaves open the possibility that the partition function converges for the class of well-behaved pseudomanifolds considered by Perez — namely, those where each triangle lies in at least three 4-simplices. Proving this would require good bounds on the $10j$ symbol.
Numerical computations suggest that the following bound holds: $$\left| {\begin{xy}
\xygraph{!{<4pc,0pc>:}
!P5"A"{~><{@{{}{-}*{\bullet}}} ~>>{_{j_{\xypolynode}}}}
"A1" -@-_{j_6} "A3"
"A2" -@-_{j_7} "A4"
"A3" -@-_{j_8} "A5"
"A4" -@-_{j_9} "A1"
"A5" -@-_{j_{10}} "A2"
}
\end{xy}
}\right| \le C_1
\prod_{i = 1}^{10} (2j_i + 1)^{-\frac{1}{5}}.$$ This is consistent with our previous observation that the $10j$ symbols decay as $O(j^{-2})$ as all spins are rescaled by the same factor, but it gives more information when some spins are much larger than others. We can use this bound to sketch a rough argument that the partition function converges for well-behaved pseudomanifolds in which each triangle lies in at least three 4-simplices.
Far from the border of admissibility, it is easy to prove that the $4j$ symbols satisfy $$\left| {
{\vcenter{\xymatrix{ *{\bullet}
\ar@{-}
@/^1.5pc/
[r]
^{j_1}
\ar@{-}
@/_1.5pc/
[r]
_{j_4}
\ar@{-}
@/^/
[r]^{j_2}
\ar@{-}
@/_/
[r]_{j_3}
&
*{\bullet}
\\}}}
} \right| \ge C_2
\prod_{i = 1}^4 (2j_i + 1)^{\frac{1}{4}} .$$ If we could ignore the border of admissibility, this estimate and the above bound on the $10j$ symbols would imply a bound on the cutoff partition function: $$\begin{array}{ccl}
Z_J(M) &\le& \displaystyle{C_3 \sum_{|F| \le J}
\prod_{f \in \Delta_2} (2j(f) + 1)^{-\frac{9}{20}n(f)}} \\
&& \\
&\le& \displaystyle{ C_3 \prod_{f \in \Delta_2}
\sum_{j(f) \in \{0,\frac{1}{2}, \dots , J \}}
(2j(f) + 1)^{-\frac{9}{20}n(f)}} .
\end{array}$$ Here $n(f)$ is the number of vertices (or equivalently, edges) of the face $f$, which is the same as the number of 4-simplices containing the triangle dual to $f$. The curious number $\frac{9}{20}$ comes from the fact that each vertex of the face $f$ gives a factor of $(2j(f)+1)^{-\frac{1}{5}}$, while each edge gives a factor of $(2j(f)+1)^{-\frac{1}{4}}$, and $\frac{1}{5} + \frac{1}{4} = \frac{9}{20}$. Since $$\sum_{j \in \{0,\frac{1}{2},\dots\}} (2j + 1)^{-\frac{9}{20}n}$$ converges when $n \ge 3$, this bound would imply convergence of $Z_J(M)$ as $J \to \infty$ whenever each triangle is contained in at least three 4-simplices. Unfortunately, this argument neglects the border of admissibility, where the $4j$ symbols grow more slowly. Luckily, the $10j$ symbols decay more rapidly near the border of admissibility! We are therefore optimistic that this hole in the argument can be fixed.
As with other versions of the Barrett–Crane model, we can get a qualitative feel for the new model using the Metropolis algorithm. Table 6 shows a small portion of a typical run of this algorithm, again using the triangulation of $S^4$ as the boundary of a 5-simplex and imposing a spin cutoff of $\frac{5}{2}$. This table is organized just like Tables 2 and 4. Note that in the new model, both low spins and spins near the cutoff show up frequently, but with a predominance of low spins.
1em
1em
It is interesting to see the frequencies with which faces are labelled by various spins. We show this in Table 7, based on a Metropolis run with spin cutoff $J = 50$ and half a billion iterations. The results obtained are very similar to results obtained with a spin cutoff of $J =
\frac{25}{2}$, indicating that they are not just an artifact of the cutoff. We only show results up to $j = 5$, but higher spins were seen as well, with smoothly declining frequencies. The most important thing to note is that while spin zero is the most likely spin to occur, there is still a substantial fraction of faces labelled by other spins.
1em
1em
Implications
============
Our computation of partition functions is only relevant to the ‘physics’ of the models being studied to the extent that it sheds light on the behavior of observables. The issue of observables in quantum gravity is a thorny one, but we really need to confront it here. One approach would be to follow the ideas of canonical quantum gravity and use a sum over open spin foams to compute the projection onto the space of physical states [@Arnsdorf; @RR; @Rovelli]. Observables would then be described as operators on this Hilbert space. While conceptually well-motivated, this approach will take a great deal of work to implement. One of the goals of the spin foam program is to develop a ‘sum over histories’ approach to quantum gravity that has a chance of making more rapid progress [@PerezRovelli2]. Ideally this approach would be compatible with the canonical approach, but not require an explicit computation of the projection onto physical states. In this section we attempt to interpret our computations using this ‘sum over histories’ approach.
To begin with, let us tentatively call any function $O$ from spin foams to real numbers an ‘observable’. Fixing a spin foam model, we can try to compute the expectation value of $O$ as follows: $$\langle O \rangle = \frac{ \sum_F O(F) Z(F)}{\sum_F Z(F) } ,
\label{expectation}$$ where $Z(F)$ is the amplitude our model assigns to the spin foam $F$, and the sum is taken over all spin foams. The denominator of this fraction is the partition function.
Formulas like equation (\[expectation\]) are familiar in quantum field theory on a fixed background spacetime, but we must reevaluate their meaning in the current context. Exactly what sort of ‘expectation value’ is this quantity $\langle O \rangle$? In quantum field theory a formula of this sort is used to compute vacuum expectation values. However, in the context of quantum gravity, the notion of energy and thus the whole concept of ‘vacuum’ becomes problematic. We thus propose to interpret $\langle O \rangle$ as the average of $O$ over all histories. This is consistent with the interpretation of a spin foam as a ‘quantum history’ [@Baez2].
Now, for many functions $O$ we do not expect $\langle O \rangle$ to be well-defined. For example, if $O(F)$ is some measure of the total 4-volume of the spacetime corresponding to $F$, there is no obvious reason why $\langle O \rangle$ should converge. This is not bad; it just means that the question “what is the expected 4-volume of spacetime?” is ill-posed when one is given no further information about the history in question. There is no reason a theory should be able to answer this sort of question.
However, one can often make ill-posed expectation values well-posed by ‘conditioning’ them. In other words, instead of asking “what is the expected value of $O$?” one asks “what is the expected value of $O$, [*given that*]{}...?” In physics this conditioning is usually done by specifying either a state or the value or expectation value of some observables. For example, in the path integral approach to quantum mechanics, one can compute the expected value of the position of a particle at $t = 1$, given its position at $t = 0$, by restricting the path integral to paths that start at this given position at $t = 0$. We can even condition further by specifying information about its position at some other times; this has been extensively studied in the theory of consistent histories [@GH; @Griffiths; @Omnes].
A path represents a classical history, but we can also do conditioning when we compute expectation values by summing over quantum histories. The most familiar example of a quantum history is a Feynman diagram. Using Feynman diagrams we can compute the expectation value of some observable measured in the future, given information about the incoming particles in the past, by restricting the sum over Feynman diagrams to those with certain specified incoming edges. We can even condition on properties of the internal edges of a Feynman diagram, e.g. computing the probability that two electrons scatter given that they have exchanged a specific number of virtual photons. One must be careful when working with probabilities of this sort, since they can fail to satisfy the classical rules, thanks to interference effects. However, the theory of consistent histories provides a framework for correctly dealing with them.
Spin foams are close analogs of Feynman diagrams, and indeed they [*are*]{} Feynman diagrams in the group field theory approach [@RR2]. This means that, as with Feynman diagram theories, in spin foam models we can condition any expectation value by limiting the class of spin foams to be summed over, or weighting them with a suitable factor. This amounts to replacing the formula for $Z(F)$ by a modified formula which takes this conditioning into account.
The simplest example consists of setting $Z(F)$ to zero when $F$ fails to lie in the dual 2-skeleton of a fixed triangulated 4-manifold. While doing this simplifies many calculations, and we have implicitly done so throughout this paper, it would only be physically well-motivated if we knew spacetime were equipped with a specific triangulation. A more realistic example would arise if we were trying to use a Lorentzian spin foam model to make predictions about the collision of gravitational waves. Here we would need to restrict the integral over spin foams to those having a spacelike slice in which incoming gravitational waves of a specified sort were present. If we were studying these waves in a bounded region of spacetime, we might also restrict to open spin foams of a certain ‘size’. Of course, we are far from being able to do this at present.
Having modified $Z(F)$ to take the conditioning into account, there are still some further subtleties about the convergence of formula (\[expectation\]). If the sums in both numerator and denominator converge, $\langle O \rangle$ is well-defined. However, we can make do with less: if both sums diverge, we can impose a cutoff on both, take the ratio of the two, and then try to take a limit as the cutoff is removed. It follows that the convergence of the conditioned partition function is neither necessary nor sufficient for computing $\langle O
\rangle$.
What does it mean if we need to impose a cutoff and then take a limit as the cutoff is removed to compute expectation values of observables? The answer depends on the nature of the cutoff, so it is good to focus on a concrete example. We have seen one example in Section \[BC\], where we considered the DFKR model on a fixed triangulation of the 4-sphere. Since the partition function diverged, we found it useful to insert a cutoff on the spins labelling spin foam faces, or equivalently, triangles in the triangulation. In this model we can define the area of a triangle labelled by the spin $j$ to be $${\rm area} = 8\pi \gamma \ell_P^2 \sqrt{j(j+1)} ,
\label{area}$$ where $\ell_P$ is the Planck length and $\gamma$ is an [*ad hoc*]{} constant roughly analogous to the Barbero–Immirzi parameter [@CMPR; @Livine]. A spin cutoff then amounts to a kind of ‘infrared cutoff’, since it rules out spacetime geometries containing triangles of large area.
Without any further conditioning, the expectation value of an observable in this theory would be given by $$\langle O \rangle = \lim_{J \to \infty}
\frac{ \sum_{|F| \le J} O(F) Z(F)}{\sum_{|F| \le J} Z(F) } .
\label{expectation2}$$ What does it mean when this limit exists but both numerator and denominator diverge as $J \to \infty$? It means that the dominant contribution to the expectation value of the observable $O$ comes from spacetime geometries containing triangles of arbitrarily large area! This seems physically unrealistic, since in our world spacetime discreteness exists, if at all, only on short length scales.
One possible objection is that this does not take into account the conditioning needed to phrase a sensible physical question. Perhaps conditioning automatically damps the contribution of spin foams with large triangles. This seems most plausible if we are asking questions about a bounded region of spacetime and restrict the sum over spin foams to those of a certain ‘size’.
Another way out might be to take a limit where we let the Barbero–Immirzi parameter go to zero as we let $J \to \infty$: in other words, a kind of ‘continuum limit’, where spacetime discreteness gets pushed to ever smaller distance scales. A limit of this sort has already been discussed by Bojowald [@Bojowald] in the context of Lorentzian quantum gravity, working with the real Ashtekar variables. He shows that in this limit, loop quantum cosmology reduces to ordinary quantum cosmology. One can imagine taking a similar limit in Riemannian quantum gravity. However, a great deal more work would be required to see if this is a viable strategy.
In short, the divergence of the partition function as we remove the spin cutoff is not necessarily a disaster for the DFKR model. However, it seems one would need some sophisticated maneuvers to extract interesting results from this model. Anyone interested in this might be wise to start by reexamining the Ponzano–Regge model of 3-dimensional Riemannian quantum gravity, which exhibits a similar divergence.
We can avoid or at least postpone facing these subtleties by working with the Perez–Rovelli model, where the partition function converges for a fixed triangulation. Of course, a divergence may still arise in the sum over triangulations. But still more pressing, in our opinion, is the task of understanding spin-zero dominance. While this phenomenon has no obvious analogue in the Lorentzian Barrett–Crane model, it is still worth pondering. What does it mean when the partition function is dominated by spin foams whose faces are mostly labelled by spin zero? If we believe equation (\[area\]), these correspond to triangles of area zero! Perhaps this model is a theory of highly degenerate quantum geometries where most of the 4-simplices are shrunk to nothing, vaguely reminiscent of the ‘crumpled phase’ in Euclidean quantum gravity [@ADJ; @Loll]. Perhaps suitable conditioning will remove this effect. Perhaps spin-zero faces should be ignored for some reason. Or perhaps Alekseev, Polychronakos, and Smedbäck [@APB] are right, and the correct area formula is given not by equation (\[area\]) but by $${\rm area} = 8\pi \gamma \ell_P^2 (j + \frac{1}{2}) .$$ This would drastically affect our interpretation of spin-zero faces.
At present, all we can say for sure is that a theory with drastic spin-zero dominance raises as many difficult issues for our approach to computing expectation values as one where the partition function diverges as the spin cutoff is removed. The new model described in this paper seems to avoid these issues; here we can compute expectation values of observables and get some interesting results, at least if we fix a triangulation.
The simplest observable in the Riemannian Barrett–Crane model is the average area of a triangle. Ignoring a factor of $8 \pi \gamma
\ell_P^2$, this is given by $$O(F) =
\frac{1}{|\Delta_2|} \sum_{f \in \Delta_2} \sqrt{j(f)(j(f) + 1)}$$ where $|\Delta_2|$ is the number of triangles in the triangulation. We use $\langle O \rangle_J$ to stand for the expectation value of this observable with a spin cutoff of $J$: $$\langle O \rangle_J =
\frac{ \sum_{|F| \le J} O(F) Z(F)}{\sum_{|F| \le J} Z(F) }$$ where for a simple calculation we sum over spin foams in the dual 2-skeleton of the triangulation of $S^4$ as the boundary of a 5-simplex. Some results for this quantity are shown in Table 7. The results for $J \le \frac{5}{2}$ are exact, while the results for higher cutoffs are approximate, obtained using the Metropolis algorithm. The last data point was run using no cutoff; spins larger than 54 never occurred in our runs, even after more than 11 billion iterations. It appears that the limit $$\langle O \rangle = \lim_{J \to \infty} \langle O\rangle_J$$ exists.
1em
1em
Now, an interesting thing about the average triangle area is that for this observable, the limit $$\lim_{J \to \infty} \langle O\rangle_J$$ can only exist if the partition function converges. This means our numerical evidence that $\langle O \rangle_J$ converges is also numerical evidence that the partition function converges! To see why this is true, suppose the partition function diverges. Since in this model the spin foam amplitudes $Z(F)$ are always nonnegative [@BaezC], the cutoff partition functions $Z_J(M)$ must approach $+\infty$ as we remove the spin cutoff. This implies that for any spin $J$ we have $$2{\sum_{|F| \le J} Z(F) } \le {\sum_{|F| \le J'} Z(F) }$$ for all sufficiently large spins $J'$. This implies $${\sum_{|F| \le J'} Z(F) } \le 2{\sum_{J < |F| \le J'} Z(F) }.$$ Using this, we see that for all sufficiently large $J'$, $$\begin{array}{ccl}
\langle O \rangle_{J'} &=&
\displaystyle
{\frac{ \sum_{|F| \le J'} O(F) Z(F)}{\sum_{|F| \le J'} Z(F) }} \\
&& \\
&\ge&
\displaystyle
{\frac{ \sum_{J < |F| \le J'} O(F) Z(F)}{\sum_{|F| \le J'} Z(F)}} \\
&& \\
&\ge&
\displaystyle
{\frac{ \sum_{J < |F| \le J'} O(F) Z(F)}{2\sum_{J < |F| \le J'} Z(F) }} \\
&& \\
&\ge& \displaystyle{\frac{\sqrt{J(J + 1)}}{2|\Delta_2|}} \\
\end{array}$$ since in any spin foam with $J < |F|$, there is at least one triangle with area at least $\sqrt{J(J + 1)}$, so the average triangle area is at least this quantity divided by the number of triangles. Since $J$ can be chosen as large as we like, we see that $$\lim_{J' \to \infty} \langle O \rangle_{J'} = +\infty .$$ This is a nice example of how the convergence of the partition function is intimately linked to the behavior of observables.
In conclusion, we wish to emphasize that while the interpretation of spin foam models raises many difficult issues, this is only to be expected given the novelty of the whole setup. We expect rapid progress, especially if the more traditional tools of theoretical physics are supplemented by computer calculations. Hard numbers have a marvelous way of making problems more concrete.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank Greg Egan and Alejandro Perez for extremely valuable discussions. We also thank SHARCNet for providing the supercomputer at the University of Western Ontario on which we computed $Z_{5/2}(M)$ in our new model. The second author was supported by a grant from NSERC, and the third and fourth authors were supported by NSERC and SHARCNet.
[10]{}
A. Alekseev, A. P. Polychronakos and M. Smedbäck, On area and entropy of a black hole, available as hep-th/0004036.
J. Ambjørn, B. Durhuus, and T. Jonsson, [*Quantum Geometry: A Statistical Field Theory Approach*]{}, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 1997.
F. Archer and R. M. Williams, The Turaev–Viro state sum model and three-dimensional quantum gravity, [*Phys. Lett. *]{}[**B273**]{} (1991), 438–444.
M. Arnsdorf, Relating covariant and canonical approaches to triangulated models of quantum gravity, available as gr-qc/0110026.
J. C. Baez, Spin foam models, [*Class. Quantum Grav. *]{}[**15**]{} (1998), 1827–1858. Available as gr-qc/9709052.
J. C. Baez, An introduction to spin foam models of quantum gravity and BF theory, in [*Geometry and Quantum Physics*]{}, eds. Helmut Gausterer and Harald Grosse, Springer, Berlin, 2000. Available as gr-qc/9905087.
J. C. Baez, Spin foam perturbation theory, available as gr-qc/9910050.
J. C. Baez and J. D. Christensen, Positivity of spin foam amplitudes, [*Class. Quant. Grav. *]{}[**19**]{} (2002), 2291–2305. Version with additional corrections available as gr-qc/0110044.
J. C. Baez, J. D. Christensen and G. Egan, Asymptotics of $10j$ symbols, in preparation.
J. W. Barrett, The classical evaluation of relativistic spin networks, [*Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. *]{}[**2**]{} (1998), 593–600. Available as math.QA/9803063.
J. W. Barrett and L. Crane, Relativistic spin networks and quantum gravity, [*Jour. Math. Phys. *]{}[**39**]{} (1998), 3296–3302. Available as gr-qc/9709028.
J. W. Barrett and L. Crane, A Lorentzian signature model for quantum general relativity, [*Class. Quantum Grav. *]{}[**17**]{} (2000), 3101–3118. Available as gr-qc/9904025.
J. W. Barrett and R. M. Williams, The asymptotics of an amplitude for the 4-simplex, [*Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. *]{}[**3**]{} (1999), 209—215. Available as gr-qc/9809032.
M. Bojowald, The semiclassical limit of loop quantum cosmology, [*Class. Quant. Grav. *]{}[**18**]{} (2001), L109–L116. Available as gr-qc/0105113.
R. Capovilla, M. Montesinos, V. A. Prieto and E. Rojas, BF gravity and the Immirzi parameter, [*Class. Quant. Grav. *]{} [**18**]{} (2001), L49–L52. Erratum: ibid. [**18**]{} (2001), 1157. Available as gr-qc/0102073.
J. Scott Carter, Daniel E. Flath and Masahico Saito, [*The Classical and Quantum $6j$-Symbols*]{}, Princeton U. Press, Princeton, 1995.
J. D. Christensen and G. Egan, An efficient algorithm for the Riemannian $10j$ symbols, [*Class. Quant. Grav. *]{}[**19**]{} (2002), 1184–1193. Available as gr-qc/0110045. Code for computing $10j$ symbols available at `http://jdc.math.uwo.ca/spin-foams/`.
L. Crane and D. Yetter, A categorical construction of 4d TQFTs, in [*Quantum Topology*]{}, eds. L. Kauffman and R. Baadhio, World Scientific, Singapore, 1993, pp. 120–130. Available as hep-th/9301062.
R. De Pietri, L. Freidel, K. Krasnov and C.Rovelli, Barrett–Crane model from a Boulatov–Ooguri field theory over a homogeneous space, [*Nucl. Phys. *]{}[**B574**]{} (2000), 785–806. Available as hep-th/9907154.
M. Gell-Mann and J. B. Hartle, Classical equations for quantum systems, [*Phys. Rev. *]{}[**D47**]{} (1993), 3345–3382. Available as gr-qc/9210010.
R. B. Griffiths, [*Consistent Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 2002.
L. Kauffman and S. Lins, [*Temperley-Lieb Recoupling Theory and Invariants of 3-Manifolds*]{}, Princeton U. Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1994.
R. Livine, Immirzi parameter in the Barrett-Crane model?, available as gr-qc/0103081.
R. Loll, Discrete approaches to quantum gravity in four dimensions, Living Reviews in Relativity [**1**]{} (1998). Available at `http://www.livingreviews.org/`.
N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller and E. Teller, Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines, [*J. Chem. Phys. *]{}[**21**]{} (1953), 1087–1092.
S. Mizoguchi and T. Tada, 3-dimensional gravity from the Turaev-Viro invariant, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**68**]{} (1992), 1795–1798. Available as hep-th/9110057.
R. Omnès, [*Understanding Quantum Mechanics*]{}, Princeton U. Press, Princeton, 1999.
H. Ooguri, Topological lattice models in four dimensions, [*Mod. Phys. Lett. *]{}[**A7** ]{}(1992), 2799–2810. Available as hep-th/9205090.
D. Oriti, Spacetime geometry from algebra: spin foam models for non-perturbative quantum gravity, available as gr-qc/0106091.
A. Perez, Finiteness of a spinfoam model for Euclidean quantum general relativity, [*Nucl. Phys. *]{}[**B599**]{} (2001) 427–434. Available as gr-qc/0011058.
A. Perez, Group quantum field theories and spin foam models for quantum gravity, in preparation.
A. Perez and C. Rovelli, A spin foam model without bubble divergences, [*Nucl. Phys. *]{}[**B599**]{} (2001) 255–282. Available as gr-qc/0006107.
A. Perez and C. Rovelli, Observables in quantum gravity, available as gr-qc/0104034. Available as gr-qc/0104034.
G. Ponzano and T. Regge, Semiclassical limit of Racah coefficients, in [*Spectroscopic and Group Theoretical Methods in Physics,*]{} ed. F. Bloch, North-Holland, New York, 1968.
M. Reisenberger and C. Rovelli, “Sum over surfaces” form of loop quantum gravity, [*Phys. Rev. *]{}[**D56**]{} (1997), 3490–3508. Available as gr-qc/9612035.
M. Reisenberger and C. Rovelli, Spin foams as Feynman diagrams, available as gr-qc/0002083. Available as gr-qc/0002083.
C. Rovelli, The projector on physical states in loop quantum gravity, [*Phys. Rev. *]{}[**D59**]{} (1999), 104015. Available as gr-qc/9806121.
V. Turaev, Quantum invariants of 3-manifolds and a glimpse of shadow topology, in [*Quantum Groups*]{}, Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1510, Springer, Berlin, 1992, pp. 363–366.
V. Turaev and O. Viro, State sum invariants of 3-manifolds and quantum $6j$ symbols, [*Topology*]{} [**31**]{} (1992), 865-902.
D. N. Yetter, Generalized Barrett-Crane vertices and invariants of embedded graphs, [*J. Knot Theory Ramifications*]{} [**8**]{} (1999), 815–829.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The reionization epoch of singly ionized helium () is believed to start at redshifts $z \sim 3.5$–4 and be nearly complete by $z \simeq 2.7$. We explore the post-reionization epoch with far-ultraviolet spectra of the bright, high-redshift quasar HS1700$+$6416 taken by the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS) on the [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{}, which show strong ($\lambda 303.78$) absorption shortward of the QSO redshift, $z_{QSO} = 2.75$. We discuss these data as they probe the post-reionization history of and the local ionization environment around the quasar and transverse to the line of sight. We compare previous spectra taken by the [*Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer*]{} to the current COS data, which have a substantially higher signal-to-noise ratio. The Gunn–Peterson trough recovers at lower redshifts, with the effective optical depth falling from $\tau_{\rm eff} \simeq 1.8$ at $z \sim 2.7$ to $\tau_{\rm eff} \simeq 0.7$ at $z \sim 2.3$. We see an interesting excess of flux near the Ly$\alpha$ break, which could be quasar line emission, although likely not Ly$\alpha$. We present spectra of four possible transverse-proximity quasars, although the UV hardness data are not of sufficient quality to say if their effects are seen along the HS1700 sightline.'
author:
- 'David Syphers and J. Michael Shull'
title: 'The Post–Reionization Epoch: [*HST*]{}/COS Observations of the Quasar HS1700+6416'
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
The full reionization of intergalactic helium, from to , was likely delayed compared to that of hydrogen because of the need for higher-energy photons than stars provide. While hydrogen was likely reionized at $z>6$ [e.g., @fan06; @shull12], quasars may have created sufficient photons with $E>4$ ryd to reionize helium at $z \sim 3$–4 [@furlanetto08]. This is consistent with redshift estimates from the intergalactic medium (IGM) temperature [e.g., @becker11], which increases noticeably during helium reionization, as well as estimates from the redshift evolution of the Gunn–Peterson optical depth (e.g., @syphers11a [@syphers12; @worseck11a]; but see @davies12).
The Gunn–Peterson test, in which a non-trivial ion fraction creates a trough by line absorption at every redshift [@gunn65], is the most direct test of the later stages of helium reionization. Unlike for hydrogen, this test is useful for helium even well before the completion of reionization, up to a fraction $x_{\rm HeII} \sim 0.1$ [@mcquinn09a; @syphers11b], and indicates that reionization completes at $z \sim 3$ or just below. There is noticeable sightline variance, however, and some sightlines have $x_{\rm He II} \gg 0.01$ down to redshift $z=2.7$ [@shull10].
HS1700+6416 (henceforth HS1700) is an extremely luminous ($r=15.9$) quasar at redshift $z_{\rm QSO} = 2.75$. Despite having several partial Lyman-limit systems [pLLS; @vogel95], it is still bright in the far UV, with flux down to the Ly$\alpha$ break at 303.78 Å in the rest frame [@davidsen96]. This makes it a “ quasar,” one of the few percent of $z \sim 3$ quasars that have visible flux at the Ly$\alpha$ break owing to unusually low integrated column densities along their sightlines.
In recent years, cross-matching quasar catalogs with [*Galaxy Evolution Explorer*]{} [[*GALEX*]{}; @morrissey07] UV imaging has lead to a vast increase in the number of known quasars [@syphers09b; @syphers09a; @syphers12; @worseck11a]. However, quasars that are “very bright,” with far-UV flux $f_{\lambda}^{\rm FUV} \gtrsim 10^{-15}$ erg s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ Å$^{-1}$, remain very rare. The only three known, in order of brightness, are HE2347$-$4342 [@reimers97; @shull10], HS1700, and 4C57.27 [@syphers12]. HS1700 is the lowest redshift of these, and with no black Gunn–Peterson trough, it probes the helium post-reionization epoch.
In Section \[sec:obs\] we present a new [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} [*(HST)*]{} far-UV spectrum of HS1700, and consider instrumental effects that might impact the science. In Section \[sec:tau\] we calculate the Gunn–Peterson optical depth seen in the HS1700 sightline, the subject of many previous observations, and we discuss the most relevant of these in Section \[sec:comparison\]. Although the new observations presented are superior in some respects, there are resolution and wavelength coverage advantages in some of the older data sets, which allow us to better interpret the current data. We discuss possible quasar line emission near the break in the context of comparison to the [*Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer*]{} [*(FUSE)*]{} spectrum. observations, when combined with spectroscopy, uniquely allow determination of the UV background hardness throughout most of the IGM, and we discuss this in Section \[sec:eta\]. In Section \[sec:proximity\] we discuss proximity effects, both from HS1700 itself and also transverse proximity effects from lower-redshift ionizing sources. We conclude in Section \[sec:conclusion\], and include a detailed discussion of our modeling of the spectrum background in the Appendix.
OBSERVATIONS {#sec:obs}
============
HS1700 was observed for 15,705 s on October 10, 2011, using the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph [COS; @green12] aboard [*HST*]{}. We used the G140L grating (resolving power $R \simeq 2000$–3000) to observe to wavelengths as short as possible. The spectrum is shown in Figure \[fig:full\_cos\], including a continuum fit discussed in Section \[sec:tau\]. The data were taken in TIME-TAG mode, which allowed us to make a cut avoiding those times with evident geocoronal $\lambda$1304, resulting in 5900 s of data during orbital night. In our plots and analysis, night-only data are used in wavelength regions contaminated by geocoronal emission, while all data are used elsewhere, because there is no evidence for a noticeable scattered-light background from geocoronal lines [@syphers12]. The data are processed with CALCOS 2.18.5, using a restricted extraction window, pulse height amplitude cuts, and an improved background subtraction method. These modifications of the standard extraction method are described in detail in the Appendix; they noticeably affect only data where the background contributes significantly to the spectrum ($\lambda \lesssim 1100$ Å).
We also require optical data to examine the corresponding to absorption, and for this we use the Keck HIRES spectrum from @simcoe02. This observation gave data with a resolution of 6.6 km s$^{-1}$ and a median S/N of 110 per resolution element.
The redshifts quoted in the literature for HS1700 vary significantly. At $z \sim 3$, the prominent quasar lines seen in optical spectra are high-ionization UV emission (including Ly$\alpha$ and $\lambda$1549), which can be shifted by many hundreds or even thousands of km s$^{-1}$ from the systemic redshift of the quasar [e.g., @vanden-berk01]. Because low-ionization metal lines tend to trace the systemic redshift much better, we measure $\lambda$1304 and $\lambda$1335 to find $z_{\rm QSO}=2.745 \pm 0.004$ (using the \[\]–corrected rest wavelengths of @vanden-berk01). @trainor12 adopted the slightly higher redshift $z_{\rm QSO}=2.751 \pm 0.003$ based on $\lambda$2798 in a Palomar/TripleSpec spectrum and H$\gamma$ in a Keck/NIRSPEC spectrum. (The best lines for quasar redshift determination, H$\beta$ and \[\] $\lambda$5007, are unfortunately blocked by atmospheric absorption at this redshift.) The break is consistent with both of these redshifts, particularly given the wavelength calibration uncertainty we discuss in section \[sec:wavcal\]. The difference between the two redshifts is only $1.2$$\sigma$, so we adopt the average $z_{\rm QSO}=2.748 \pm 0.005$ for this paper. The error is unfortunately not easily quantified, given the systematic uncertainties involved. Our adopted error is slightly larger than the statistical error in accommodation of this. We note that small redshift variations have no impact on our analysis of the Ly$\alpha$ forest, and matter only for discussion of the line-of-sight proximity effect (Section \[sec:LOS\_prox\]). The onset of the hydrogen Ly$\alpha$ forest at $z=2.7442$ is consistent with our adopted redshift, and clearly rules out the significantly lower $z_{\rm QSO} \simeq 2.72$–$2.73$ used in some earlier works [e.g., @reimers93; @fechner06; @wu10].
COS Wavelength Calibration {#sec:wavcal}
--------------------------
The G140L/1280 central wavelength setting uses both segments of the COS FUV detector, with a substantial gap in between. Segment A covers $\lambda \gtrsim 1270$ Å, while segment B covers $\lambda \lesssim 1170$ Å. COS wavelength calibration is accomplished using the spectrum of an onboard PtNe lamp, but there are no useable lines produced on segment B for G140L. Therefore the segment B wavelength solution is taken entirely from segment A [@oliveira10]. We have checked the wavelength calibration of COS segment A using strong ISM absorption lines, which show offsets of $\sim$30 km s$^{-1}$, substantially smaller than a resolution element (the latter is $\simeq$100–150 km s$^{-1}$).
Segment B does not appear so well aligned. The only strong ISM lines on segment B outside the Ly$\alpha$ forest are from , the strongest of which should be $\lambda$1144.94 Å. This line appears to be observed at $1142.96 \pm 0.05$ Å; although there are other lines closer to this wavelength, no absorption lines are evident in the spectrum at longer wavelength. Another method of determining a wavelength offset is to cross-correlate the and forests, because IGM density fluctuations should on average connect the two. A clear peak in the cross-correlation also suggests that the UV data need to be shifted to higher wavelengths, but by about 3.4 Å rather than 2.0 Å. Unfortunately, the low resolution and modest S/N of the COS data preclude a firm determination of the wavelength offset between optical and UV data.
Cross-correlation of COS data with the independently calibrated [*FUSE*]{} spectrum also gives a strong peak at a 2.0 Å shift of the COS data, and the [*FUSE*]{} spectrum shows ISM $\lambda$1143.2 Å and 1144.9 Å to be within $0.1$–$0.2$ Å of their expected locations. This magnitude of shift also makes the break most consistent with the adopted redshift. We therefore use the COS segment B spectrum shifted by $2.0$ Å as the standard version in our plots and discussion, but caution that this is not an entirely firm determination.
EVOLUTION OF EFFECTIVE OPTICAL DEPTH {#sec:tau}
====================================
In order to determine the optical depth of IGM , we need to extrapolate the quasar continuum to lower wavelengths. @syphers12 found that variations in smoothing length and other parameters dominate the error in this extrapolation of COS data. We follow their method of varying these values and taking the resulting range of continua as our uncertainty. We fit a power law to the COS FUV data, adopting $E(B-V)=0.026$ [@schlegel98], $R_V=3.1$, and the extinction curve of @fitzpatrick99. The COS spectrum, with its estimated continuum, is shown in Figure \[fig:full\_cos\]. Small uncertainties in the reddening are negligible, since, for example, using $E(B-V)=0.022$ [@schlafly11] changes our observed continuum estimation by only 2% at 1000 Å. Larger uncertainties in the reddening, $R_V$, or the extinction curve are systematics we do not account for in our errors.
While all we require for calculating $\tau_{\rm eff}$ is an extrapolation of the continuum below the break, HS1700 is one of the very few quasars for which we have continuous spectral coverage from the FUV to the optical. It is thus possible to actually measure the intrinsic power-law index, taking into account the many pLLS. This does not greatly affect the extrapolated values, but is of interest for determining the true extreme-UV (EUV, $\lambda \lesssim 912$ Å) spectral index. The small impact on $\tau_{\rm eff}$ discussed in detail in Section \[sec:stis\_comp\].
Detector background is important whenever the background counts are significant compared to the source counts. This happens with faint targets, high optical depth regions, and—most relevant to HS1700—at wavelengths where the instrumental throughput is very low. We are little affected by the background uncertainty at $\lambda \gtrsim 1100$ Å ( Ly$\alpha$ redshift $z \gtrsim 2.62$), but at shorter wavelengths [*HST*]{}/COS has very poor throughput, dropping from an effective area of nearly 2000 cm$^2$ at 1170 Å to only 100 cm$^2$ at 1090 Å and 10–20 cm$^2$ at $\lambda < 1070$ Å [@mccandliss10]. The default CALCOS background subtraction is problematic for a number of reasons, notably the problem of “$y$-dip,” where reduced sensitivity in the primary science aperture (PSA) on the detector leads to a lower background in the PSA compared to the region where the background is measured. For a substantially more detailed discussion of the COS background and the way CALCOS handles it, see @syphers12. We have dramatically improved background determination for COS data, and discuss our method in detail in the Appendix.
One additional concern for the calculation of $\tau_{\rm eff}$ is that by necessity one usually assumes that [*all*]{} absorption is due to . Hydrogen contamination is unlikely to be a major concern, as only weak higher-order lines of relatively rare low-redshift systems would affect this spectral region, but metal absorption can be noticeable. HS1700 is again fairly unusual among quasars because it has a very well-studied high-resolution optical spectrum, and much effort has gone into modeling its metal systems. @fechner06a performed detailed modeling of the HS1700 sightline, predicting the metal-line spectrum seen in the far-UV based on observed absorption systems and Cloudy modeling. Accounting for metal contamination is important when doing line fitting of the FUV spectrum [@fechner06], but it does not have a large effect when finding the effective optical depth over large bins. We nonetheless do account for their predicted metal spectrum [Fig. 7 in @fechner06a which also includes Galactic H$_2$], as it can shift $\tau_{\rm eff}$ by $0.1$–$0.15$ overall, and more in some redshift bins. (Their model does not cover $z < 2.292$ or $2.562 < z < 2.578$ since it was made to cover [*FUSE*]{} LiF data only.) However, we caution that such predictions are not possible for many quasars; we therefore show $\tau_{\rm eff}(z)$ in Fig. \[fig:tau\_evolution\] with and without modeling this absorption. Theoretical models do not yet depend on such small shifts, however.
The large-scale evolution of the Ly$\alpha$ optical depth is shown in Figure \[fig:tau\_evolution\]. As one would expect, the average optical depth decreases toward lower redshift. The COS data show a noticeably higher $\tau_{\rm eff}$ than was calculated for the [*FUSE*]{} data in @fechner06; the COS data on HS1700 give average optical depths much more line with those seen in HE2347 at similar redshifts [@shull10]. Note that many previous studies picked specific and irregular bins to capture what they felt were structures in $\tau_{\rm eff}(z)$ [e.g., @heap00; @zheng04b; @shull10]. Although theoretical models have been compared to these values for want of any other data [e.g., @dixon09], we feel this practice is not useful in general, and bins should be regular and made without regard to specific sightline structure to enable comparison to models (which, after all, are trying to reproduce average behavior, not specific structures). However, this specifically addresses broad $\tau_{\rm eff}(z)$ evolution measurements. A promising method that [*should*]{} examine regions chosen [*a posteriori*]{} is using “dark gaps” for helium the way it has been done for hydrogen [e.g., @paschos05; @gallerani06].
Our uncertainties incorporate the full range of acceptable power-law fits to the data, but these fits do not include any pLLS. If we consider the best-fit continuum including pLLS, the $\tau_{\rm eff}$ values are slightly lower, as shown by the asterisks in Figure \[fig:tau\_evolution\]. Such a continuum fit would marginally strengthen the case for increasing $\tau_{\rm eff}$ at higher redshift, but in every case the points lie within the 68% confidence intervals for the points from pure power-law fits.
In addition to broad evolution of the optical depth, the detailed small-scale evolution of $\tau_{\rm eff}(z)$ tells about the IGM density and local ionizing sources. We consider this in Section \[sec:eta\].
PRIOR OBSERVATIONS AND POTENTIAL LINE EMISSION {#sec:comparison}
==============================================
As one of the FUV-brightest high-redshift quasars on the sky, HS1700 has been observed many times before. It is bright enough to have been observed with the [*International Ultraviolet Explorer*]{} [IUE; @reimers89]. It was observed early with [*HST*]{} using the Faint Object Spectrograph [FOS; @reimers93], which did not have coverage down to the Ly$\alpha$ break, but showed that it had flux extending though the FUV. A [*Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope*]{} [*(HUT)*]{} observation confirmed that it was a quasar [@davidsen96]. Subsequent observations with the Goddard High-Resolution Spectrograph (GHRS) and the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS) were not put to use for helium-related science, but the [*FUSE*]{} spectrum (calibrated by low-resolution STIS) made it one of only two quasars to date with resolved Ly$\alpha$ forest observations. STIS covered the FUV and NUV, thereby allowing a fit of the entire spectrum, and the [*FUSE*]{} observations remain the highest resolution to date, albeit at low S/N.
To begin we make a brief comparison to an older data set, the FOS spectrum of @vogel95. We recommend that all FUV line identifications in this paper be confirmed in the COS spectrum, which has twice the resolution and higher S/N. The FOS spectrum may be suspect in some areas, with systematics larger than the quoted uncertainties. For example, the $\lambda$584 absorption line reported at $z=2.1678$ [@reimers93; @vogel95] does not exist in the COS spectrum, although the neighboring Galactic $\lambda$1854 clearly does. Locations for claimed $\lambda$584 at $z=2.290$ and $z=2.315$ do show real lines in the COS spectrum, which is important, as HS1700 is the only sightline with confirmed detections of this line in the IGM.
Possibility of EUV Quasar Emission Lines {#sec:line_emission}
----------------------------------------
One puzzle in EUV quasar spectra has been a lack of clear Ly$\alpha$ emission in most quasars, despite clear photoionization model predictions that this line should be evident in the broad line region [@syphers11a; @syphers12; @lawrence12]. The first claim of clearly seeing this line was @davidsen96 using [*HUT*]{} data on HS1700. However, no such line was seen in [*FUSE*]{} data (Figure \[fig:cos\_fuse\]). It seems clear from Figures \[fig:full\_cos\] and \[fig:cos\_fuse\] that no reasonable continuum fit easily explains the excess of flux near the Ly$\alpha$ break. It is unfortunate that the COS spectrum has a gap just redward of this rise in flux, allowing for the possibility that flux misalignment is the source of the problem (albeit a very unlikely one, since flux matching across segments has not been problematic with other data).
A flux excess is seen above the continuum fit at $1150 \pm 2$ Å, approximately 11 Å redward of the expected location of Ly$\alpha$. In the rest frame, the peak occurs at $306.8 \pm 0.5$ Å ($\sim$3000 km s$^{-1}$ redward of $\lambda 303.78$). Quasar broad emission lines are often notably blueshifted from the systemic velocity, but rarely redshifted and certainly not anywhere near this much. Contrived models of damped Ly$\alpha$ absorbers can be constructed at high redshift to account for an apparent line-center shift due to a strong red absorbing wing [@zheng08], but no such model is possible with the low helium optical depth in the HS1700 sightline. It is even more puzzling that the [*FUSE*]{} spectrum, discussed below, shows no evidence for this excess, despite otherwise agreeing well with the COS spectrum.
Therefore, we see no clear evidence for Ly$\alpha$ emission in HS1700. This leaves no detections of this line at good S/N, and only a few at low S/N and very low resolution [@syphers09a]. The lack of such emission despite predictions is puzzling, and may suggest that the models are overly simplistic. Because $\lambda304$ scatters resonantly within the broadline cloud, some of the emission will be absorbed in the continuum, leaving only the surface layers to contribute to the observed line emission. Also, the Cloudy photoionization modeling code does not properly handle Bowen resonance-fluorescence, where a Ly$\alpha$ photon excites via a coincidence of transitions around 303.8 Å [@bowen35; @osterbrock06 pp. 99–101]. However, Cloudy [*does*]{} destroy these photons based on the presence of , which should suffice for our predictions. It is possible that the emission seen in HS1700 could come from metals. Many models predict the blend of lines around $\lambda$306 Å to be the strongest metal emission anywhere near the break, although it is always predicted to be much weaker than Ly$\alpha$. The number of quasars with good-quality spectra of the region near quasar-frame Ly$\alpha$ continues to increase, and will hopefully offer more clues about both helium and metal lines in the EUV.
Comparison to FUSE {#sec:fuse_comp}
------------------
HS1700 was observed by [*FUSE*]{} several times, most extensively in 2003 [@reimers06a]. @fechner06 performed the most detailed study of the [*FUSE*]{} data relating to the Ly$\alpha$ forest. We present in Figure \[fig:cos\_fuse\] an improved reduction of the [*FUSE*]{} spectrum (not previously published). The data were reduced with CALFUSE 3.0.7 using night-only data (288 ks) and PHA channels 4–16, with customized background subtraction. Individual exposures and segments were separately zero-corrected before coaddition. The region 1081–1087 Å is known to be unusually noisy, but we include it in our figure for comparison with COS. @fechner06 excised this region from their analysis, but they used an earlier [*FUSE*]{} reduction with worse background subtraction.
Despite using night-only data, we still find noticeable geocoronal contamination in the [*FUSE*]{} spectrum, in part because of the large 30$'' \times 30''$ (LWRS) aperture used. This is nearly 200 times the area (and hence sky background) of the COS aperture, although both admit about the same amount of source flux.
[*FUSE*]{} had $R \sim $20,000, much higher than COS G140L ($R \sim 2500$), although it is possible that the resolution was degraded by pointing issues since the large aperture was used. As this is ideally high enough to resolve the Ly$\alpha$ forest, efforts were made to do so with the only other quasar observed with [*FUSE*]{}, HE2347 [@kriss01; @zheng04b; @shull04]. Although the resolution may be good enough to do this reliably, the S/N likely is not, for either HE2347 or HS1700 [@fechner06]. Unfortunately our COS data cannot resolve the forest, although a newly available bluer mode of the COS medium-resolution grating will allow such observations of some quasars down to $z \simeq 2.5$.
Comparison to STIS and the Intrinsic Spectral Index {#sec:stis_comp}
---------------------------------------------------
HS1700 was observed with STIS in 2003, for 2245 s using G140L ($R \sim 1000$) and 2166 s using G230L ($R \sim 500$). We plot this STIS data with our COS data superimposed in Figure \[fig:cos\_stis\]. HS1700 is known to be highly variable in the observed-frame FUV [@reimers05a], but we see only small differences in flux and spectral index between the two observations. Fitting a single power law below any strong pLLS Lyman breaks ($\lambda < 1900$ Å), we find that the STIS data give $\alpha_{\nu}=0.086^{+0.07}_{-0.05}$ (for $f_{\nu} \propto \nu^{\alpha_{\nu}}$), while the COS data give $\alpha_{\nu}=-0.13^{+0.11}_{-0.14}$.
However, because HS1700 is one of the few quasars with continuous spectral observations from the Ly$\alpha$ break to the Lyman limit, it is possible to estimate all hydrogen absorption systems along the sightline. We performed a spectrum fit to the STIS data including pLLS, using the redshifts and column densities of @fechner06a as initial parameters [many of the column densities are ultimately from @vogel95]. While the redshifts are derived from hydrogen and metal lines, and are therefore secure, the hydrogen column densities $N_{\rm HI}$ are less certain. The low S/N and very low resolution ($R \sim 500$) of the STIS NUV data makes fits problematic. Resolution is crucial even for measurements of the Lyman break, because the continua need to be well defined in a region with large amounts of contaminating absorption.
The reasonably high S/N in the data allows us to detect pLLS absorption edges down to column densities $\log{N_{\rm HI}} \geq 15.2$, corresponding to optical depths $\tau_{\rm HI} = (0.01)(N_{\rm HI} / 10^{15.2}~{\rm cm}^{-2})$. Our fit to the STIS data uses a single underlying power-law with 17 pLLS with $\log{N_{\rm HI}} \geq 15.2$, nine of which have $\log{N_{\rm HI}} \geq 16.2$ (see Figure \[fig:stis\_fit\]). For the most part we find column densities fairly close to those of @fechner06a, with the following exceptions. For the $z=1.8450$ system, we use $\log{N_{\rm HI}}=16.80$. The @fechner06a value of $16.21$ was derived from fitting Lyman series lines, but is inconsistent with the strength of the break. For the $z=2.1989$ system, we adopt $\log{N_{\rm HI}}=16.00$; while reported at $\log{N_{\rm HI}}=15.44$ in @fechner06a, a nontrivial break is helpful in the fit, although its column density is not well constrained. At $z=2.2895$, we see no Lyman break seen associated with this system, despite the @fechner06a value of $\log{N_{\rm HI}}=16.00$ ($\tau_{\rm HI}=0.063$).
With the redshifts and column densities of the pLLS fixed, we then fit the COS data from the break to the G140L instrumental cutoff at 2000 Å. We find the underlying EUV spectral indices to be $\alpha_{\nu}=-1.70$ (COS) and $\alpha_{\nu} = -1.62$ (STIS). These values agree with each other, considering systematic uncertainties. Quasars have widely varying spectral indices, but we note that this value is consistent with the average seen in radio-quiet [*HST*]{} EUV quasar spectra ($\alpha_{\nu} = -1.57 \pm 0.17$, @telfer02; $\alpha_{\nu}=-1.41\pm0.21$, @shull12a), though not with the [*FUSE*]{} average [$\alpha_{\nu} =- 0.56^{+0.38}_{-0.28}$, @scott04]. The dramatic difference between the underlying spectral index and the apparent $\alpha_{\nu} \sim 0$ spectral index from a power-law fit to the COS data indicates the difficulty of discerning the true value without continuous spectral coverage from the Lyman limit. HS1700 is, however, an extreme case with the number of pLLS it shows.
@giroux94 analyzed the metal-ion absorbers in these pLLS, showing that their abundances were inconsistent with photoionization equilibrium. Instead, they proposed a multiphase medium with hot, collisionally ionized gas producing much of the high ionization states of the C, N, and O ions. However, the / ratios crucial to the @giroux94 analysis depend on FOS observations of that are not entirely reliable, as we note above. @fechner06a, using better data, fit the systems as photoionized only, but do not discuss the possibility of collisional ionization.
We do not necessarily regard the fit of HS1700 with pLLS as superior to the simple power-law fit for calculating Gunn–Peterson optical depths. The two continuum extrapolations are compared in Figure \[fig:extrapolated\_continua\]. The pLLS fit does account for the non-power-law nature of the continuum, and should therefore indeed be superior, but there is nontrivial uncertainty in the column densities of the pLLS absorbers, and difficulty discerning the true continuum in data with low resolution and modest S/N [where the true continuum is easily confused with emission lines; @shull12a]. The high-transmission region near 1040 Å matches the power-law continuum quite well (Fig. \[fig:cos\_fuse\]), and the pLLS fit is slightly unphysical there, lying below the observed flux. The noise is fairly high in this region, so this is not a definitive test, but it does show that the pLLS fit is not necessarily better. The moderate-strength pLLS at $z<1$ can be included or not—the COS data do not strongly show them or rule them out. Wiggles in the apparent continuum can be due to emission lines rather than rises and falls associated with pLLS. In this case, because we have metal absorption data for these complexes [@fechner06a], it makes it more likely that they are truly pLLS. We do not see strong evidence for a spectral index break at 2000 Å (observed), as suggested in @fechner06.
THE IGM IONIZING BACKGROUND {#sec:eta}
===========================
One of the more interesting pieces of information in a spectrum of Ly$\alpha$, when used in conjunction with an Ly$\alpha$ spectrum covering the same redshift, is the hardness of the EUV background. The ratio is characterized by $\eta \equiv N_{\rm He II}/N_{\rm H I} \simeq 4 \times \tau_{\rm HeII}/\tau_{\rm HI}$. While metal-line ratios from different ions can yield more detailed information, using helium gives the great advantage of almost complete coverage at every observable redshift. Very high values of $\eta$ ($\gtrsim$500) are a sign of a soft ionizing field, dominated by stars, while low values suggest that the harder spectra of quasars dominates.
Our plot of $\eta(z)$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:eta\], but unfortunately low resolution and the wavelength calibration uncertainty do not allow us to draw strong conclusions about specific features. The data are convolved with the COS LSF prior to calculating $\tau_{\rm eff}$, although this has little impact because each redshift bin contains at least 2.7 COS resolution elements.
We find a median $\langle \eta \rangle_{\rm med}=31.7^{+1.5}_{-8.4}$ (68% confidence interval from bootstrapping), with the 25$^{\rm th}$–75$^{\rm th}$ percentile range being $\eta = 12$–128. For the mean we find $\langle \eta \rangle_{\rm mean} = 73^{+10}_{-11}$. @fechner06 found $\langle \eta \rangle_{\rm med} = 51$ in the HS1700 [*FUSE*]{} data, and $\langle \eta \rangle_{\rm med} = 79$ when they restrict to a subset of the data where they argue $\tau_{\rm HI}$ is more robustly measured. Along the HE2347 sightline, $\eta$ at $z=2.4$–2.73 was found to be $\langle \eta \rangle_{\rm med} = 33$ [@shull10]. The mean was $\langle \eta \rangle_{\rm mean} = 78 \pm 7$ in @kriss01 and similar in other works [@zheng04b; @shull10 although the latter quotes extremely large uncertainties].
Most of the $z=2.2$–2.7 IGM shows $\eta$ values consistent with quasars being the dominant source of ionizing photons, although some regions show softer backgrounds ($\eta \gtrsim 500$) that require strong filtering or local dominance by softer sources such as star-forming galaxies. Such a hard background on average is expected in the post-reionization epoch, where there is no longer strong absorption at the 4 ryd helium edge, as there was at higher redshift. @muzahid11 claim that the average IGM region has a fairly high $\eta$ based on the HE2347 sightline, and contend that low values ($\eta \lesssim 40$) may be signs of gas that is not photoionized. The contribution of collisionally ionized was seen in simulations [@shull10]. Nonetheless, quasars are fully capable of producing lower $\eta$ values, and indeed one might expect $\eta \sim 30$ for the [*average*]{} quasar spectrum filtered through an optically thin medium [@fardal98], aside from the many quasars that have spectra harder than average. In addition, median values of $\eta$ found here and some other works [e.g., @shull10] do not support the claim of high $\eta$ being common after helium reionization, although we caution that we are using somewhat lower resolution data than @muzahid11. With $\tau_{\rm eff}$ this makes a difference, as higher-transmission regions dominate, but as this affects both hydrogen and helium spectra, it is unclear which way this would skew $\eta$. Data in the Ly$\alpha$ forest at good resolution [*and*]{} good S/N is the only way to conclusively examine this, but as yet no such data exist. By considering the “sawtooth-modulated spectrum" produced by higher Lyman lines of , @madau09 predict a / ratio of $\eta \approx 35$ for optically thin filtering.
Because $\eta$ fluctuates strongly on fairly short scales [@shull10], its measurement is sensitive to systematic velocity offsets between the UV and the optical data. While we can confirm these averages for the post- reionization epoch, unfortunately, due to a larger-than-expected uncertainty in the wavelength calibration of the COS data, we are unable to speak about details in the $\eta$ fluctuations along the HS1700 sightline.
Last we note a small but nonzero chance that there is a systematically incorrect estimation of our optical depths due to the possibility of wavelength calibration uncertainty in the sensitivity curve. In our determination of the optical depths, we use the sensitivity curve of segment B data to predict the number of counts expected for an unabsorbed spectrum. For $\lambda \gtrsim 1080$ Å, the effective area of the COS detector changes rapidly [@mccandliss10], and a small shift in wavelength could have an impact. For example, a wavelength shift of 2 Å leads to an optical depth shift of $\Delta \tau \simeq 0.1$. This shift, while not entirely trivial, is small compared to the values and other sources of uncertainty, so even in the unlikely case that such a large wavelength shift were present in the calibration data, its impact on our science would be minimal.
PROXIMITY EFFECTS {#sec:proximity}
=================
Line-of-Sight Proximity Effect {#sec:LOS_prox}
------------------------------
Uncertainty in the systemic redshift of HS1700 has been a major source of uncertainty in interpreting the line-of-sight proximity effect. While nontrivial uncertainty remains, the redshift is now determined well enough to address this issue. Unfortunately, the COS data are of low resolution, and the break appears to be abrupt. We therefore consider the COS data in conjunction with the [*FUSE*]{} and Keck data, in Figure \[fig:zoomin\]. Wavelength calibration uncertainty (section \[sec:wavcal\]) is larger than systemic redshift uncertainty for evaluating the proximity effect, but the suggested zone is large enough—and well enough aligned with [*FUSE*]{} and Keck features—that this does not affect our results.
At first glance, the [*FUSE*]{} data suggest there is essentially no proximity effect at all. This would be unexpected for such a luminous quasar, although not unprecedented as no proximity zone is seen in HE2347 either [but this is complicated by strong intrinsic absorption; @fechner04; @shull10]. However, the apparent break in the [*FUSE*]{} spectrum is associated with a fairly strong absorber seen in as well. It is quite plausible that there is a zone surrounding this quasar out as far as the very high transmission in hydrogen is seen ($\sim$14–24 comoving Mpc), interrupted by surviving dense absorbers. The COS spectrum, which does not suffer from geocoronal $\lambda$1134 contamination like the [*FUSE*]{} spectrum does, supports this possibility. If the transmission peak near $z \simeq 2.73$ is indeed associated with the proximity zone, then the highest-redshift point in Fig. \[fig:tau\_evolution\] should be shifted up slightly, because some of this transmission lies in that bin.
Transverse Proximity Quasars {#sec:transverse_prox}
----------------------------
The transmission observed in the Ly$\alpha$ forest is in part a reflection of the overall state of helium in the IGM at a given redshift, a measurement of the global ionizing background that evolves during helium reionization. However, it also can depend on local ionizing sources. In particular, a quasar that is near the sightline can affect the ionization state of the gas along the sightline, leading to a transverse proximity effect. Measurements of this effect can give information about quasars, notably lifetimes and beaming angles [@furlanetto11; @lu11].
Measurement of increased transmission due to the transverse proximity effect on the Ly$\alpha$ forest has been unsuccessful [e.g., @kirkman08], likely due to factors such as quasars existing in regions that are denser than average, counteracting their increased ionizing flux. It has proved much more fruitful to look at ion ratios, which give information on spectral hardness and break the degeneracy between ionizing flux and IGM density. Metal systems can be used for such ratios [@goncalves08], but the vast majority of the path length through the Ly$\alpha$ forest has no observable metal systems. It has therefore been rewarding to compare the hydrogen and helium Ly$\alpha$ forests, which gives a measurement of spectral hardness that can be used anywhere. Several detections of transverse proximity quasars have been made this way, for the sightlines to Q0302$-$003 [@jakobsen03; @worseck06] and HE2347 [@worseck07].
We present the first survey for high-redshift quasars near the HS1700 sightline (Figure \[fig:trans\_prox\], Table \[tab:trans\_obs\]). The field near HS1700 is covered by SDSS imaging, with good-quality $u$$g$$r$$i$$z$ data. Unfortunately, the region near $z \sim 2.7$ is a known redshift desert for SDSS [@richards09], due to quasars overlapping the stellar locus in color-color space. Efforts have been made to construct photometric quasar catalogs nonetheless, and in our selection we draw on two of these, @richards09 and @bovy11. Because the targets observed spectroscopically were chosen for a variety of factors, we emphasize that this survey has considered most “good” candidates within $\sim$20$'$ ($\sim$10 proper Mpc) of the sightline with $r < 22$, but it is not complete.
We note that more efficient differentiation of quasars and stars can be achieved with many epochs of imaging allowing variability selection [e.g., @macleod11], or with IR bands for those quasars bright enough to be detected in [*WISE*]{} [@wu12]. Slitless spectroscopy is difficult for large fields in the optical, due to crowding, but it has been successfully used to identify transverse proximity quasars in some southern fields [@worseck08].
Our spectra of candidate transverse proximity quasars are shown in Figure \[fig:trans\_prox\]. To verify candidate quasars and obtain redshifts, we used the Dual Imaging Spectrograph (DIS) on the 3.5m telescope at Apache Point Observatory (APO). DIS has a blue side and a red side, with a constant dispersion of $1.8$ Å pixel$^{-1}$ in the blue and $2.3$ Å pixel$^{-1}$ in the red, with two pixels per resolution element. We use the blue side for $\lambda < 5425$ Å, and the red side longward of this. Independently calibrated, the two sides normally match fluxes seamlessly, but factors such as a poor trace of a faint spectrum can cause matching problems such as the one seen in Figure \[fig:trans\_prox\] for SDSSJ170219+640454.
[llllcccl]{} SDSSJ170032.86+640524.8 & 255.13694 & 64.09025 & $2.277 \pm 0.012$ & 3.72 & 21.7 & 60 & 2011.08.27\
SDSSJ170335.96+642603.8 & 255.89987 & 64.43439 & $2.381 \pm 0.003$ & 10.9& 21.7 & 90 & 2011.05.31\
SDSSJ170029.48+635750.9 & 255.12286 & 63.96415 & $2.588 \pm 0.014$ & 7.40 & 21.2 & 60 & 2012.05.29\
SDSSJ170219.00+640454.5 & 255.57921 & 64.08182 & $2.625 \pm 0.005 $ & 5.64 & 20.9 & 100 & 2012.05.16\
\[tab:trans\_obs\]
The identification of SDSSJ170032+640524 is tentative. There is only one very clear emission line in this spectrum, and the redshift depends on identifying this as Ly$\alpha$. 1549 does appear to be present at a consistent redshift, but no other lines are seen. If the strong emission line is instead , we should see H$\beta$ in the spectrum, but we do not. Spikes near 5600 Å and 6300 Å are narrow—consistent with purely instrumental broadening ($\sim$250 km s$^{-1}$), and thus likely noise—while the identified emission line has a FWHM of $\sim$1300 km s$^{-1}$. This would make it narrow for a quasar, but much too broad to be from a star-forming galaxy.
SDSSJ170335+642603, at $z=2.381$, is unfortunately of minimal observational interest for transverse proximity effects. At that redshift, Ly$\alpha$ is observed at 1027 Å—right on top of geocoronal Ly$\beta$, a strong contaminating feature in our COS spectrum.
There is a significant protocluster of galaxies at $z \simeq 2.30$ within a few arcminutes of the sightline; this protocluster should generate a soft UV background, with many star-forming galaxies but no reported AGN [@steidel05]. This could therefore potentially affect Ly$\alpha$ transmission in the sightline, but not Ly$\alpha$ transmission. However, we see no evidence for a soft photoionization effect (Fig. \[fig:eta\]).
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:conclusion}
===========
We have presented a new COS spectrum of the bright quasar HS1700. This spectrum has the highest S/N and resolution of any UV spectrum of this quasar in the region $1170 \lesssim \lambda \lesssim 2000$ Å, and higher S/N and much better background subtraction than the [*FUSE*]{} spectrum at shorter wavelengths. This allows us to accurately calculate $\tau_{\rm eff}(z)$ for this sightline, finding values significantly higher than previously reported, at in agreement with values found for the HE2347 sightline at the same redshifts. The post-reionization epoch is characterized by steadily falling effective optical depths, and a UV background that is varying but consistent with being dominated by the hard spectrum of quasars.
HS1700 was one of the few quasars with a claimed detection of Ly$\alpha$ emission, and by far the brightest. Our COS spectrum does indeed show an excess of flux near the Ly$\alpha$ break, significantly above any reasonable continuum fit. However, the apparent peak of this flux is about 3000 km s$^{-1}$ away from Ly$\alpha$ at the quasar rest-frame, even when using the much higher and more accurate systemic redshift of $z_{\rm HS1700}=2.75$.
Transverse proximity quasars are difficult to detect, but one of the most promising methods has been to look at variations of the spectral hardness using $\eta$. We present four candidate proximity quasars along the HS1700 sightline. Although none are clearly detected in the present data by $\eta$ variations, two are at high enough redshift that they could be observed at $R > 10$,000 with a newly available COS mode. This resolution, combined with the much greater wavelength calibration certainty compared to the present G140L data, could definitively answer whether or not they are observed in the transverse proximity effect. Either answer has interesting implications for quasar physics.
Background determination is one of the largest sources of uncertainty for studies of effective optical depth. In this paper we present and use for the first time a new method of COS background subtraction that substantially improves on the pipeline strategy. This method will be even more important when looking both at fainter targets, and crucially, prior to the end of helium reionization, when the optical depths are large.
We thank Rob Simcoe for providing the Keck spectrum of HS1700, Jerry Kriss and Jennifer Scott for providing their final reduction of the [*FUSE*]{} spectrum, and Justin Ely for useful conversations regarding the COS background.
This work was supported by NASA grants NNX08AC146 and NAS5-98043 to the University of Colorado at Boulder.
[*Facilities:*]{} ,
[68]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}
, G. D., [Bolton]{}, J. S., [Haehnelt]{}, M. G., & [Sargent]{}, W. L. W. 2011, , 410, 1096
, J., [et al.]{} 2011, , 729, 141
, I. S. 1935, , 81, 1
, A. F., [Kriss]{}, G. A., & [Zheng]{}, W. 1996, Nature, 380, 47
, F. B., & [Furlanetto]{}, S. R. 2012, [arXiv: 1209.4900]{}
, K. L., & [Furlanetto]{}, S. R. 2009, , 706, 970
, D. J., [et al.]{} 2011, , 142, 72
, X., [Carilli]{}, C. L., & [Keating]{}, B. 2006, , 44, 415
, M. A., [Giroux]{}, M. L., & [Shull]{}, J. M. 1998, , 115, 2206
, C., [Baade]{}, R., & [Reimers]{}, D. 2004, , 418, 857
, C., [Reimers]{}, D., [Songaila]{}, A., [Simcoe]{}, R. A., [Rauch]{}, M., & [Sargent]{}, W. L. W. 2006, , 455, 73
, C., [et al.]{} 2006, , 455, 91
, E. L. 1999, , 111, 63
, S. R., & [Lidz]{}, A. 2011, , 735, 117
, S. R., & [Oh]{}, S. P. 2008, , 681, 1
, S., [Choudhury]{}, T. R., & [Ferrara]{}, A. 2006, , 370, 1401
, M. L., [Sutherland]{}, R. S., & [Shull]{}, J. M. 1994, , 435, L97
, T. S., [Steidel]{}, C. C., & [Pettini]{}, M. 2008, , 676, 816
, J. C., [et al.]{} 2012, , 744, 60
, J. E., & [Peterson]{}, B. A. 1965, , 142, 1633
, S. R., [Williger]{}, G. M., [Smette]{}, A., [Hubeny]{}, I., [Sahu]{}, M. S., [Jenkins]{}, E. B., [Tripp]{}, T. M., & [Winkler]{}, J. N. 2000, , 534, 69
, P., [Jansen]{}, R. A., [Wagner]{}, S., & [Reimers]{}, D. 2003, , 397, 891
, D., & [Tytler]{}, D. 2008, , 391, 1457
, G. A. 2011, [COS Instrument Science Report 2011-01: Improved Medium Resolution Line Spread Functions for COS FUV Spectra]{}, [Baltimore: STScI]{}
, G. A., [et al.]{} 2001, Science, 293, 1112
, A. 2012, , 423, 451
, Y., & [Yu]{}, Q. 2011, , 736, 49
, C. L., [et al.]{} 2011, , 728, 26
, P., & [Haardt]{}, F. 2009, , 693, L100
, S. R., [France]{}, K., [Osterman]{}, S., [Green]{}, J. C., [McPhate]{}, J. B., & [Wilkinson]{}, E. 2010, , 709, L183
, M. 2009, , 704, L89
, P., [et al.]{} 2007, , 173, 682
, S., [Srianand]{}, R., & [Petitjean]{}, P. 2011, , 410, 2193
, C., [Beland]{}, S., [Keyes]{}, C., & [Niemi]{}, S. 2010, [COS Instrument Science Report 2010-06: SMOV: COS FUV Wavelength Calibration]{}, [Baltimore: STScI]{}
, D. E., & [Ferland]{}, G. J. 2006, [Astrophysics of gaseous nebulae and active galactic nuclei]{} (2nd ed.; Sausalito, CA: University Science Books)
, P., & [Norman]{}, M. L. 2005, , 631, 59
, D., [Clavel]{}, J., [Groote]{}, D., [Engels]{}, D., [Hagen]{}, H. J., [Naylor]{}, T., [Wamsteker]{}, W., & [Hopp]{}, U. 1989, , 218, 71
, D., [Fechner]{}, C., [Kriss]{}, G., [Shull]{}, M., [Baade]{}, R., [Moos]{}, W., [Songaila]{}, A., & [Simcoe]{}, R. 2006, [FUSE observations of the HeII Lyman alpha forest towards HS1700+6416]{}, Vol. 348 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series), 41
, D., [Hagen]{}, H., [Schramm]{}, J., [Kriss]{}, G. A., & [Shull]{}, J. M. 2005, , 436, 465
, D., [Kohler]{}, S., [Wisotzki]{}, L., [Groote]{}, D., [Rodriguez-Pascual]{}, P., & [Wamsteker]{}, W. 1997, , 327, 890
, D., & [Vogel]{}, S. 1993, , 276, L13
, G. T., [et al.]{} 2009, , 180, 67
, E. F., & [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P. 2011, , 737, 103
, D. J., [Finkbeiner]{}, D. P., & [Davis]{}, M. 1998, , 500, 525
, J. E., [Kriss]{}, G. A., [Brotherton]{}, M., [Green]{}, R. F., [Hutchings]{}, J., [Shull]{}, J. M., & [Zheng]{}, W. 2004, , 615, 135
, J. M., [France]{}, K., [Danforth]{}, C. W., [Smith]{}, B., & [Tumlinson]{}, J. 2010, , 722, 1312
, J. M., [Harness]{}, A., [Trenti]{}, M., & [Smith]{}, B. D. 2012, , 747, 100
, J. M., [Stevans]{}, M., & [Danforth]{}, C. W. 2012, , 752, 162
, J. M., [Tumlinson]{}, J., [Giroux]{}, M. L., [Kriss]{}, G. A., & [Reimers]{}, D. 2004, , 600, 570
, R. A., [Sargent]{}, W. L. W., & [Rauch]{}, M. 2002, , 578, 737
, C. C., [Adelberger]{}, K. L., [Shapley]{}, A. E., [Erb]{}, D. K., [Reddy]{}, N. A., & [Pettini]{}, M. 2005, , 626, 44
, D., [Anderson]{}, S. F., [Zheng]{}, W., [Haggard]{}, D., [Meiksin]{}, A., [Schneider]{}, D. P., & [York]{}, D. G. 2009, , 185, 20
, D., [Anderson]{}, S. F., [Zheng]{}, W., [Meiksin]{}, A., [Haggard]{}, D., [Schneider]{}, D. P., & [York]{}, D. G. 2011, , 726, 111
, D., [Anderson]{}, S. F., [Zheng]{}, W., [Meiksin]{}, A., [Schneider]{}, D. P., & [York]{}, D. G. 2012, , 143, 100
, D., [et al.]{} 2009, , 690, 1181
—. 2011, , 742, 99
, R. C., [Zheng]{}, W., [Kriss]{}, G. A., & [Davidsen]{}, A. F. 2002, , 565, 773
, R. F., & [Steidel]{}, C. C. 2012, , 752, 39
, D. E., [et al.]{} 2001, , 122, 549
, S., & [Reimers]{}, D. 1995, , 294, 377
, G., [Fechner]{}, C., [Wisotzki]{}, L., & [Dall’Aglio]{}, A. 2007, , 473, 805
, G., & [Wisotzki]{}, L. 2006, , 450, 495
, G., [Wisotzki]{}, L., & [Selman]{}, F. 2008, , 487, 539
, G., [et al.]{} 2011, , 733, L24
, J., [Charlton]{}, J. C., [Misawa]{}, T., [Eracleous]{}, M., & [Ganguly]{}, R. 2010, , 722, 997
, X.-B., [Hao]{}, G., [Jia]{}, Z., [Zhang]{}, Y., & [Peng]{}, N. 2012, [arXiv: 1204.6197]{}
, W., [et al.]{} 2004, , 605, 631
—. 2008, , 686, 195
Determining the COS FUV Background {#app:bg}
==================================
The background of COS is dominated by dark current from the detector, except at specific wavelengths where geocoronal line emission dominates. Scattered and Zodiacal light is negligible [@syphers12]. The current CALCOS (2.18.5) method for background determination uses two windows offset from the primary science aperture (PSA) in the cross-dispersion ($y$) direction, with a running average over 100 pixels[^1] in the dispersion ($x$) direction. The drawbacks of this method are discussed extensively in @syphers12, and here we present the first implementation of the improved method suggested in that work.
The primary problem is so-called $y$-dip, where counts in the PSA have lower pulse-height amplitudes (PHAs) than those in background regions (see Fig. 6 in @syphers12). Because of detector thresholds and PHA cuts, this means the background in the PSA is actually noticeably lower than the background inferred from regions offset in $y$. (We note that this problem is lessened but by no means removed if no PHA filtering is imposed, and such inclusive analysis adds a large amount of noise.) On July 23, 2012, the PSA was shifted to a new lifetime position on the detector, but $y$-dip will again become an issue as the new position is used more. Also, an [*underestimate*]{} of the background could occur if background windows overlap regions previously affected by $y$-dip.
@syphers12 suggest using data from the COS FUV dark monitoring programs (GO 11895, 12423, and 12716) to precisely characterize the dark current in the PSA, and use this for background subtraction. Although ideally the dark would be recorded without binning, the very low dark current precludes this. The rate at $2 \leq {\rm PHA} \leq 30$ is $\simeq 2 \times 10^{-6}$ counts s$^{-1}$ pixel$^{-1}$, and the dark monitoring programs collect data fairly infrequently—once a week for about 27 ks per month for 11895 (September 2009 to October 2010) and once every two weeks for 13 ks per month for the more recent programs. At this pace it would require years of collection to obtain on average a single background count per pixel. The $y$-dip evolves noticeably with time, because it is caused by burn-in of the detector, so averaging data over too-long intervals is problematic. Absent more frequent dark monitoring, we must both average moderately long time intervals and smooth the background.
We exclude dark exposures with unusually high overall count rates (we used the limit $6 \times 10^{-6}$ counts s$^{-1}$ pixel$^{-1}$, but caution that the average background does vary noticeably with the solar cycle). There are two categories of individual pixels with excessive counts: transient hot spots and consistent hot spots. Individual exposures are checked for transient hot pixels, and we exclude any pixel with an excursion that would be expected $<1$% of the time on the detector, assuming Poisson noise. Consistent hot pixels also exist and are excluded. These show up as very improbable excursions on the coadded master dark, but on any individual exposure they are often probable enough to not be excluded. A true pixel-by-pixel master dark would include such elevated rates, but our smoothed version does not, as that would contaminate surrounding pixels. In addition, when working in regions that are very sensitive to background rates, we recommend excluding regions known to have elevated backgrounds (data quality flag 32).
We also impose a PHA cut on our data that is more stringent than the pipeline standard. The CALCOS pipeline by default includes 2 $\leq$ PHA $\leq$ 30 (recorded PHA ranges from 0 to 31). However, the PHA distribution for sources is sharply peaked at lower PHA, while the PHA distribution for dark counts is much flatter. For the segment A, tests with HS1700 showed that source counts contributed significantly only to the bins 1 $\leq$ PHA $\leq$ 14, and there were no detectable source counts for PHA $\geq$ 16 (whereas about 30% of dark counts have PHA $\geq$ 16). The detection of source counts in the PHA $=$ 15 bin is marginal, and in any case $< 0.07$% of source counts have this PHA. Counts with PHA $=$ 1 are a more subtle case, as $\simeq$70% of them are source counts, but they are not included in the flux calibration. We choose to neglect these counts—only $\simeq$$0.5$% of source counts lie in this bin, and the important thing for our optical depth analysis is to predict source counts for an unabsorbed spectrum (using the flux calibration to convert from extrapolated flux to counts) and measure them in exactly the same way. Segment B is similar, although at slightly higher PHA due to the higher voltage of that segment. There are no detectable source counts with PHA $=$ 2–3, but nontrivial numbers have PHA $=$ 15–16. (We note that there [*are*]{} substantial source counts with lower PHA in those portions of the detector strongly affected by gain sag due to geocoronal Ly$\alpha$, but all such regions lie below the Galactic cutoff of 912 Å for G140L data.) Our analysis of the HS1700 data is therefore restricted to 2 $\leq$ PHA $\leq$ 14 on segment A, and 4 $\leq$ PHA $\leq$ 16 on segment B. We do recommend analyzing a specific data set prior to making PHA cuts, because the PHA distribution has several time dependencies, notably including loss of sensitivity in the exposed portion of the detector, shifts to a new lifetime position (as was done in July 2012), or changes in the high-voltage settings.
The spectrum extraction width (in the cross-dispersion direction) also contributes substantially to how much background is included. The default extraction width for COS G140L data is 57 pixels in $y$, but the spectrum width is much smaller than this, and therefore many unnecessary dark counts are included. For the HS1700 data analyzed here, we use an extraction width of 30 pixels for segment A, and 35 pixels for segment B. This is fairly generous, as $>$95% of all source counts are contained within 20 pixels over most of the detector, but we err on the side of being inclusive because the flux calibration will be off if too many source counts are cut out. Also, the spectrum widens slightly at detector edges, including high wavelengths on the segment A ($\lambda \gtrsim 1900$ Å) and the usable portion of the segment B ($1000 \lesssim \lambda \lesssim 1175$ Å). With our chosen widths, we preserve essentially all source counts for most of the spectrum, and $>$98% at all wavelengths.
We directly verify flux accuracy by comparing standard extracted spectra to our extracted versions, and finding essentially identical flux levels in regions where the background is negligible. With both PHA cuts and a narrower extraction width, we reduce our background to about 40% of what it would be in a default extraction, without appreciably losing source counts.
[^1]: We refer throughout this discussion to pixels, which unless otherwise specified means the two-dimensional pixels created by digitizing the output of the cross delay line detector. While the COS detector itself does not have physical pixels, they are fundamental in the data the observer receives.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address:
- |
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, United Kingdom\
E-mail: [email protected]
- |
Dept. Fisica Teorica, Univ. de Valencia, c. Dr. Moliner 50, E-46100 Burjassot (Valencia), Spain\
E-mail: [email protected]
- |
Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, 24-29 St. Giles’, Oxford, OX1 3LB, United Kingdom\
E-mail: [email protected]
author:
- 'CHAN Hong-Mo'
- José BORDES
- TSOU Sheung Tsun
title: THE DUALIZED STANDARD MODEL AND ITS APPLICATIONS
---
In this article, we summarize some work which has occupied us for some years. The material has been summarized in 5 papers submitted to this conference (Papers 607, 610, 611, 613, 636), and this talk is but a summary of these summaries.
The Dualized Standard Model [@Chantsou1] is a scheme which aims to answer some of the questions left open by the Standard Model (such as why Higgs fields or fermion generations should exist) and to explain the values of some the Standard Model’s many parameters (such as fermion masses and mixing angles). In contrast to most schemes with similar aims, the DSM remains entirely within the Standard Model framework, introducing neither supersymmetry nor higher space-time dimensions. That it is able to derive results beyond the Stardard Model while remaining within its framework is by exploiting a generalization of electric-magnetic duality to nonabelian Yang-Mills theory found a couple of years ago [@Chanftsou1].
The concept of duality is best explained by recalling the well-known example in electromagnetism. There a dual transform (the Hodge star) is defined: ${}^*\!F_{\mu\nu} = -(1/2) \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} F^{\rho\sigma}$, where for both the Maxwell field $F_{\mu\nu}$ and its dual ${}^*\!F_{\mu\nu}$ potentials $A_\mu$ and $\tilde{A}_\mu$ exist, so that the theory is invariant under both $A_\mu$ and $\tilde{A}_\mu$ gauge transformations. The theory has thus in all a $U(1) \times \tilde{U}(1)$ gauge symmetry with $U(1)$ corresponding to electricity and $\tilde{U}(1)$ to magnetism. Magnetic charges are monopoles in $U(1)$, while electric charges are monopoles of $\tilde{U}(1)$.
The same statements do not hold for nonabelian Yang-Mills theory under the dual transform [@Guyang] (star). However, it was shown [@Chanftsou1] that there exists a generalized dual transform for which similar results apply. Its exact form, in the language of loop space [@Polyakov; @Chantsou2], need not here bother us. What matters, however, is that given this generalized transform, a potential can again be defined for both the Yang-Mills field and its dual, and that the theory is invariant under both the gauge transformations: $$A_\mu \to A_\mu +\partial_\mu \Lambda + ig [\Lambda, A_\mu],
\
\tilde{A}_\mu \to \tilde{A}_\mu +\partial_\mu \tilde{\Lambda}
+ i \tilde{g} [\tilde{\Lambda}, \tilde{A}_\mu],
\label{Attransf}$$ with $g, \tilde{g}$ satisfying the (generalized) Dirac quantization condition [@Chantsou3]: $g \tilde{g} = 4 \pi$. As a result, the theory has in all the gauge symmetry $SU(N) \times
\widetilde{SU}(N)$ with $SU(N)$ corresponding to (electric) ‘colour’ and $\widetilde{SU}(N)$ to (magnetic) ‘dual colour’. And again, dual colour charges are monopoles in $SU(N)$, while colour charges appear as monopoles in $\widetilde{SU}(N)$ [@Chanftsou2].
Applied to colour in the Standard Model, this nonabelian duality [@Chanftsou1] gives two new interesting features. First, dual to the $SU(3)$ symmetry of colour, the theory possesses also an $\widetilde{SU}(3)$ symmetry of dual colour. Then, by a well-known result of ’t Hooft [@thooft], since colour is confined, it follows that this $\widetilde{SU}(3)$ of dual colour has to be broken via a Higgs mechanism[^1]. Hence, the theory already contains within itself a broken 3-fold gauge symmetry which could play the role of the ‘horizontal’ symmetry wanted to explain the existence in nature of the 3 fermion generations. Second, in the generalized dual transform [@Chanftsou1], the frame vectors (‘dreibeins’) in the gauge group take on a dynamical role [@Chanftsou2] which suggests that they be promoted to physical fields. If so, then they possess the properties that one wants for Higgs fields for symmetry breaking (as in electroweak theory): space-time scalars belonging to the fundamental representation having classical values (vev’s) with finite lengths.
The basis of the Dualized Standard Model is just in making this bold assumption of identifying the dual colour $\widetilde{SU}(3)$ as the ‘horizontal’ generation symmetry and of the frame vectors in it as the Higgs fields for its breaking. We note that according to nonabelian duality [@Chanftsou1], the niches already exist in the original theory in the form of the dual symmetry and the ‘dreibeins’. One could thus claim that the DSM offers an explanation for the existence both of exactly 3 fermion generations and of Higgs fields necessary for breaking this generation symmetry.
This identification further suggests the manner in which the symmetry ought to be broken. As a result, the fermion mass matrix at tree-level takes the form [@Chantsou1]: $$m = m_T \left( \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \\ z \end{array} \right) (x,y,z),
\label{massmat0}$$ where $m_T$ is a normalization factor depending on the fermion-type $T$, namely whether $U$- or $D$-type quarks, charged leptons ($L$) or neutrinos ($N$), and $x, y, z$ are vacuum expectation values of Higgs fields (normalized for convenience: $x^2 + y^2 + z^2 = 1$), which are independent of the fermion-type $T$. Because $m$ is factorizable it has only one nonzero eigenvalue so that at tree-level there is only one massive generation (fermion mass hierarchy). Further, because $(x, y, z)$ is independent of the fermion-type, the state vectors of, say, the $U$- and $D$-type quarks in generation space have the same orientation, so that the CKM matrix is the unit matrix. These are already not a bad first approximation to the experimental situation.
One can go further, however. With loop corrections, it is seen that the mass matrix $m'$ remains factorizable [@Chantsou1], with the same form as (\[massmat0\]), but the vector $(x', y', z')$, in which the relevant information of $m'$ is encoded, now rotates with the energy scale, tracing out a trajectory on the unit sphere. Hence, the lower generation fermions acquire small finite masses via ‘leakage’ from the highest generation. Furthermore, the vector $(x', y', z')$ depends now on the fermion-type, giving rise to a nontrivial CKM matrix. The result is a perturbative method for calculating fermion mass and mixing parameters.
In a 1-loop calculation [@Bordesetal1; @Bordesetal2] it is found that out of the many diagrams only the Higgs loop diagram dominates, involving thus only a few adjustable parameters. The present score is as follows. By adjusting 3 parameters, namely a Yukawa coupling strength $\rho$ and the 2 ratios between the Higgs vev’s $x, y, z$, one has calculated the following 14 of the ‘fundamental’ SM parameters:\
$\bullet$ the 3 parameters of the quark CKM matrix $|V_{rs}|$,\
$\bullet$ the 3 parameters of the lepton CKM matrix $|U_{rs}|$,\
$\bullet$ $m_c, m_s, m_\mu, m_u, m_d, m_e$,\
$\bullet$ the masses $m_{\nu_1}$ of the lightest and $B$ of the right-\
handed neutrinos,\
there being no $CP$-violation at 1-loop order.
First, for the quark CKM matrix $|V_{rs}|$, where $r = u, c, t$ and $s =
d, s, b$, one obtains for a sample fit [@Chantsou4]: $$|V_{rs}| =
\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0.9752 & 0.2215 & 0.0048 \\
0.2210 & 0.9744 & 0.0401 \\
0.0136 & 0.0381 & 0.9992 \end{array} \right),
\label{calckmq}$$ as compared with the experimental values [@databook]: $$\left( \begin{array}{lll} 0.9745-0.9760 & 0.217-0.224 & 0.0018-0.0045 \\
0.217-0.224 & 0.9737-0.9753 & 0.036-0.042 \\
0.004-0.013 & 0.035-0.042 & 0.9991-0.9994
\end{array} \right).
\label{expckmq}$$ All the calculated values are seen to lie roughly within the experimental bounds.
Second, for the lepton CKM matrix $|U_{rs}|$, one obtains with the [*same*]{} 3 input parameters: $$|U_{rs}| = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0.97 & 0.24 & 0.07 \\
0.22 & 0.71 & 0.66 \\
0.11 & 0.66 & 0.74 \end{array} \right),
\label{calckml}$$ where $r = e, \mu, \tau$ and $s = 1, 2, 3$ label the physical states of the neutrinos. The empirical values of $|U_{rs}|$ for leptons are much less well-known. Collecting all the information so far available from neutrino oscillation experiments, one arrives at the following tentative arrangement: $$|U_{rs}| = \left( \begin{array}{ccc} \star & 0.4-0.7 & 0.0-0.15 \\
\star & \star & 0.45-0.85 \\
\star & \star & \star \end{array} \right).
\label{expckml}$$ which is seen to be in very good agreement with the prediction (\[calckml\]) for $U_{e3}$ and $U_{\mu3}$, but not for $U_{e2}$.
Lastly, from the [*same*]{} calculation with the [*same*]{} 3 parameters, one obtains the fermion masses listed in Table \[Masses\]. The
$$\begin{aligned}
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
& Calculation & Experiment \\
\hline
m_c & 1.327 {\rm GeV} & 1.0-1.6 {\rm GeV} \\
m_s & 0.173 {\rm GeV} & 100-300 {\rm MeV} \\
m_\mu & 0.106 {\rm GeV} & 105.7 {\rm MeV} \\
m_u & 235 {\rm MeV} & 2-8 {\rm MeV} \\
m_d & 17 {\rm MeV} & 5-15 {\rm MeV} \\
m_e & 7 {\rm MeV} & 0.511 {\rm MeV} \\
m_{\nu_1} & 10^{-15} {\rm eV} & < 10 {\rm eV} \\
B & 400 {\rm TeV} & ? \\
\hline
\end{array}\end{aligned}$$ \[Masses\]
second generation masses agree very well with experiment. Those of the lowest generation were obtained by extrapolation on a logarithmic scale and should be regarded as reasonable if of roughly the right magnitude. As for the 2 neutrino masses, the experimental bounds are so weak that there is essentially no check.
In summary, out of the 14 quantities calculated, 8 are good ($|V_{rs}|, |U_{\mu3}|, |U_{e3}|, m_c, m_s, m_\mu$), 2 are reasonable ($m_d, m_e$), 2 are unsatisfactory ($|U_{e2}|, m_u$), and 2 are untested, which is not a bad score for a first-order calculation with only 3 parameters.
One interesting feature for the calculation outlined above is that the trajectories traced out by the vector $(x', y', z')$ for the 4 different fermion-types $U, D, L, N$ all coincide to a very good approximation, only with the 12 physical fermion states at different locations (Figure \[trajectory\]).
The points $(1,0,0)$ and $\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}
(1,1,1)$ are fixed points so that the rate of flow is slower near the ends of the trajectory than in the middle. For this reason, the states $t$ and $b$ are close together in spite of their big mass difference. This observation will be of relevance later.
Since neutrino oscillations [@SuperK] are of particular interest at this conference, let us take a closer look [@Bordesetal2]. The element $U_{\mu3}$ of the lepton CKM matrix giving the mixing between the muon neutrino $\nu_\mu$ and the heaviest neutrino $\nu_3$ is constrained mainly by the data on atmospheric neutrinos. From the old Kamiokande data [@Kamiokande] an analysis by Giunti et al.[@Giunti] gives the bounds on $U_{\mu3}$ shown in Figure \[Umu3\]. In the DSM scheme, with
parameters already fixed by the fit to the quark sector [@Bordesetal1], the elements of $|U_{rs}|$ are calculable given the masses of $\nu_3$ and $\nu_2$. Then, with $m_{\nu_2}$ taken in the range $10^{-11} {\rm eV}^2 < m_2^2 < 10^{-10} {\rm eV}^2$ as suggested by the Long Wave-Length Osicillation (LWO) (or the ‘vacuum’ or ‘just-so’) solution to the solar neutrino problem [@Barger; @Krastev], the predicted band of values of $|U_{\mu3}|$ for a range of input values of $m_{\nu_3}$ is shown in Figure \[Umu3\], passing right through the middle of the allowed region. No similar detailed analysis of the new SuperKamiokande data [@SuperK] has yet been performed, but the predicted band can be seen to remain well within the allowed region: $.53 < U_{\mu 3}
< .85,\ 5 \times 10^{-4} < m^2_3 < 6 \times 10^{-3} {\rm eV}^2$.
The same calculation gives the prediction shown in Figure \[Ue3\] for the element $U_{e3}$ representing the mixing between the electron neutrino $\nu_e$ and $\nu_3$, which is constrained mainly by the reactor data from CHOOZ [@Chooz] and Bugey [@Bugey]. If $m_3^2$ is higher than $2 \times 10^{-3} {\rm eV}^2$, as favoured by the old Kamiokande data [@Kamiokande; @Giunti] and the new data from Soudan reported in this conference [@Soudan], then the negative result from CHOOZ restricts $U_{e3}$ to quite small values, as indicated in Figure \[Ue3\] and
quoted in (\[expckml\]). The new SuperKamiokande data [@SuperK] gives a best-fit value for $m_3^2$ of $2.2 \times 10^{-3}$, still implying by CHOOZ a small value for $U_{e3}$, but do not exclude lower values of $m_3$ and hence much larger values of $U_{e3}$. In any case, as seen in Figure \[Ue3\], the band of values predicted by the DSM calculation falls always comfortably within the allowed region.
The DSM results summarized above for neutrino oscillations were obtained assuming $m_2^2$ of order $10^{-11}$ to $10^{-10} {\rm eV}^2$, as suggested by the LWO solution [@Barger; @Krastev]. The alternative MSW [@MSW] solutions for solar neutrinos require [@MSWfit] $m_2^2 \sim
10^{-5} {\rm eV}^2$, for which no sensible DSM solution was found [@Bordesetal2]. It is thus intriguing to hear in this conference that the new SuperKamiokande data on the day-night variation and energy spectrum of solar neutrinos [@SuperK] also favours the LWO solution.
Further, generation being identified with dual colour in DSM, one expects only 3 generations of neutrinos. Thus, the result from Karmen [@Karmen] reported in this conference against the existence of another neutrino with mass of order eV, as previously suggested by the LSND experiment [@LSND], is also in the DSM’s favour.
It is particularly instructive to compare the CKM matrices for leptons and quarks. Both the empirical (\[expckmq\]), (\[expckml\]) and the calculated (\[calckmq\]), (\[calckml\]) matrices show the following salient features:\
$\bullet$ that the 23 element for leptons is much larger than\
that for quarks,\
$\bullet$ that the 13 elements for both quarks and leptons\
are much smaller than the rest,\
$\bullet$ that the 12 element is largish and comparable in\
magnitude for quarks and leptons.\
These features, all so crucial for interpreting existing data, not only are all correctly reproduced by DSM calculation, but also can be understood within the scheme using some classical differential geometry as follows [@Bordesetal3].
First, it turns out [@Chantsou1; @Bordesetal1] that in the limit when the separation between the top 2 generations is small on the trajectory traced out by $(x',y',z')$, which is the case for all 4 fermion-types as seen in Figure \[trajectory\], then the vectors for the 3 generations form a Darboux triad [@Docarmo] composed of (i) the radial vector $(x',y',z')$ for the heaviest generation, (ii) the tangent vector to the trajectory for the second generation, and (iii) the vector normal to both the above for the lightest generation. The CKM matrix is thus just the matrix which gives the relative orientation between the Darboux triads for the two fermion-types concerned. Secondly, by the Serret–Frenet–Darboux formulae, it follows that the CKM matrix can be written, to first order in the separation $\Delta s$ on the trajectory between $t$ and $b$ for quarks and between $\tau$ and $\nu_3$ for leptons, as $$CKM \sim \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & -\kappa_g \Delta s & -\tau_g \Delta s \\
\kappa_g \Delta s & 1 & \kappa_n \Delta s \\
\tau_g \Delta s & -\kappa_n \Delta s & 1
\end{array} \right),
\label{Darboux}$$ where $\kappa_n$ and $\kappa_g$ are respectively the normal and geodesic curvature and $\tau_g$ is the geodesic torsion of the trajectory. Lastly, for our case of a curve on the unit sphere, $\kappa_n = 1$ and $\tau_g =0$, from which it follows that :\
$\bullet$ the 23 element equals roughly $\Delta s$,\
$\bullet$ the 13 element is of second order in $\Delta s$,\
$\bullet$ the 12 element depends on the details of the curve.\
In Figure \[trajectory\], $\Delta s$ between $\tau$ and $\nu_3$ is much larger than that between $t$ and $b$, hence also the 23 element of the CKM matrix. Indeed, measuring the actual separations in Figure \[trajectory\], one obtains already values very close to the actual CKM matrix elements in (\[calckmq\]) and (\[calckml\]) or in (\[expckmq\]) and (\[expckml\]). The 13 elements should be small in both cases, as already noted. As for the 12 elements, they depend on both the locations and details of the curve, which explains why they need not differ much between quarks and leptons in spite of the difference in separation, and also why the DSM prediction in (\[calckml\]) is not as successful for this element as for the others.
To test DSM further, one seeks predictions outside the Standard Model framework. These are not hard to come by. Identifying generation to dual colour, which is a local gauge symmetry, makes it imperative that any particle carrying a generation index can interact via the exchange of the dual colour gauge bosons, leading to flavour-changing neutral current (FCNC) effects. Given the calculations on the CKM matrices outlined above, all low energy FCNC effects can now be calculated in terms of a single mass parameter $\zeta$ related to the vev’s of the dual colour Higgs fields [@Bordesetal4]. Inputting the mass difference $K_L - K_S$ which happens to give the tightest bound on $\zeta \sim 400 {\rm TeV}$, one obtains bounds on the branching ratios of various FCNC decays. In the following paragraph, an argument will be given which converts these bounds into actual order-of-magnitude estimates. In particular, the mode $K_L \rightarrow \mu^\pm e^\mp$ has a predicted branching ratio of around $10^{-13}$, less than 2 orders away from the new BNL bound of $5.1 \times 10^{-12}$ reported in this conference [@BNL].
Since neutrinos carry a generation index, it follows that they will also acquire a new interaction through the exchange of dual colour bosons. At low energy, this interaction will be very weak, being suppressed by the large mass parameter $\zeta$. However, at C.M. energy above $\zeta$, this new interaction will become strong. With an estimate of at least $400 {\rm TeV}$, the predicted new interaction is not observable in laboratory experiments at present or in the foreseeable future, but it may be accessible in cosmic rays. For a neutrino colliding with a nucleon at rest in our atmosphere, 400 TeV in the centre of mass corresponds to an incoming energy of about $10^{20} {\rm eV}$. Above this energy, neutrinos could thus in principle acquire a strong interaction and produce air showers in the atmosphere. Now air showers at and above this energy have been observed. They have long been a puzzle to cosmic ray physicists since they cannot be due to proton or nuclear primaries which would be quickly degraded from these energies by interaction with the 2.7 K microwave background [@Boratav]. Indeed, the GZK cutoff [@Greisemin] for protons is at around $5 \times 10^{19}
{\rm eV}$. Neutrinos, on the other hand, are not so affected by the microwave background. Hence, if they can indeed produce air showers via the new interaction predicted by the DSM, they can give a very neat explanation for the old puzzle of air showers beyond the GZK cut-off [@Bordesetal5]. Further tests for the proposal have been suggested [@Bordesetal6]. The proposal also gives a rough upper bound on the mass parameter $\zeta$ governing FCNC effects which is close to the lower bound obtained in the preceding paragraph. It was on the basis of this coincidence that the above FCNC bounds were converted into actual order-of-magnitude estimates.
The conclusions are summarized in Figure \[Summary\].
It is a pleasure for us to acknowledge our profitable and most enjoyable collaboration with Jacqueline Faridani and Jakov Pfaudler. TST also thanks the Royal Society for a travel grant to Vancouver.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[99]{}
Chan Hong-Mo and Tsou Sheung Tsun, Phys. Rev. D57, 2507, (1998).
Chan Hong-Mo, Jacqueline Faridani, and Tsou Sheung Tsun, Phys. Rev. D53, 7293, (1996).
CH Gu and CN Yang, Sci.Sin.28,483,(1975); TT Wu and CN Yang, Phys.Rev.D12,3843(1975).
A.M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. 164, 171, (1980).
Chan Hong-Mo and Tsou Sheung Tsun, [*Some Elementary Gauge Theory Concepts*]{} (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993).
Chan Hong-Mo and Tsou Sheung Tsun, Phys. Rev. D56, 3646, (1997).
Chan Hong-Mo, Jacqueline Faridani, and Tsou Sheung Tsun, Phys. Rev. D51, 7040 (1995).
G. ’t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B138, 1, (1978); Acta Phys. Austriaca. Suppl. 22, 531, (1980).
J Bordes, Chan H-M, J Faridani, J Pfaudler, Tsou ST, Phys. Rev. D58, 013004, (1998)
José Bordes, Chan Hong-Mo, Jakov Pfaudler, Tsou Sheung Tsun, Phys. Rev. D58, 053003 (1998).
Chan Hong-Mo and Tsou Sheung Tsun, Acta Phys. Polonica, B28, 3041, (1997)
Particle Physics Booklet, (1996), RM Barnett et al., Phys.Rev.D54,1,(1996); web updates.
SuperKamiokande data, presented by C McGrew, M Vagins, M Takita at ICHEP’98.
K.S. Hirata et al., Phys. Letters, B205, 416, (1988); B280, 146, (1992); Y. Fukuda et al. Phys. Letter B335, 237, (1994).
C Giunti, CW Kim, M Monteno, hep-ph/9709439.
V. Barger, R.J.N. Phillips, and K. Whisnant, Phys. Rev. Letters, 69, 3135, (1992).
PI Krastev, ST Petcov, PRL 72, 1960, (1994).
CHOOZ collaboration, M. Apollonio et al., Phys. Lett. B420, 397, (1997).
B. Ackar et al., Nucl. Phys. 434, 503, (1995).
Soudan II, presented by H Gallagher at ICHEP’98.
L Wolfenstein, Phys.Rev.D17,2369,(1978); SP Mikheyev, AYu Smirnov, Nuo.Cim.9C,17(1986).
For example see G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, and D. Montanino, Phys. Rev. D54, 2048 (1995).
Karmen, presented by J Kleinfeller at ICHEP’98.
C Athanassopoulos et al, PRL 75, 2650 (1995).
José Bordes, Chan Hong-Mo, Jakov Pfaudler, Tsou Sheung Tsun, Phys. Rev. D58, 053006 (1998).
See e.g. L.P. Eisenhart, [*A Treatise on the Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces*]{}, Ginn and Company 1909, Boston.
J Bordes, Chan H-M, J Faridani, J Pfaudler, Tsou ST, hep-ph/9807277, (1998).
BNL data in review by D Bryman at ICHEP’98.
Murat Boratav, astro-ph/9605087, Proc. 7th Int. Workshop on Neutrino Telescopes, Venice 1996.
K Greisen, PRL 16 (1966) 748; GT Zatsepin and VA Kuz’min, JETP Letters, 4 (1966) 78.
J Bordes, Chan HM, J Faridani, J Pfaudler, Tsou ST, hep-ph/9705463; hep-ph/9711438, to appear in Proc. of the Int. Workshop on Physics Beyond the Standard Model (1997) Valencia.
J Bordes, Chan HM, J Faridani, J Pfaudler, Tsou ST, Astroparticle Phys. J., 8, 135 (1998).
(240,400) (60,350)[(120,18)]{} (116,340)[(1,0)[8]{}]{} (120,344)[(0,-1)[8]{}]{} (0,320)[(110,10)[[STANDARD MODEL]{}]{}]{} (130,320)[(110,10)[[’T HOOFT THEOREM [@thooft]]{}]{}]{} (55,320)[(0,-1)[8]{}]{} (185,320)[(0,-1)[8]{}]{} (55,312)[(1,0)[130]{}]{} (120,312)[(0,-1)[12]{}]{} (45,282)[(150,18)]{} (120,282)[(0,-1)[10]{}]{} (55,272)[(1,0)[130]{}]{} (55,272)[(0,-1)[12]{}]{} (185,272)[(0,-1)[12]{}]{} (0,240)[(110,20)]{} (130,240)[(110,20)]{} (30,240)[(0,-1)[18]{}]{} (160,240)[(0,-1)[6]{}]{} (80,234)[(1,0)[80]{}]{} (80,234)[(0,-1)[12]{}]{} (0,202)[(110,20)]{} (55,202)[(0,-1)[16]{}]{} (0,146)[(156,40)]{} (55,146)[(0,-1)[16]{}]{} (0,84)[(156,46)]{} (106,84)[(0,-1)[10]{}]{} (106,74)[(1,0)[74]{}]{} (180,74)[(0,-1)[19]{}]{} (55,84)[(0,-1)[54]{}]{} (0,0)[(156,30)]{} (210,240)[(0,-1)[24]{}]{} (166,176)[(74,40)]{} (210,176)[(0,-1)[16]{}]{} (164,90)[(76,70)]{} (210,90)[(0,-1)[35]{}]{} (166,0)[(74,55)]{}
[^1]: It has been shown [@Chantsou3] the duality introduced [@Chanftsou1] indeed satisfies the commutation relations of the order-disorder parameters used by ’t Hooft to define his duality.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For the current realization of the affine quantum groups, a simple comultiplication for the quantum current operators was given by Drinfeld. With this comultiplication, we study the zeros and poles of the quantum current operators and present a condition of integrability on the quantum current of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$, which is a deformation of the corresponding condition for $\hat{\frak sl}(2)$. We also present the results about the zeros and poles of the quantum current operators of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(n)\right)$.'
address:
- 'Jintai Ding, RIMS, Kyoto University'
- 'Tetsuji Miwa, RIMS, Kyoto University'
author:
- Jintai Ding
- Tetsuji Miwa
title: ' Zeros and poles of quantum current operators and the condition of quantum integrability\'
---
\[thm\][Proposition]{} \[thm\][Lemma]{} \[thm\][Corollary]{} \[thm\][Definition]{} \[section\]
Introduction.
=============
For any integrable highest weight module of $\hat{\frak sl}(2)$ of level $k$, the current operators $e(z)$ and $f(z)$ satisfy the following relations: $$e(z)^{k+1}=f(z)^{k+1}=0,$$ which we call the condition of integrability [@LP].
Quantum group was discovered by Drinfeld [@Dr1] and Jimbo[@J1] as a new structure in both mathematics and physics. The definition of a quantum group is given by the basic generators and the relations based on the data coming from the corresponding Cartan matrix. However for the case of quantum affine algebras, Drinfeld presented a different formulation of affine quantum groups with generators in the form of current operators[@Dr2], which, for the case of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$, give us the quantized current operators corresponding to $e(z)$ and $f(z)$ of $\hat{\frak sl}(2)$. One natural problem is to find out if it is possible to find a condition of integrability for the quantum current operators, which is a deformation of the classical condition of integrability above. The non-commutativity of those quantum current operators makes the problem much more difficult than the classical case. To solve this problem, we need to use a new comultiplication given by Drinfeld, which we call Drinfeld comultiplication.
For the new formulation of affine quantum group, Drinfeld proposed another comulptiplication formula[@DF][@DI] based on such a formulation. The fundamental feature of this comultiplication is its simplicity, while the comultiplication formula induced from the conventional comultiplication can not be written in a closed form with those current operators. With this comultiplication, we are able to study the zeros and poles of quantum current operators for integrable modules. Our main results are Theorem \[thm1\] and \[thm2\] which state that on any level $k$ integrable module of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$ the matrix coefficients of $x^+(z_1)x^+(z_2)....x^+(z_{k+1})$ have zero at $z_2/z_1=z_3/z_2=\ldots=z_{k+1}/z_k=q^2$, and those of $x^-(z_1)x^-(z_2)....x^-(z_{k+1})$ have zero at $z_1/z_2=z_2/z_3=\ldots=z_k/z_{k+1}=q^2$, where $x^+(z)$ and $x^-(z)$ are the quantized current operators of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$ corresponding to $e(z)$ and $f(z)$ of $\hat{\frak sl}(2)$, respectively. We first study the case of the fundamental representations of level 1 for $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$. Frenkel and Jing used bosonized vertex operators to construct explicit realizations of those representations. It is clear that all the integrable modules can be derived from certain tensors of fundamental representations. Therefore, with the Drinfeld comultiplication, we can derive the poles and zeros of the quantum currents, which naturally leads to a condition integrabililty for the quantum currents of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$. At the end, we present the corresponding results for $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(n)\right)$.
For the case of affine quantum groups, Drinfeld gave a realization of those algebras in terms of operators in the form of current[@Dr2]. We will first present such a realization for the case of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(n)\right)$.
Let $A=(a_{ij})$ be the Cartan matrix of type $A_{n-1}$.
The algebra $U_q({\mbox{$\hat{{\mbox{{\goth}sl}}}$}}_n)$ is an associative algebra with unit 1 and the generators: ${\varphi}_i(-m)$,$\psi_i(m)$, $x^{\pm}_i(l)$, for $i=i,...,n-1$, $l\in {\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}$ and $m\in {\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}_{\geq 0}$ and a central element $c$. Let $z$ be a formal variable and $x_i^{\pm}(z)=\sum_{l\in {\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}}x_i^{\pm}(l)z^{-l}$, ${\varphi}_i(z)=\sum_{m\in -{\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}_{\geq 0}}{\varphi}_i(m)z^{-m}$ and $\psi_i(z)=\sum_{m\in {\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}_{\geq 0}}\psi_i(m)z^{-m}$. In terms of the formal variables, the defining relations are $$\begin{aligned}
& {\varphi}_i(z){\varphi}_j(w)={\varphi}_j(w){\varphi}_i(z), \\
& \psi_i(z)\psi_j(w)=\psi_j(w)\psi_i(z), \\
& {\varphi}_i(z)\psi_j(w){\varphi}_i(z)^{-1}\psi_j(w)^{-1}=
\frac{g_{ij}(z/wq^{-c})}{g_{ij}(z/wq^{c})}, \\
& {\varphi}_i(z)x_j^{\pm}(w){\varphi}_i(z)^{-1}=
g_{ij}(z/wq^{\mp \frac{1}{2}c})^{\pm1}x_j^{\pm}(w), \\
& \psi_i(z)x_j^{\pm}(w)\psi_i(z)^{-1}=
g_{ij}(w/zq^{\mp \frac{1}{2}c})^{\mp1}x_j^{\pm}(w), \\
& [x_i^+(z),x_j^-(w)]=\frac{\delta_{i,j}}{q-q^{-1}}
\left\{ \delta(z/wq^{-c})\psi_i(wq^{\frac{1}{2}c})-
\delta(z/wq^{c}){\varphi}_i(zq^{\frac{1}{2}c}) \right\}, \\
& (z-q^{\pm a_{ij}}w)x_i^{\pm}(z)x_j^{\pm}(w)=
(q^{\pm a_{ij}}z-w)x_j^{\pm}(w)x_i^{\pm}(z), \\
& [x_i^{\pm}(z),x_j^{\pm}(w)]=0 \quad \text{ for $a_{ij}=0$}, \\
& x_i^{\pm}(z_1)x_i^{\pm}(z_2)x_j^{\pm}(w)-(q+q^{-1})x_i^{\pm}(z_1)
x_j^{\pm}(w)x_i^{\pm}(z_2)+x_j^{\pm}(w)x_i^{\pm}(z_1)x_i^{\pm}(z_2) \\
& +\{ z_1\leftrightarrow z_2\}=0, \quad \text{for $a_{ij}=-1$}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\delta(z)=\sum_{k\in {\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}}z^k, \quad
g_{ij}(z)=\frac{q^{a_{ij}}z-1}{z-q^{a_{ij}}}\quad \text{about $z=0$}$$
In [@Dr3], Drinfeld only gave the formulation of the algebra. If we extend the conventional comultiplication to those current operators, the result would be a very complicated formula which can not be written in a closed form with only those current operators. However, Drinfeld also gave the Hopf algebra structure for such a formulation in an unpublished note [@DF1].
The algebra $U_q({\mbox{$\hat{{\mbox{{\goth}sl}}}$}}_n)$ has a Hopf algebra structure, which is given by the following formulae.
[**Coproduct $\Delta$**]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\text{}& \quad \Delta(q^{\frac c2})=q^{\frac c 2}\otimes q^{\frac c 2}, \\
\text{}& \quad \Delta(x_i^+(z))=x_i^+(z)\otimes 1+
{\varphi}_i(zq^{\frac{c_1}{2}})\otimes x_i^+(zq^{c_1}), \\
\text{}& \quad \Delta(x_i^-(z))=1\otimes x_i^-(z)+
x_i^-(zq^{c_2})\otimes \psi_i(zq^{\frac{c_2}{2}}), \\
\text{}& \quad \Delta({\varphi}_i(z))=
{\varphi}_i(zq^{-\frac{c_2}{2}})\otimes{\varphi}_i(zq^{\frac{c_1}{2}}), \\
\text{}& \quad \Delta(\psi_i(z))=
\psi_i(zq^{\frac{c_2}{2}})\otimes\psi_i(zq^{-\frac{c_1}{2}}),\end{aligned}$$ where $c_1$ means the action of the center on the first component and $c_2$ means the action of the center on the second component.
[**Counit ${\varepsilon}$**]{} $$\begin{aligned}
{\varepsilon}(q^c)=1 & \quad {\varepsilon}({\varphi}_i(z))={\varepsilon}(\psi_i(z))=1, \\
& \quad {\varepsilon}(x_i^{\pm}(z))=0.\end{aligned}$$ [**Antipode $\quad a$**]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\text{(0)}& \quad a(q^c)=q^{-c}, \\
\text{(1)}& \quad a(x_i^+(z))=-{\varphi}_i(zq^{-\frac{c}{2}})^{-1}
x_i^+(zq^{-c}), \\
\text{(2)}& \quad a(x_i^-(z))=-x_i^-(zq^{-c})
\psi_i(zq^{-\frac{c}{2}})^{-1}, \\
\text{(3)}& \quad a({\varphi}_i(z))={\varphi}_i(z)^{-1}, \\
\text{(4)}& \quad a(\psi_i(z))=\psi_i(z)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$
We will give the following example to explain the comultiplication.
$$\varphi_i(zq^{c_1\over2})\otimes x_i^+(zq^{c_1})
=\sum_{l_1\in-{\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}_{\geq0},l_2\in{\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}_{\geq0}}
z^{-(l_1+l_2)}q^{-({l_1\over2}+l_2)c}\varphi_i(l_1)\otimes x_i^+(l_2).$$
It is clear that the comultiplication structure requires certain completion on the tensor space. For certain representations, such as the $2$-dimensional representations of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$ at a special value, this comultiplication may not be well-defined. Nevertheless, for any two highest weight representations, this comultiplication is well-defined, because the action of the operator as a coefficient of $z^m$ of the currents operators on any element of such a module are zero if $m$ is small enough. The explicit proof for the theorem above for the case of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$ is given in [@DI].
We will start with the Frenkel-Jing construction of level $1$ representation of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$ on the Fock space.
Consider an algebra generated by $\{ a_{k}|~k\in {\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}\setminus \{ 0\} \}$ satisfying: $$[a_{k},a_{l}]=\delta_{k+l,0}\frac{[2k][k]}{k}.$$ We call it the Heisenberg algebra.
Let $ \overline{Q}={\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}\alpha $ be the root lattice of ${\frak sl}(2)$. Let us define a group algebra ${\mbox{${\Bbb C}$}}(q) [\overline{{\mbox{${\cal P}$}}}]$, where $\overline{{\mbox{${\cal P}$}}}$ is the weight lattice of ${\frak sl}(2)$. Let $\overline{\Lambda}_1$ be the fundamental weight of ${\frak sl}(2)$ and $2\overline{\Lambda}_1=\alpha$. Let $\overline{\Lambda}_0=0$.
Set $${\mbox{${\cal F}$}}_{i}:={\mbox{${\Bbb C}$}}(q) [a_{-k}(~k\in {\mbox{${\Bbb Z}$}}_{>0})]\otimes
{\mbox{${\Bbb C}$}}(q) [\overline{Q}]
e^{\overline{\Lambda}_i}
.$$ This gives the Fock space.
The action of operators $a_{k},\partial_{\alpha},e^{\alpha}$ $(1\leq j \leq N)$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
a_{k}\cdot f\otimes e^{\beta}& =\begin{cases}
a_{k}f \otimes e^{\beta} & k< 0; \\
\text{$[a_{k},f]$} \otimes e^{\beta} \quad & k> 0,
\end{cases} \\
\partial_{\alpha}\cdot f\otimes e^{\beta}&
=(\alpha,\beta)f\otimes e^{\beta}
\qquad \text{for}~f\otimes e^{\beta}\in {\mbox{${\cal F}$}}_{i}, \\
e^{\alpha}\cdot f\otimes e^{\beta} &
=f\otimes e^{\alpha+\beta}.\end{aligned}$$
The following action on ${\mbox{${\cal F}$}}_{i}$ of $U_q\left(\hat {\frak sl}(2)\right)$ gives a level 1 highest weight representation with the $i$-th fundamental weight. $$\begin{aligned}
& \quad x^{\pm}(z)\mapsto
\exp[\pm \sum_{k>0}\frac{a_{-k}}{[k]}q^{\mp \frac{1}{2}k}z^k]
\exp[\mp \sum_{k>0}\frac{a_{k}}{[k]}q^{\mp \frac{1}{2}k}z^{-k}]
e^{\pm \alpha}z^{\pm \partial_{\alpha}+1}, \\
& \quad {\varphi}(z)\mapsto
\exp[-(q-q^{-1})\sum_{k>0}a_{-k}z^k]q^{-\partial_{\alpha}}, \\
& \quad \psi(z)\mapsto
\exp[(q-q^{-1})\sum_{k>0}a_{k}z^{-k}]q^{\partial_{\alpha}}.\end{aligned}$$
This implies that on ${\mbox{${\cal F}$}}_{i}$ for the case of $U_q(\hat{\frak sl}(2))$ $$\begin{aligned}
&x^+(z)x^+(w)= z^2(1-\frac w z)(1-\frac {w}{zq^2}):x^+(z)x^+(w):,\label{xx+}\\
&x^-(z)x^-(w)= z^2(1-\frac w z)(1-\frac {wq^2}{z}):x^-(z)x^-(w):,\label{xx-}\\
&x^+(z){\varphi}(w)=
q^{-2}\frac {1-\frac w{q^{5/2}z}}{1-\frac {q^{3/2}w}z}:{\varphi}(w)x^+(z):
=\frac {1-\frac w{q^{5/2}z}}{1-\frac {q^{3/2}w}z}{\varphi}(w)x^+(z),\label{xp}\\
&\psi(w)x^-(z)=
\frac{1-\frac {q^{5/2}z}w} {1-\frac z{q^{3/2}w}}\psi(w)x^-(z):
=\frac{1-\frac {q^{5/2}z}w} {1-\frac z{q^{3/2}w}}x^-(z)\psi(w).\label{px}\end{aligned}$$
Set $\c F=\oplus_{i=0,1}{\mbox{${\cal F}$}}_{i}$. Any level $m$ integrable module is a submodule of $\otimes^m \c F$.
It is clear, for the case of $\hat {\frak sl}(2)$, we have that the correlation functions of $e(z)e(w)$ and $f(z)f(w)$ have no poles, which are always polynomials of $
z,z^{-1},w,w^{-1}$. By the correlation functions of an operator, we mean all the matrix coefficients of the operator. For the quantum case, the correlation functions might have poles. However, the position of poles are restricted. We have
\[prop1\] For any level $k\geq1$ integrable module of $U_q\left(\hat {\frak sl}(2)\right)$, the correlation functions of $x^+(z)x^+(w)$ has at most poles at $zq^{-2}=w$.
For the proof, set $$\Delta^{(0)}=1,\quad \Delta^{(l)}=(\underbrace{1\otimes\cdots\otimes1}_{l-1}
\otimes\Delta)\Delta^{(l-1)}.$$ From the comultiplication formula, we know that on $\otimes^k \c F$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
&\Delta^{(k-1)}\left(x^+(z)\right)=\sum_{i=1}^kX^{+(k)}_i(z),\\
&X^{+(k)}_i(z)={\varphi}(zq^{1/2})\otimes{\varphi}(zq^{3/2})\otimes\cdots
\otimes{\varphi}(zq^{i-3/2})\otimes x^+(zq^{i-1})\otimes1\otimes\cdots\otimes1.\end{aligned}$$
Let $0<i<j\leq k$. The product $X^{+(k)}_i(z)X^{+(k)}_j(w)$ has a pole at $z=q^2w$ because it contains $x^+(zq^{i-1}){\varphi}(wq^{i-1/2})$. The other terms do not have any poles. Thus, with the lemma above, we complete the proof.
Similarly, we can show that
\[prop2\] For any level $k\geq1$ integrable module of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$, the correlation functions of $x^-(z)x^-(w)$ has at most poles at $zq^{2}=w$.
Now we state our main result.
\[thm1\] For any level $k\geq1$ integrable module of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$, the correlation functions of $x^+(z_1)x^+(z_2)...x^+(z_k)x^+(z_{k+1})$ is zero if $z_2/z_1=z_3/z_2=\ldots=z_{k+1}/z_k=q^2$.
We will prove that the correlation functions of $$X^{+(k)}_{a_1}(z_1)\cdots X^{+(k)}_{a_{k+1}}(z_{k+1})
\label{TERM}$$ is zero if $z_2/z_1=z_3/z_2=\ldots=z_{k+1}/z_k=q^2$.
Suppose that $a_m<a_{m+1}$ for some $m$. Then, the $a_m$-th tensor component of (\[TERM\]) contains $x^+(z_mq^{a_m-1}){\varphi}(z_{m+1}q^{a_m-1/2})$. From (\[xp\]) we see that this product has a zero at $z_{m+1}=q^2z_m$. Similarly, if $a_m=a_{m+1}$ the product $x^+(z_mq^{a_m-1})x^+(z_{m+1}q^{a_m-1})$ has a zero at $z_{m+1}=q^2z_m$. Proposition \[prop1\] shows that no poles from other terms cancel these zeros at $z_{m+1}=q^2z_m$. Therefore, we conclude that (\[TERM\]) is zero if $z_2/z_1=z_3/z_2=\ldots=z_{m+1}/z_m=q^2$, unless $a_m>a_{m+1}$ for all $1\leq m\leq k$. However, because $1\leq a_m\leq k$, the last case never occurs. Thus we finish the proof.
Similarly we have
\[thm2\] For any level $k\geq1$ integrable module of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(2)\right)$, the correlation functions of $x^-(z_1)x^-(z_2)...x^-(z_k)x^-(z_{k+1})$ is zero if $z_1/z_2=z_2/z_3=\ldots=z_k/z_{k+1}=q^2$.
For the case of $U_q(\hat {\frak sl}(n))$, we have the following results, which can be proved as the case of $U_q(\hat {\frak sl}(2))$.
\[prop3\] For any level $k\geq1$ integrable module of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(n)\right)$, the correlation functions of $x_i^+(z)x_i^+(w)$ has at most poles at $zq^{-2}=w$; and the correlation functions of $x_{i\pm 1}^+(z)x_i^+(w)$ has at most poles at $zq^{}=w$. the correlation functions of $x_i^-(z)x_i^-(w)$ has at most poles at $zq^{2}=w$; the correlation functions of $x_{i\pm 1}^-(z)x_i^-(w)$ has at most poles at $zq^{-1}=w$.
The proof for this, we need to use Frenkel-Jing construction to construct the level 1 representations. We will omit it here, which can be found in [@FJ]. However we will list the following formulas, which are the key point of the proof.
On the level 1 representation in [@FJ], we have:
$$\begin{aligned}
&x_i^+(z)x_i^+(w)= z^2(1-\frac w z)(1-\frac {w}{zq^2}):x_i^+(z)x_i^+(w):,
\\
&x_i^-(z)x_i^-(w)= z^2(1-\frac w z)(1-\frac {wq^2}{z}):x_i^-(z)x_i^-(w):,
\\
&x_i^+(z){\varphi}_i(w)=
q^{-2}\frac {1-\frac w{q^{\frac 5 2}z}}{1-\frac {q^{\frac 3 2}w}z}:{\varphi}_i(w)x_i^+(z):
=\frac {1-\frac w{q^{\frac 5 2}z}}{1-\frac {q^{\frac 3 2}w}z}{\varphi}_i(w)x_i^+(z),
\\
&\psi_i(w)x_i^-(z)=
\frac{1-\frac {q^{\frac 5 2}z}w} {1-\frac z{q^{\frac 3 2}w}}:\psi_i(w)x_i^-(z):
=\frac{1-\frac {q^{\frac 5 2}z}w} {1-\frac z{q^{\frac 3 2}w}}x_i^-(z)\psi_i(w).\end{aligned}$$
If $a_{ij}=-1$, $$\begin{aligned}
&x_i^\pm(z)x_j^\pm(w)= \frac
{(z-wq^{\pm 1})}{(z- wq^{\mp 1})}:x_i^+(z)x_i^+(w):,\\
&x_i^+(z){\varphi}_j(w)=
\frac {1-\frac w{q^{-\frac 1 2}z}}{1-\frac {q^{-\frac 3 2}w}z}:{\varphi}_j(w)x_i^+(z):
=q^{-1}\frac {1-\frac w{q^{-\frac 1 2}z}}{1-\frac {q^{-\frac 3 2}w}z}{\varphi}_j(w)
x_i^+(z),
\\
&\psi_i(z)x_j^-(w)=
\frac{\frac w{zq^{\frac 12}}-1} {\frac w{zq^{\frac {-3} 2}}-1}:
x_j^-(w)\psi_i(z):
=q\frac{\frac w{zq^{\frac 1 2}}-1} {\frac w{zq^{\frac {-3} 2}}-1}x_j^-(w)
\psi_i(z).\end{aligned}$$
If $a_{ij}=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&x_i^\pm(z)x_j^\pm(w)= x_j^\pm(w)x_i^\pm(z)=:x_i^+(z)x_i^+(w):,\\
&x_i^+(z){\varphi}_j(w)= {\varphi}_j(w)x_i^+(z)=:{\varphi}_i(w)x_i^+(z):
,\\
&\psi_i(z)x_j^-(w)=x_j^-(w)\psi_i(z)=
:\psi_i(w)x_i^-(z):
.\end{aligned}$$
\[thm3\] For any level $k\geq1$ integrable module of $U_q\left(\hat{\frak sl}(n)\right)$, the correlation functions of $x_{a_1}^+(z_1)x_{a_2}^+(z_2)...x_{a_k}^+(z_k)
x_{a_{k+1}}^+(z_{k+1})$ is zero if
(a)$a_i-a_{i+1}=0$ or $\pm 1 $,
(b)$z_{a_i}/z_{a_{i+1}}=q^{}$ for $a_i-a_{i+1}= \pm 1 $,
(c)$z_{a_i}/z_{a_{i+1}}=q^{-2}$ for $a_i-a_{i+1}=0 $,
(d)$z_{a_i}/z_{a_{j}}\neq q^{-1}$ for $a_i-a_{j}=\pm 1 $ and $i<j$,
(e)$z_{a_i}/z_{a_{j}}\neq q^{2}$ for $a_i=a_j$ and $i<j$ ;
the correlation functions of $x^-_{a_1}(z_1)x_{a_2}^-(z_2)...
x_{a_k}^-(z_k)x_{a_{k+1}}^-(z_{k+1})$ is zero if
(a)$a_i-a_{i+1}=0$ or $\pm 1 $,
(b)$z_{a_i}/z_{a_{i+1}}=q^{-1}$ for $a_i-a_{i+1}= \pm 1 $,
(c)$z_{a_i}/z_{a_{i+1}}=q^{2}$ for $a_i-a_{i+1}=0$ and
\(d) $z_{a_i}/z_{a_{j}}\neq q^{}$ for $a_i-a_{j}=\pm 1 $ and $i<j$,
(e)$z_{a_i}/z_{a_{j}}\neq q^{-2}$ for $a_i=a_j$ and $i<j$.
In the classical case, the condition of integrability is used [@FS] to build semi-infinite construction of the corresponding integrable representations, we expect that we can use the quantum condition of integrability to derive similar constructions, which may even help us to resolve certain difficulty in the classical case.
The authors thank B. Feigin and A. Stoyanovsky for discussions. J.D. is supported by the grant Reward research (A) 08740020 from the Ministry of Education of Japan.
[\[Beck\]]{}
J. Ding and I. B. Frenkel, [*Isomorphism of two realizations of quantum affine algebra $U_q(\hat {\frak gl}(n))$,*]{} CMP, [**156**]{}, 1993, 277-300
J. Ding and K. Iohara, [*Drinfeld comultiplication and vertex operators,*]{} RIMS-1091
V. G. Drinfeld, [*Hopf algebra and the quantum Yang-Baxter Equation*]{}, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, [**283**]{}, 1985, 1060-1064
V.G. Drinfeld, [*Quantum Groups*]{}, ICM Proceedings, New York, Berkeley, 1986, 798-820
V. G. Drinfeld, [*New realization of Yangian and quantum affine algebra*]{}, Soviet Math. Doklady, [**36**]{}, 1988, 212-216
B. L. Feigin and A. V. Stoyanovsky, [*Quasi-particle models for the representations of Lie algebras and the geometry of the flag manifold*]{}, RIMS-942
I. B. Frenkel, N. Jing [*Vertex representations of quantum affine algebras*]{}, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA,[**85**]{}, 1988, 9373-9377
M. Jimbo, [*A $q$-difference analogue of $U({\frak g})$ and Yang-Baxter equation*]{}, Lett. Math. Phys. [**10**]{}, 1985, 63-69
J. Lepowsky and M. Primc, [*Structure of standard modules for the affine Lie algebra $A_1^{(1)}$*]{}, Contemp. Math. [**45**]{}, AMS, Providence, 1985
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The quantum excitations of the collective magnetization dynamics in a ferromagnet (F) - magnons - enable spin transport without an associated charge current. This pure spin current can be transferred to electrons in an adjacent non-magnetic conductor (N). We evaluate the finite temperature noise of the magnon-mediated spin current injected into N by an adjacent F driven by a coherent microwave field. We find that the dipolar interaction leads to squeezing of the magnon modes giving them wavevector dependent non-integral spin, which directly manifests itself in the shot noise. For temperatures higher than the magnon gap, the thermal noise is dominated by large wavevector magnons which exhibit negligible squeezing. The noise spectrum is white up to the frequency corresponding to the maximum of the temperature or the magnon gap. At larger frequencies, the noise is dominated by vacuum fluctuations. The shot noise is found to be much larger than its thermal counterpart over a broad temperature range, making the former easier to be measured experimentally.'
author:
- Akashdeep Kamra
- Wolfgang Belzig
bibliography:
- 'mag\_spin\_noise.bib'
title: 'Magnon-mediated spin current noise in ferromagnet$|$non-magnetic conductor hybrids'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Interest in magnetic nanostructures has been motivated, in part, by their numerous applications in the electronics industry. Starting with metallic magnets, there has been a recent upsurge of interest in magnetic insulators because of their low Gilbert damping. The latter is understood as due to the absence of conduction electrons which typically constitute the dominant scattering channel for [*magnons*]{} - the elementary excitations representing collective magnetization dynamics. Furthermore, magnons carry spin without an associated charge, which can conveniently be transferred to the electronic degrees of freedom in a ferromagnet (F)$|$ non-magnetic conductor (N) bilayer [@Tserkovnyak2002; @Weiler2013]. New transport paradigms based on magnons, instead of electrons, have emerged [@Kruglyak2010; @Shindou2013]. While the two kinds of quasi-particles share similarities due to their typically parabolic dispersion relations, the bosonic nature of the magnons offers new unique possibilities [@Demokritov2006].
A magnet can exchange spin current only in directions orthogonal to its magnetic moment [@Brataas2012]. However, at finite temperatures, the latter fluctuates around its equilibrium orientation and thus, on an average, allows a “longitudinal”spin current absorption and emission. When the magnet is insulating, this spin transfer can be ascribed entirely to magnons. Even for metallic magnets, magnonic contribution may dominate over its electronic counterpart [@Uchida2010; @Xiao2010; @Adachi2013]. With an increasing emphasis on magnonic [@Kruglyak2010] and caloric [@Bauer2012] phenomena, finite temperature effects cannot be disregarded and have taken the center stage in several investigations [@Bender2015; @Xiao2015].
Non-zero temperatures, on the other hand, make it necessary to consider fluctuations, often referred to as noise, in physical quantities. While the magnetization fluctuations are well studied [@Brown1963; @Safonov2002; @Foros2005; @Rossi2005], pure spin current noise has received attention only recently [@Belzig2004; @Kamra2014]. Non-equilibrium spin accumulation has been shown to result in charge current shot noise [@Arakawa2015]. The (inverse) spin Hall effect (SHE) mediated spin-charge current conversion offers a convenient method to measure spin currents [@Hirsch1999]. This has been exploited in the observation of the thermal pure spin current noise in a yttrium iron garnet (YIG)$|$platinum (Pt) heterostructure [@Kamra2014]. However, owing to the fluctuation-dissipation theorem [@Callen1951], information obtained via thermal noise is also accessible via the typically easier to measure linear response of the system. Non-equilibrium noise, on the other hand, delineates microscopic dynamics not accessible via the observable average [@Blanter2000; @Beenakker2003; @Nazarov2003]. For example, charge current shot noise has been instrumental in, among several phenomena, ascertaining unconventional quanta of charge transport in different exotic phases of interacting electronic systems [@Jain1989; @Kane1994; @Reznikov1999; @Jehl2000]. In a similar fashion, spin current shot noise can be exploited to probe the quantum of spin transport. We have recently demonstrated that the zero-temperature shot noise of spin current across an F$|$N interface indicates spin transport in non-integral quanta [@Kamra2016].
In the present work, we evaluate the finite temperature noise of the magnon-mediated spin current traversing the F$|$N interface, when F is driven by a microwave magnetic field. The resulting total noise is composed of the shot noise, stemming from the discrete nature of the microwave driven spin transfer, and the thermal noise caused by the dynamic spin exchange between the equilibrium magnons in F and electrons in N. A key finding is that, in contrast to typical electronic systems [@Blanter2000], the spin current shot noise in our system increases linearly with temperature and dominates the total noise over a broad experimental parameter space. This is attributed to the large number of magnonic excitations created by the microwave drive in comparison with the relatively small number of thermal excitations in F, a feature which is unique to a non-conserved boson gas.
Owing to the dipolar interaction, the eigenmodes of F are squeezed-magnons (s-magnons) which possess, wavevector and applied magnetic field dependent, non-integral spins. The squeezing is maximum for the low energy magnons while it decreases with increasing relative contribution of the exchange for high wavenumbers. Thus, the dipolar interaction significantly influences the shot noise, which is attributed to the non-equilibrium zero wavevector s-magnons possessing a non-integral spin $\hbar^* = \hbar (1 + \delta)$. On the other hand, barring very low temperatures, dipolar interaction can be disregarded in evaluating the thermal noise, which has contributions from a broad region of the wavevector space. Thus, in addition to exact numerical evaluation, we obtain analytical results for the thermal, including the vacuum, noise in various limiting cases finding good agreement with numerics. Vanishing for frequencies below the magnon gap, the vacuum noise dominates the total noise power at large frequencies. The thermal and shot contributions to the noise are white up to about the frequency corresponding to the larger between the temperature and the magnon gap, increasing with frequency thereafter.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:system\] describes the system under investigation and the theoretical method employed to evaluate the physical quantities of interest. It is further divided into subsections with a detailed derivation of the Hamiltonian in subsection \[ssec:hamiltonian\], discussion of the dynamical equations of motion in subsection \[ssec:eom\], and a derivation of the general expression for the spin current noise in subsection \[ssec:neval\]. The final expressions obtained for the shot (subsection \[ssec:neqres\]) and the thermal (subsection \[ssec:eqres\]) noises are reported in section \[sec:results\]. We discuss the relevance of our results putting them in a broader context in section \[sec:discussion\]. Finally, we conclude by summarizing our work in section \[sec:summary\].
System and theoretical framework {#sec:system}
================================
![System schematic. An applied static magnetic field ($H_0~\hat{\pmb{z}}$) saturates the magnetization of the ferromagnet (F) along the z-direction. An oscillating magnetic field ($h_0 \cos \omega t ~\hat{\pmb{x}}$) creates non-equilibrium, in addition to thermal, magnonic excitations in F, which annihilate at latter’s interface with a non-magnetic conductor (N) creating new excitations and transferring spin current.[]{data-label="fig:bilayer"}](bilayer.pdf){width="65mm"}
We consider a F$|$N bilayer (Figure \[fig:bilayer\]) subjected to a static magnetic field $H_0~\hat{\pmb{z}}$ which saturates the equilibrium magnetization of F along the z-direction. At finite temperatures, the F magnetic moment fluctuates about its equilibrium orientation which can be represented by thermal magnonic excitations. The latter dynamically exchange spin with the electrons in N giving rise to a fluctuating spin current across the interface. A microwave magnetic field $h_0 \cos \omega t ~\hat{\pmb{x}}$ additionally creates non-equilibrium magnetization dynamics resulting in a net spin current flow into N and an associated shot noise. For metallic F, the additional contribution to the spin current noise due to spin exchange between F and N conduction electrons is [*not*]{} considered here.
Our methodology entails obtaining the system Hamiltonian and the spin current operator in terms of the creation and annihilation operators of the magnonic and electronic eigenmodes in F and N, respectively. Thereafter, Heisenberg equations of motion are employed to evaluate the microwave field driven coherent magnetization dynamics as well as the time evolution and noise of the spin current traversing the F$|$N interface.
Hamiltonian {#ssec:hamiltonian}
-----------
The total Hamiltonian comprises of the terms due to the magnetic degrees of freedom in F, electrons in N, interaction between F magnetization and N electrons, and the driving of the F magnetization by the coherent microwave field: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{htot}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}} & = \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{F}} + \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{N}} + \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{int}} + \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{drive}},\end{aligned}$$ where [*we use tilde to denote operators*]{}. For simplicity, we do not explicitly consider the non-linear terms in $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{F}}$ and $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{N}}$ that are responsible for dissipation and equilibration in the two subsystems.
### Magnetic contribution {#sssec:magcont}
We employ the ‘macroscopic magnon theory’ [@Kittel1963] in describing the collective magnetization eigenmodes and their dynamics in F. This formalism allows a quantum treatment based on the general phenomenological theories of magnetism without reference to a definite microscopic model. Hence, it affords a wide applicability, within the low wavenumber limit, while yielding results identical to those obtained from the microscopic model [@Akhiezer1968], when the latter constitutes a valid description of the material system under consideration.
We first write the classical magnetic free energy $\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{F}}$ which, in turn, is constituted by Zeeman , anisotropy, exchange and dipolar interaction energy densities: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{mhamilclass}
\mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{F}} & = \int_{V_{\mathrm{F}}} d^3 r \left( H_{\mathrm{Z}} + H_{\mathrm{aniso}} + H_{\mathrm{ex}} + H_{\mathrm{dip}} \right) , \end{aligned}$$ where $V_{\mathrm{F}}$ is the volume of F. Expanding the free energy densities about the equilibrium configuration $\pmb{M} = M_s \hat{\pmb{z}}$, with $\pmb{M}$ and $M_s$ respectively the magnetization and saturation magnetization, retaining terms up to the second order in the field variables $M_{x,y}~(\ll M_z \approx M_s)$ [@Kittel1949; @Kamra2015]: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\mathrm{Z}} + H_{\mathrm{aniso}} & = \frac{\omega_{\mathrm{za}}}{2 |\gamma| M_s} \left( M_x^2 + M_y^2 \right),\end{aligned}$$ with $\omega_{\mathrm{za}} = |\gamma|[\mu_0 H_0 + 2(K_1 + K_u)/M_s]$, where $\gamma$ is the typically negative gyromagnetic ratio, $\mu_0$ is the permeability of free space, and $K_{u} (>0)$ and $K_{1} (>0)$, respectively, represent contributions from easy axes uniaxial and cubic magnetocrystalline anisotropies. The exchange energy density for a cubic crystal is parameterized in terms of the exchange constant $A$ [@Kittel1949]: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\mathrm{ex}} & = \frac{A}{M_s^2} \left[ \left( \pmb{\nabla} M_x \right)^2 + \left( \pmb{\nabla} M_y \right)^2 \right] . \end{aligned}$$ The dipolar interaction can be treated within a mean field approximation via the so-called demagnetization field $\pmb{H}_m$ generated by the magnetization: $$\begin{aligned}
H_{\mathrm{dip}} & = - \frac{1}{2} \mu_0 \pmb{H}_m \cdot \pmb{M}.\end{aligned}$$ The magnetization and the demagnetization field are split into spatially uniform and non-uniform contributions $\pmb{H}_m = \pmb{H}_{u} + \pmb{H}_{nu}$ and $\pmb{M} = \pmb{M}_{u} + \pmb{M}_{nu}$ thereby affording the following relation between the uniform components [@Akhiezer1968; @Kittel1963]: $$\begin{aligned}
\pmb{H}_{u} = - N_x M_{ux}~ \hat{\pmb{x}} - N_y M_{uy} ~\hat{\pmb{y}} - N_z M_{uz} ~\hat{\pmb{z}},\end{aligned}$$ where $N_{x,y,z}$ are the eigenvalues of the demagnetization tensor which is diagonal in the chosen coordinate system. Within the magnetostatic approximation [^1], the non-uniform components obey the equations [@Akhiezer1968; @Kittel1963]: $$\begin{aligned}
\pmb{\nabla} \times \pmb{H}_{nu} & = 0, \\
\pmb{\nabla} \cdot \left( \pmb{H}_{nu} + \pmb{M}_{nu} \right) & = 0. \label{divdemagfield}\end{aligned}$$ Employing the equations above and Fourier representation, the dipolar interaction energy can be written as a sum over the k space, as will be presented below.
The quantization of the classical magnetic Hamiltonian is achieved by defining the magnetization operator $\tilde{\pmb{M}} = - |\gamma| \tilde{\pmb{S}}_{\mathrm{F}}$ in terms of the spin density operator in F: $\tilde{\pmb{S}}_{\mathrm{F}}$, where we have assumed a negative gyromagnetic ratio $\gamma$. Employing the general commutation relations between the components of angular momentum, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\left[ \tilde{M}_{+} (\pmb{r}), \tilde{M}_{-} (\pmb{r}^\prime) \right] & = 2 |\gamma| \hbar \tilde{M}_z (\pmb{r}) ~ \delta (\pmb{r} - \pmb{r}^\prime),\end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{M}_{\pm} = \tilde{M}_x \pm i (\gamma / |\gamma|) \tilde{M}_y$ [^2]. These commutation relations are satisfied by the Holstein-Primakoff transformations [@Holstein1940; @Kittel1963] relating the magnetization operator to the bosonic creation and annihilation operators $\tilde{a}^\dagger(\pmb{r}), \tilde{a}(\pmb{r})$: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{M}_{+} & = \sqrt{2 |\gamma| \hbar M_s} \left( 1 - \frac{|\gamma| \hbar}{2 M_s} \tilde{a}^\dagger \tilde{a} \right)^\frac{1}{2} \tilde{a} \ \approx \ \sqrt{2 |\gamma| \hbar M_s} \ \tilde{a} , \\
\tilde{M}_{-} & = \sqrt{2 |\gamma| \hbar M_s} \tilde{a}^\dagger \left( 1 - \frac{|\gamma| \hbar}{2 M_s} \tilde{a}^\dagger \tilde{a} \right)^\frac{1}{2} \ \approx \ \sqrt{2 |\gamma| \hbar M_s} \ \tilde{a}^\dagger , \\
\tilde{M}_z & = M_s - |\gamma| \hbar \tilde{a}^\dagger \tilde{a}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\tilde{a}^\dagger(\pmb{r})$ flips the spin at position $\pmb{r}$ thereby creating a localized magnonic excitation, and is related to the normal magnon operators $\tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}}^\dagger$ via $\tilde{a}^\dagger(\pmb{r}) = \sum_{\pmb{q}} \phi_q^* (\pmb{r}) \tilde{b}^\dagger_{\pmb{q}}$ with plane wave eigenstates $\phi_{\pmb{q}} (\pmb{r}) = (1/\sqrt{V_{\mathrm{F}}}) \exp (i \pmb{q} \cdot \pmb{r})$. Thus, up to the first order in operators, the components of the magnetization operator can be written in the Fourier space: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{M}_x & = \sum_{\pmb{q}} \sqrt{\frac{|\gamma| \hbar M_s}{2 V_{\mathrm{F}}}} \left( \tilde{b}_{-\pmb{q}}^\dagger + \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}} \right) e^{i \pmb{q} \cdot \pmb{r}} , \label{mxquant} \\
\tilde{M}_y & = \sum_{\pmb{q}} \frac{1}{i} \sqrt{\frac{|\gamma| \hbar M_s}{2 V_{\mathrm{F}}}} \left( \tilde{b}_{-\pmb{q}}^\dagger - \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}} \right) e^{i \pmb{q} \cdot \pmb{r}} . \label{myquant}\end{aligned}$$ Employing the above two equations (\[mxquant\]) and (\[myquant\]) into equations (\[mhamilclass\]) to (\[divdemagfield\]) and disregarding the zero-point energy, we obtain the magnetic Hamiltonian bilinear in the k-space magnon operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{F}} & = \sum_{\pmb{q}} \left( A_{\pmb{q}} ~ \tilde{b}^\dagger_{\pmb{q}} \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}} + B_{\pmb{q}}^* ~ \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}}^\dagger \tilde{b}_{-\pmb{q}}^\dagger + B_{\pmb{q}} ~ \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}} \tilde{b}_{-\pmb{q}} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
A_{\pmb{q}} \ = \ A_{-\pmb{q}} & = \hbar \left( \omega_{\mathrm{za}} - \omega_s N_z + D q^2 + \frac{\omega_s}{2} (N_x + N_y) \delta_{\pmb{q},\pmb{0}} + (1 - \delta_{\pmb{q},\pmb{0}}) \frac{\omega_s}{2} \sin^2 \theta_{\pmb{q}} \right) , \\
B_{\pmb{q}} \ = \ B_{-\pmb{q}} & = \hbar \left( \frac{\omega_s}{4} N_{xy} \delta_{\pmb{q},\pmb{0}} + (1 - \delta_{\pmb{q},\pmb{0}}) \frac{\omega_s}{4} \sin^2 \theta_{\pmb{q}} ~ e^{i 2 \phi_{\pmb{q}}} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ Here, $D = 2 A |\gamma|/M_s$, $\omega_s = |\gamma| \mu_0 M_s$, $N_{xy} = N_x - N_y$, $\theta_{\pmb{q}}$ and $\phi_{\pmb{q}}$ are respectively the polar and azimuthal angles of the wavevector $\pmb{q}$. The magnetic Hamiltonian thus obtained may be brought to a diagonal form by the Bogoliubov transformations [@Holstein1940; @Akhiezer1968] to new bosonic quasi-particles corresponding to the annihilation operators $\tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{q}} = u_{\pmb{q}} \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}} - v_{\pmb{q}}^* \tilde{b}^\dagger_{- \pmb{q}}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hf}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{F}} & = \sum_{\pmb{q}} \hbar \omega_{\pmb{q}} \tilde{\beta}^\dagger_{\pmb{q}} \tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{q}},\end{aligned}$$ with the transformation parameters $\hbar \omega_{\pmb{q}} = \sqrt{A_{\pmb{q}}^2 - 4 |B_{\pmb{q}}|^2 }$, and $$\begin{aligned}
v_{\pmb{q}} = - \frac{2 B_{\pmb{q}}}{(A_{\pmb{q}} + \hbar \omega_{\pmb{q}})} \ u_{\pmb{q}} & = - e^{i \Theta_{\pmb{q}}} \frac{2 B_{\pmb{q}}}{\sqrt{(A_{\pmb{q}} + \hbar \omega_{\pmb{q}})^2 - 4 |B_{\pmb{q}}|^2}}.\end{aligned}$$ $\Theta_{\pmb{q}}$ is the arbitrary phase factor for the transformation which we choose to be zero such that $u_{\pmb{q}}$ are real positive. With this choice, $v_{\pmb{q}}$ are in general complex with real $v_{\pmb{0}}$. We further note that $v_{\pmb{q}} = v_{-\pmb{q}}$ and $u_{\pmb{q}} = u_{-\pmb{q}}$.
If the dipolar interaction is disregarded, $B_{\pmb{q}} = 0$ and magnons are the eigenstates of the magnetic subsystem. However, the Bogoliubov transformation necessitated by the dipolar fields leads to squeezing [@Walls2008] in the magnon eigenspace giving rise to new excitations - [*squeezed-magnons*]{} [@Kamra2016]. In the classical domain, the effect of squeezing is tantamount to an elliptical polarization of the magnons. However, the direct mathematical analogy between the squeezing of magnons and photons [@Kamra2016] allows extension of the quantum effects, such as reduced vacuum fluctuations in one quadrature at the expense of the other and entanglement between different modes, already well studied for optical fields to our magnetic system. Furthermore, the expectation value of the total spin z-component: $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{V_{\mathrm{F}}} \langle \tilde{S}_{\mathrm{F}}^z (\pmb{r}) \rangle d^3 r & = - \frac{\mathcal{M}_0}{|\gamma|} + \sum_{\pmb{q}} \hbar (1 + 2 |v_{\pmb{q}}|^2 ) n_{\pmb{q}}^{\beta} + \sum_{\pmb{q}} \hbar |v_{\pmb{q}}|^2 ,\end{aligned}$$ suggests that the s-magnons possess a non-integer effective spin of $\hbar (1 + 2 |v_{\pmb{q}}|^2)$. Here, $n_{\pmb{q}}^{\beta}$ denotes the number of squeezed-magnons (s-magnons) with wavevector $\pmb{q}$, $\mathcal{M}_0 = M_s V_{\mathrm{F}}$ is the total magnetic moment, and the last term in the equation above represents vacuum noise due to squeezing [@Holstein1940; @Walls2008].
The effective spin of the uniform mode ($\pmb{q} = \pmb{0}$) is of particular interest because of the latter’s central role in ferromagnetic resonance (FMR), and is given by $\hbar^* = \hbar (1 + 2 v_{\pmb{0}}^2 ) = \hbar (1 + \delta )$. We plot the relative change in the effective spin ($\delta$) along with the FMR frequency ($\omega_{\pmb{0}}/ 2 \pi$) for iron and YIG films ($N_x = 1, N_{y,z} = 0$) as a function of the external plus effective anisotropy field $\mu_0 H_{za} = \omega_{za}/|\gamma|$ in figure \[fig:delnomegavsH\]. Within the typical experimental range of frequencies, $\delta \sim 1$ and the dipolar fields are found to play an important role. The extent of squeezing, however, is negligible whenever the contribution of dipolar interaction to the total eigenmode energy $\hbar \omega_{\pmb{q}}$ can be disregarded i.e. when $|B_{\pmb{q}}|/A_{\pmb{q}} \ll 1$. This is the case when either the Zeeman ($H_0/M_s \gg 1$) or the exchange ($D q^2 / \omega_s \gg 1$) energy dominates over the dipolar energy. Thus, in considering the phenomenon where the large $q$ excitations play the important role, the dipolar interactions and squeezing may be disregarded.
### Electronic and interaction contributions {#sssec:eleccont}
We directly write the electronic Hamiltonian $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{N}}$ diagonalized in terms of the fermionic creation ($\tilde{c}_{\pmb{k},s}^\dagger$) and annihilation ($\tilde{c}_{\pmb{k},s}$) operators corresponding to the spin-degenerate orbital wavefunctions $\psi_{\pmb{k}}(\pmb{r})$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hn}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{N}} & = \sum_{\pmb{k},s} \hbar \omega_{\pmb{k}} \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k},s}^\dagger \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k},s},\end{aligned}$$ with $s = \pm$ the index denoting electronic spin projection of $s \hbar / 2$ along the z-direction. The wavefunctions $\psi_{\pmb{k}}(\pmb{r})$, while being plane waves in the simplest case, capture essential details about the orbital dynamics in N. The spin density operator for the electronic system $\tilde{\pmb{S}}_{\mathrm{N}} (\pmb{r})$ then becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sn}
\tilde{\pmb{S}}_{\mathrm{N}}(\pmb{r}) & = \frac{\hbar}{2} \sum_{s,s^\prime} \tilde{\Psi}_s^\dagger (\pmb{r}) \pmb{\sigma}_{s,s^\prime} \tilde{\Psi}_{s^\prime}(\pmb{r}),\end{aligned}$$ where the components of $\pmb{\sigma}$ are the Pauli matrices, and $\tilde{\Psi}_s(\pmb{r}) = \sum_{\pmb{k}} \psi_{\pmb{k}} (\pmb{r}) \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k},s} $ is the operator that annihilates an electron with spin projection $s \hbar / 2$ at position $\pmb{r}$.
The coupling between the microwave drive and F is attributed to the Zeeman interaction between the former’s oscillating magnetic field ($h_0 \cos \omega t ~ \hat{\pmb{x}}$) and the latter’s net magnetic moment ($\tilde{\pmb{\mathcal{M}}} = \int_{V_{\mathrm{F}}} \tilde{\pmb{M}}(\pmb{r}) \ d^3 r$), considering the typical case of the microwave wavelength being much larger than the linear dimensions of F: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{drive}} & = - \mu_0 h_0 \tilde{\mathcal{M}}_x \cos \omega t, \\
& = - \mu_0 h_0 B \cos \omega t \left( \tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{0}} + \tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{0}}^\dagger \right), \label{hdrive}\end{aligned}$$ where we have employed equation (\[mxquant\]) in obtaining the final form above, and defined $B \equiv (u_{\pmb{0}} + v_{\pmb{0}}) \sqrt{|\gamma| \hbar \mathcal{M}_0 / 2}$.
The interaction between F and N can be modeled via exchange between the interfacial spin densities in the two subsystems [@Zhang2012; @Bender2015]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hintbasic}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{int}} & = - \frac{\mathcal{J}}{\hbar^2} \int_{\mathcal{A}} \tilde{\pmb{S}}_{\mathrm{F}}(\pmb{\varrho}) \cdot \tilde{\pmb{S}}_{\mathrm{N}} (\pmb{\varrho}) ~ d^2 \pmb{\varrho},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{J}$ parametrizes the exchange strength, $\pmb{\varrho}$ denotes the in-plane 2D vector spanning the interface, and the integral is carried out over the interfacial area $\mathcal{A}$. This can be recast in terms of the creation and annihilation operators of the eigenmodes in F and N to obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hint}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{int}} & = \sum_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}} \hbar W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}} ~ \tilde{c}^\dagger_{\pmb{k}_1 +} \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_2 -} \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}} \ + \ \mathrm{H.c.} , \end{aligned}$$ with $\tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}} = u_{\pmb{q}} \tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{q}} + v_{\pmb{q}}^* \tilde{\beta}^\dagger_{-\pmb{q}}$, and $$\begin{aligned}
\hbar W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}} & = \mathcal{J} \sqrt{\frac{M_s}{2 |\gamma| \hbar}} \int_{\mathcal{A}} d^2 \varrho ~ \psi_{\pmb{k}_1}^* (\pmb{\varrho}) \psi_{\pmb{k}_2} (\pmb{\varrho}) \phi_{\pmb{q}} (\pmb{\varrho}).\end{aligned}$$ We have disregarded the terms that conserve the z-projected spin of F (and thus N) in equation (\[hint\]). These terms do not contribute to the z-polarized spin exchange between F and N [@Zhang2012], and hence drop out in the following magnon-mediated spin current analysis.
Since $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{int}}$ describes the interaction between F and N, it also defines the operator for the magnon-mediated (z-polarized) spin current injected into N as the interaction mediated time derivative of the total spin (z-component) in N: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{I}_z \ = \tilde{\dot{\mathcal{S}}}_z \ & = \frac{1}{i \hbar} \ \left[ \tilde{\mathcal{S}}_z , \tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{int}} \right], \\
& = \sum_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}} - i \hbar W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}} ~ \tilde{c}^\dagger_{\pmb{k}_1 +} \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_2 -} \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}} \ + \ \mathrm{H.c.} , \label{izop}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\pmb{\mathcal{S}}} = \int_{V_{\mathrm{N}}} \tilde{\pmb{S}}_{\mathrm{N}} (\pmb{r}) \ d^3 r $ is the total spin operator in N, with $V_{\mathrm{N}}$ its volume. In steady state, the spin current injected into N dissipates due to spin relaxation yielding no net change in the N total spin. Here, we are only concerned with the spin current injection across the F$|$N interface and do not consider the spin dynamics in N.
Equations of motion {#ssec:eom}
-------------------
Having obtained the full Hamiltonian for the system \[equations (\[htot\]), (\[hf\]), (\[hn\]), (\[hdrive\]), and (\[hint\])\], we proceed with studying the system dynamics working within the Heisenberg picture. Since all operators of interest can be expressed in terms of the eigenmode creation and annihilation operators, the time evolution of the latter gives a complete description of the system. The Heisenberg equations of motion read: $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{\tilde{c}}_{\pmb{k} +} = & \ \frac{1}{i \hbar} \left[ \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k} +} , \tilde{\mathcal{H}} \right] \ = \ - i \omega_{\pmb{k}} \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k} +} - i \sum_{\pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}} W_{\pmb{k} \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}} \ \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_2 -} \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}}, \label{eomckplus} \\
\dot{\tilde{c}}_{\pmb{k} -} = & - i \omega_{\pmb{k}} \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k} -} - i \sum_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{q}} W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k} \pmb{q}}^* \ \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_1 +} \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}}^\dagger, \label{eomckminus} \\
\dot{\tilde{\beta}}_{\pmb{q}} = & - i \omega_{\pmb{q}} \tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{q}} - i \sum_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2} \left( u_{\pmb{q}} W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}}^* \ \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_2 - }^\dagger \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_1 +} + v_{\pmb{q}} W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}} \ \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_1 + }^\dagger \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_2 -} \right) \nonumber \\
& + i \frac{\mu_0 h_0 B}{\hbar} \cos \omega t ~ \delta_{\pmb{q},\pmb{0}}. \label{eombetaq}\end{aligned}$$ We aim to obtain solution to these equations perturbatively up to the second order in the interfacial exchange parameter $\mathcal{J}$ \[equation (\[hintbasic\])\], and hence $W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}}$. To this end, we use the method employed by Gardiner and Collet [@Gardiner1985] in deriving the input-output formalism [@Walls2008] for quantum optical fields which entails the following mathematical prescription. Until a certain initial time $t_0$, F and N exist in thermal equilibrium without any mutual interaction or driving field, such that the density matrix of the combined system is the outer-product of the F and N equilibrium density matrices, i.e. $\rho = \rho_{\mathrm{F}}^{\mathrm{eq}} \otimes \rho_{\mathrm{N}}^{\mathrm{eq}}$. At $t = t_0$, the F and N interaction ($\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{int}}$) and the microwave drive ($\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{drive}}$) are turned on. In the Heisenberg picture, the density matrix for the system stays the same while the operators evolve with time and get entangled. The steady state dynamics is obtained by taking the limit $t_0 \to - \infty$ in the end. Within this prescription, the general solution to equation (\[eomckplus\]) for $t > t_0$ may be written as [@Gardiner1985]: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ckplusexp}
\tilde{c}_{\pmb{k} + } (t) = & e^{- i \omega_{\pmb{k}} (t - t_0)} \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k} +}(t_0) - i \sum_{\pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}} W_{\pmb{k} \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}} \ \int_{t_0}^{t} e^{- i \omega_{\pmb{k}}(t - t^\prime)} \ \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_2 -}(t^\prime) \tilde{b}_{\pmb{q}}(t^\prime) dt^\prime, \end{aligned}$$ where $ \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k} +}(t_0)$ is the initial value of the operator. In the equation above, the first term represents the unperturbed solution while the second term gives the effect of exchange interaction $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{int}}$. A similar expression follows for $\tilde{c}_{\pmb{k} - } (t)$ using equation (\[eomckminus\]).
Since the microwave drives the $\pmb{q} = \pmb{0}$ mode coherently, represented by the last term on the right hand side of the [*linear*]{} dynamical equation \[(\[eombetaq\])\] for $\tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{q}}$, we may express $\tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{0}} = \beta + (\tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{0}} - \beta)$ as the sum over the coherent part given by a c-number $\beta = \langle \tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{0}} \rangle$ and the incoherent part $\tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{0}} - \beta$. The dynamical equation for $\beta$ is obtained by taking the expectation value on both sides of equation (\[eombetaq\]) for $\pmb{q} = \pmb{0}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{betadyn1}
\dot{\beta} = & - i \omega_{\pmb{0}} \beta - i \sum_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2} \left( u_{\pmb{0}} W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{0}}^* \ Y_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2} + v_{\pmb{0}} W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{0}} \ Y_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2}^* \right) + i \frac{\mu_0 h_0 B}{\hbar} \cos \omega t,\end{aligned}$$ with $Y_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k_2}} \equiv Y_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k_2}}(t) = \langle \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_2 - }^\dagger(t) \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}_1 +}(t) \rangle$. Employing equation (\[ckplusexp\]) and analogous expressions for $\tilde{c}_{\pmb{k} - } (t)$ and $\tilde{\beta}_{\pmb{q}}(t)$, retaining terms up to the second order in $\mathcal{J}$, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{yk1k2}
Y_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k_2}}(t) = & i \pi W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{0}} \ (n_{\pmb{k}_1} - n_{\pmb{k}_2}) \ \left[ u_{\pmb{0}} \beta(t) \delta(\omega_{\pmb{k}_1} - \omega_{\pmb{k}_2} - \omega) + v_{\pmb{0}} \beta^*(t) \delta(\omega_{\pmb{k}_1} - \omega_{\pmb{k}_2} + \omega) \right],\end{aligned}$$ with $n_{\pmb{k}} = \langle \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}}^\dagger(t_0) \tilde{c}_{\pmb{k}}(t_0) \rangle = f(\hbar \omega_{\pmb{k}} - \mu)$, where $f(\epsilon) = 1/[\exp(\epsilon/k_B T) + 1]$ is the Fermi function, $\mu$ is the chemical potential in N, $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $T$ is the system temperature. Employing equation (\[yk1k2\]), equation (\[betadyn1\]) simplifies to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{betadyn2}
\dot{\beta} = & - i \omega_{\pmb{0}} \beta - (u_{\pmb{0}}^2 + v_{\pmb{0}}^2) \Gamma_{\mathrm{N}} \beta + 2 u_{\pmb{0}} v_{\pmb{0}} \Gamma_{\mathrm{N}} \beta^* + i \frac{\mu_0 h_0 B}{\hbar} \cos \omega t,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{\mathrm{N}}$ is defined by: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{gamman}
\Gamma_{\mathrm{N}} \equiv \Gamma_{\mathrm{N}}(\omega) = & \sum_{\pmb{k}_1,\pmb{k}_2} \pi |W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{0}}|^2 (n_{\pmb{k}_2} - n_{\pmb{k}_1}) \delta(\omega_{\pmb{k}_1} - \omega_{\pmb{k}_2} - \omega).\end{aligned}$$ In writing equation (\[betadyn2\]), we have employed the relation $\Gamma_{\mathrm{N}}(-\omega) = - \Gamma_{\mathrm{N}}(\omega)$. We now make two simplifying assumptions: (i) $|W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{0}}|^2 \equiv |W_{\mu,\pmb{0}}|^2$, i.e. $W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{0}}$ only depends on the magnitudes of $\pmb{k}_{1,2}$, and thus on the chemical potential in N, and (ii) the electronic density of states per unit volume in N - $g(\epsilon)$ - does not vary considerably over energy scales $k_B T$ and $\hbar \omega$ around $\epsilon = \mu$. With these assumptions, equation (\[gamman\]) leads to the simplified expression $\Gamma_{\mathrm{N}} = \alpha^\prime \omega$, with $\alpha^\prime = \pi |W_{\mu,\pmb{0}}|^2 V_{\mathrm{N}}^2 \hbar^2 g^2(\mu)$.
Considering the ansatz $\beta = \beta_{+} \exp(i \omega t) + \beta_{-} \exp(- i \omega t)$ in equation (\[betadyn2\]), we find that $|\beta_+| \ll |\beta_-|$ as long as $\alpha^\prime \ll 1$. Thus we may disregard the $\beta_{+}$ term thereby making the rotating wave approximation. Within this approximation, the dynamical equation for $\beta$ further simplifies to: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{betadyn3}
\dot{\beta} = & - i \omega_{\pmb{0}} \beta - (u_{\pmb{0}}^2 + v_{\pmb{0}}^2) \Gamma_{\mathrm{N}} \beta + i \frac{\mu_0 h_0 B}{\hbar} \cos \omega t,\end{aligned}$$ with solution: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{betat}
\beta(t) = \beta_{-} \ e^{- i \omega t} = & \frac{\mu_0 h_0 B}{2 \hbar} \ \frac{1}{(\omega_{\pmb{0}} - \omega) - i \Gamma_{\mathrm{N}} (u_{\pmb{0}}^2 + v_{\pmb{0}}^2)} \ e^{- i \omega t}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus uniform s-magnon mode is resonantly excited for $\omega = \omega_{\pmb{0}}$ representing FMR.
It may be inferred from equations (\[betadyn3\]) and (\[betat\]) that $\Gamma_{\mathrm{N}}$ quantifies the dissipation of the uniform magnetic mode. Physically, $\Gamma_{\mathrm{N}}$ represents the rate at which the magnetic excitation decays due to its absorption by an N electron raising the latter from energy $\hbar \omega_{\pmb{k}_2}$ to $\hbar \omega_{\pmb{k}_1}$ \[equation (\[gamman\])\]. Dissipation due to the baths internal to F (such as phonons, $\pmb{q} \neq \pmb{0}$ s-magnons, F electrons, impurities etc.) may be included similarly by considering the appropriate higher order terms in $\tilde{\mathcal{H}}_{\mathrm{F}}$ [@Gardiner1985]. The resulting dynamical equation for $\beta$ is then obtained by simply replacing $\Gamma_{\mathrm{N}}$ by $\Gamma = \Gamma_{\mathrm{N}} + \Gamma_{\mathrm{F}}$, where the exact form of $\Gamma_{\mathrm{F}}$ depends upon the details of the bath and the non-linear interaction considered. For the ongoing analysis, we consider $\Gamma_{\mathrm{F}} = \alpha_0 \omega$ analogous to our result for $\Gamma_{\mathrm{N}}$, and in consistence with the Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) phenomenology [@Gilbert2004].
Noise evaluation {#ssec:neval}
----------------
The fluctuations in spin current may be quantified by the expectation value of their symmetrized correlation function: $\Phi(t_1,t_2) = 1/2 \left\langle \tilde{\delta I}_z (t_1) \tilde{\delta I}_z (t_2) + \tilde{\delta I}_z (t_2) \tilde{\delta I}_z (t_1) \right\rangle$, where $\tilde{\delta I}_z = \tilde{I}_z - \langle \tilde{I}_z \rangle$ is the deviation of the spin current from its expectation value. Considering terms up to the second order in $\mathcal{J}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(t_1,t_2) = & \frac{1}{2} \left\langle \tilde{I}_z (t_1) \tilde{I}_z (t_2) + \tilde{I}_z (t_2) \tilde{I}_z (t_1) \right\rangle, \nonumber \\
= & \Re \left\langle \tilde{I}_z (t_1) \tilde{I}_z (t_2) \right\rangle, \label{corr}\end{aligned}$$ where the hermiticity of the spin current operator $\tilde{I}_z$ was employed in making the last simplification. The [*single-sided*]{} [^3] noise power spectral density $S(\Omega)$ is obtained from the correlation function via the Wiener-Khintchine theorem [@Howard2004] for non-stationary processes: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{somega}
S(\Omega) = & 2 \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left[ \lim_{\tau_0 \to \infty} \frac{1}{2 \tau_0} \int_{-\tau_0}^{\tau_0} \Phi(\tau,\tau - t) \ d \tau \right] \ e^{i \Omega t} dt,\end{aligned}$$ where the term in the square brackets is the auto-correlation function of the spin current, considering that the latter represents a non-stationary process [@Howard2004] owing to the coherent drive. Since the spin current operator is proportional to $\mathcal{J}$, in evaluating the noise power up to the second order in $\mathcal{J}$, it suffices to employ the expressions for the eigenmode operators, such as equation (\[ckplusexp\]), disregarding $\mathcal{J}$ altogether.
Employing equations of motion for the eigenmode operators in equations (\[corr\]) and (\[somega\]), the noise power conveniently separates into non-equilibrium and equilibrium contributions $S(\Omega) = S_{\mathrm{neq}}(\Omega) + S_{\mathrm{eq}}(\Omega)$. The former contribution is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{neq}}(\Omega) = & 2 (u_{\pmb{0}}^2 + v_{\pmb{0}}^2) \pi \hbar^2 |\beta_{-}|^2 \nonumber \\
& \left[ h_{\pmb{0}}(\omega + \Omega) + h_{\pmb{0}}(-\omega - \Omega) + h_{\pmb{0}}(-\omega + \Omega) + h_{\pmb{0}}(\omega - \Omega) \right] , \label{sneq1}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{hx}
h_{\pmb{q}}(x) \equiv & \sum_{\pmb{k}_1,\pmb{k}_2} |W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}}|^2 n_{\pmb{k}_1} (1 - n_{\pmb{k}_2}) \delta(\omega_{\pmb{k}_1} - \omega_{\pmb{k}_2} + x).\end{aligned}$$ The different $h_{\pmb{0}}(x)$ terms in equation (\[sneq1\]) represent the various absorption and emission processes taking place in the system [@Kamra2016]. The equilibrium noise can further be written as sum of “classical” \[$S_{\mathrm{cl}}(\Omega)$\] and “quantum” \[$S_{\mathrm{qu}}(\Omega)$\] contributions $S_{\mathrm{eq}}(\Omega) = S_{\mathrm{cl}}(\Omega) + S_{\mathrm{qu}}(\Omega)$ with: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{cl}}(\Omega) = & 2 \pi \hbar^2 \sum_{\pmb{q}} (u_{\pmb{q}}^2 + |v_{\pmb{q}}|^2) n_{\pmb{q}} \nonumber \\
& \left[ h_{\pmb{q}}(\omega_{\pmb{q}} + \Omega) + h_{\pmb{q}}(-\omega_{\pmb{q}} - \Omega) + h_{\pmb{q}}(-\omega_{\pmb{q}} + \Omega) + h_{\pmb{q}}(\omega_{\pmb{q}} - \Omega) \right] , \label{scl1} \\
S_{\mathrm{qu}}(\Omega) = & 2 \pi \hbar^2 \sum_{\pmb{q}} (u_{\pmb{q}}^2 + |v_{\pmb{q}}|^2) \left[ h_{\pmb{q}}(-\omega_{\pmb{q}} + \Omega) + h_{\pmb{q}}(-\omega_{\pmb{q}} - \Omega) \right], \label{squ1}\end{aligned}$$ where $n_{\pmb{q}} = n_{B}(\hbar \omega_{\pmb{q}}) \equiv 1/[\exp(\hbar \omega_{\pmb{q}}/k_B T) - 1]$ is the number of thermal s-magnons with wavevector $\pmb{q}$. The “quantum” contribution to noise \[$S_{\mathrm{qu}}(\Omega)$\] is so called since it is a direct consequence of the matrix element between two s-magnon number states being $n_{\pmb{q}} + 1$ instead of $n_{\pmb{q}}$, which is also the reason $S_{\mathrm{qu}}(\Omega)$ does not vanish at zero temperature.
For the remaining part of this manuscript, we replace $|W_{\pmb{k}_1 \pmb{k}_2 \pmb{q}}|^2$ with $|W_{\mu,\pmb{q}}|^2$, and assume that the N electronic density of states is fairly constant around the chemical potential, analogous to the assumptions made to obtain a simple expression for $\Gamma_{\mathrm{N}}$ \[equation (\[gamman\])\]. With these simplifying assumptions, equation (\[hx\]) leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
h_{\pmb{q}}(x) = & \hbar V_{\mathrm{N}}^2 g^2(\mu) |W_{\mu,\pmb{q}}|^2 \ \frac{\hbar x}{1 - e^{- \frac{\hbar x}{k_B T}}}, \end{aligned}$$ whence, the spin current noise expressions \[equations (\[sneq1\]), (\[scl1\]), and (\[squ1\])\] simplify to: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{neq}}(\Omega) = & 2 (u_{\pmb{0}}^2 + v_{\pmb{0}}^2) \hbar \alpha^\prime |\beta_{-}|^2 \ \left[ w(\omega + \Omega) + w(\omega - \Omega)\right], \label{sneq2} \\
S_{\mathrm{cl}}(\Omega) = & \sum_{\pmb{q}} 2 \hbar (u_{\pmb{q}}^2 + |v_{\pmb{q}}|^2) \alpha^\prime_{\pmb{q}} n_{\pmb{q}} \ \left[ w(\omega_{\pmb{q}} + \Omega) + w(\omega_{\pmb{q}} - \Omega)\right], \label{scl2} \\
S_{\mathrm{qu}}(\Omega) = & \sum_{\pmb{q}} 2 \hbar^2 (u_{\pmb{q}}^2 + |v_{\pmb{q}}|^2) \alpha^\prime_{\pmb{q}} \nonumber \\
& \left[ (\omega_{\pmb{q}} + \Omega) n_{B}(\hbar \{\omega_{\pmb{q}} + \Omega \}) + (\omega_{\pmb{q}} - \Omega) n_{B}(\hbar \{ \omega_{\pmb{q}} - \Omega \} ) \right], \label{squ2}\end{aligned}$$ with $w(x) \equiv \hbar x \coth (\hbar x / 2 k_B T)$, and $\alpha^\prime_{\pmb{q}} \equiv \pi |W_{\mu,\pmb{q}}|^2 V_{\mathrm{N}}^2 \hbar^2 g^2(\mu)$. Equations (\[sneq2\]) to (\[squ2\]) constitute the main result of this subsection.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The spin current across the F$|$N interface and its noise separates into driven (non-equilibrium) and thermal (equilibrium) contributions, with the former also depending on the temperature. We define the [*normalized*]{} spin current noise power, denoted by lowercase letters, $s(\Omega) = S(\Omega)/\mathcal{A} \hbar^2 \omega_s $ as a dimensionless quantity per unit area. $s(\Omega)$ [*approximately*]{} represents the number of s-magnons which, if traverse unit area of the F$|$N interface every $1/\omega_s$ seconds on an average, will lead to the spin current noise $S(\Omega)$.
Non-equilibrium {#ssec:neqres}
---------------
The expectation value of the net spin current is obtained from equations (\[izop\]), (\[yk1k2\]), and (\[gamman\]): $$\begin{aligned}
I_z (t) = \left\langle \tilde{I}_{z} (t) \right\rangle = I_{\mathrm{dc}} = & 2 \hbar \alpha^\prime \omega |\beta_{-}|^2,\end{aligned}$$ employing which the spin current shot noise \[equation (\[sneq2\])\] may be rewritten as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sneq3}
S_{\mathrm{neq}}(\Omega) = & \frac{\hbar^* I_{\mathrm{dc}}}{\hbar \omega} \left[ w(\omega + \Omega) + w(\omega - \Omega)\right].\end{aligned}$$ Thus $I_{\mathrm{dc}}$, and hence the shot noise, is largest under FMR $\omega = \omega_{\pmb{0}}$. In the limit of $k_B T \ll (\hbar \omega, \hbar \Omega$), $w(x) \to \hbar |x|$ thereby recovering the result for spin current shot noise at zero temperature [@Kamra2016]. The resulting zero frequency shot noise in the low temperature limit ($2 \hbar^* I_{\mathrm{dc}}$) is representative of a Poissonian spin transfer process in lumps of $\hbar^*$ [@Blanter2000; @Kamra2016]. Thus the spin current shot noise reaffirms the non-integer spin $\hbar^*$ of the $\pmb{q} = \pmb{0}$ s-magnon mode.
![Normalized spin current shot noise power spectra \[equation (\[sneq3\])\]. The system considered is a YIG$|$Pt bilayer driven with a coherent microwave drive at ferromagnetic resonance, i.e. $\omega = \omega_{\pmb{0}}$. $l_x$ denotes the thickness of the YIG layer. []{data-label="fig:Sneqvsfreq"}](Sneqvsfreq.pdf){width="85mm"}
On the other hand, in the high temperature limit, we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{neq}}(\Omega) = & \ 2 \hbar^* I_{\mathrm{dc}} \frac{2 k_B T }{\hbar \omega} , \quad k_B T \gg (\hbar \omega, \hbar \Omega).\end{aligned}$$ Thus, in contrast with the typical situation for electronic transport [@Blanter2000], finite temperature is advantageous for measuring the magnon-mediated spin current shot noise. This difference comes about because, for the case at hand, the magnitude of $I_{\mathrm{dc}}$ is primarily determined by the microwave field amplitude $h_0$ (assuming operation under FMR), and the $2 k_B T / \hbar \omega$ enhancement is enabled by the relatively low drive frequency around FMR, $\omega \approx \omega_{\pmb{0}}$. An analogous thermal enhancement for electronic transport will require applying very low drive voltage, which in turn diminishes $I_{\mathrm{dc}}$. The (normalized) shot noise spectra \[equation (\[sneq3\])\] at three different temperatures are plotted in figure \[fig:Sneqvsfreq\] for a YIG$|$Pt bilayer with YIG thickness of 1 $\mu$m. The parameters employed in the plot are: $\omega_{\mathrm{za}} = |\gamma| \times 0.1$ T, $M_s = 1.4 \times 10^{5}$ A$/$m, $\alpha_0 = 0.001$, $|\gamma| = 1.8 \times 10^{11}$ Hz$/$T, and $\mu_0 h_0 = 100~\mu$T. Furthermore, for YIG$|$Pt bilayers, $\alpha^\prime \approx 0.215 / [l_x$ (nm)\] [@Tserkovnyak2002; @Czeschka2011], where $l_x$ denotes the thickness of the YIG layer. The power spectra are found to be white up to the larger between the drive frequency and $k_B T / \hbar$.
Equilibrium {#ssec:eqres}
-----------
The expressions for the thermal spin current noise \[equations (\[scl2\]) and (\[squ2\])\] involve sum over all s-magnon $\pmb{q}$ modes. However, there always is an effective upper frequency cut-off, denoted here by $\omega_c$, due to the temperature or $\Omega$, which limits the number of non-vanishing terms in the sum. Furthermore, experimental data on the magnetic field dependence of the spin Seebeck effect [@Boona2014; @Kikkawa2015; @Ritzmann2015] in the system under consideration suggests a cut-off around $\hbar \omega_{c} \approx k_B (30$ K). This latter cut-off is in addition to the analysis pursued herein. For simplicity, we make the assumption, which will be examined in detail elsewhere, $\alpha^\prime_{\pmb{q}} = \alpha^\prime_{\pmb{0}} = \alpha^\prime$. This assumption is bound to fail at large enough $\pmb{q}$ but it is acceptable for frequencies below our largest cut-off.
In the given form, it is not possible to simplify equations (\[scl2\]) and (\[squ2\]) any further. We thus evaluate the noise contributions numerically and label the result with a superscript “n”. For example, the numerically evaluated data for equation (\[scl2\]) is denoted by $S^{\mathrm{n}}_{\mathrm{cl}}(\Omega)$, and so on. However, if we disregard dipolar interactions, simple analytical expressions for the noise power can be obtained in certain limits. We first define and discuss the validity of these limiting cases. As was discussed in section \[ssec:hamiltonian\], dipolar interactions play an important role for s-magnons with frequencies less than or comparable to $\omega_s$. However, the interaction may be disregarded when the dominant contribution to the thermal spin current noise comes from larger frequencies. Thus the ensuing analysis is valid when $\omega_c \gg \omega_s$.
The first step towards evaluating the sum over $\pmb{q}$ is transforming it to an integral over a quasi-continuous wavevector space. The s-magnon system, however, is quasi-2D if $D/l_x^2 \gg \omega_c$ and it is quasi-3D for $D/l_x^2 \ll \omega_c$. In the following, we indicate the effective dimensionality of the magnetic subsystem by an appropriate superscript in the noise expressions. Furthermore, different expressions for noise power are obtained in the limiting cases of temperature being much larger or smaller than $\Omega$ (in the appropriate units). The larger between the two decides our effective cut-off $\omega_c$, and is thus also indicated in the superscript of the noise expressions. With these notational conventions and validity regimes, we directly write the noise expressions obtained after simplifying equations (\[scl2\]) and (\[squ2\]) in the quasi-2D limit: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{2D,T}} (\Omega) \approx & \frac{2 \mathcal{A} \alpha^\prime k_B^2 T^2}{\pi D} \ \log \left( \frac{k_B T}{\hbar \omega_{\mathrm{za}}} \right) \label{scl2dt},\\
S_{\mathrm{qu}}^{\mathrm{2D,T}} (\Omega) = & \frac{\mathcal{A} \alpha^\prime k_B^2 T^2}{\pi D} \ \frac{\pi^2}{6}, \label{squ2dt} \\
S_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{2D,\Omega}} (\Omega) \approx & \frac{\mathcal{A} \hbar \alpha^\prime k_B T}{ \pi D} \ \log \left( \frac{k_B T}{\hbar \omega_{\mathrm{za}}} \right) \ |\Omega|, \label{scl2do} \\
S_{\mathrm{qu}}^{\mathrm{2D,\Omega}} (\Omega) = & \frac{\mathcal{A} \alpha^\prime}{4 \pi D} \ (\hbar \Omega - \hbar \omega_{\mathrm{za}})^2 \ \Theta(\Omega - \omega_{\mathrm{za}}), \label{sq2do}\end{aligned}$$ where, $\Theta(x)$ is the heaviside step function. In the quasi-3D limit: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{3D,T}} (\Omega) \approx & \frac{4 V_{\mathrm{F}} \hbar \alpha^\prime }{\pi^2 (\hbar D)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \ (k_B T)^{\frac{5}{2}} , \label{scl3dt} \\
S_{\mathrm{qu}}^{\mathrm{3D,T}} (\Omega) = & \Gamma \left( 5/2 \right) \zeta \left( 5/2 \right) \frac{ V_{\mathrm{F}} \hbar \alpha^\prime }{\pi^2 (\hbar D)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \ (k_B T)^{\frac{5}{2}} , \label{squ3dt} \\
S_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{3D,\Omega}} (\Omega) \approx & \Gamma \left( 3/2 \right) \zeta \left( 3/2 \right) \frac{ V_{\mathrm{F}} \hbar^2 \alpha^\prime }{\pi^2 (\hbar D)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \ (k_B T)^{\frac{3}{2}} \ |\Omega| , \label{scl3do} \\
S_{\mathrm{qu}}^{\mathrm{3D,\Omega}} (\Omega) = & \frac{2 V_{\mathrm{F}} \hbar \alpha^\prime }{15 \pi^2 (\hbar D)^{\frac{3}{2}}} \ (\hbar \Omega - \hbar \omega_{\mathrm{za}})^{\frac{5}{2}} \ \Theta(\Omega - \omega_{\mathrm{za}}), \label{squ3do}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma(x)$ and $\zeta(x)$ are, respectively, Gamma and Riemann Zeta functions, and the $\approx$ sign in the expressions for $S_{\mathrm{cl}} (\Omega)$ signifies that further approximations, as discussed in the appendix, have been made to obtain these closed form expressions.
In figure (\[fig:SzerovsT\]), we plot the normalized zero frequency noise power [*vs.*]{} temperature for two different thicknesses of the YIG layer in its heterostructure with Pt. The classical and quantum contributions to the noise are comparable at very low temperatures with the former dominating as the temperature increases. In figure (\[fig:Svsfreq\]), the frequency dependence of the noise power at a temperature of 1 K is plotted for the same bilayers. The noise power is white up to about $k_B T / \hbar$ and the quantum contribution to the noise dominates at high frequencies. The slight offsets between the numerical evaluation and analytical expressions for the classical noise stems from the crude approximations, discussed in the appendix, made in obtaining the closed form expressions. In both figures (\[fig:SzerovsT\]) and (\[fig:Svsfreq\]), depending on the YIG thickness, the quasi-2D (for 10 nm) or quasi-3D (for 1 $\mu$m) analytical expressions for the noise power are found to be in good agreement with the numerically evaluated results within the validity regime of the former. The parameters employed in plotting figures (\[fig:SzerovsT\]) and (\[fig:Svsfreq\]) are the same as those used in figure (\[fig:Sneqvsfreq\]) with the addition: $D = 8.2 \times 10^{-6}$ $\mathrm{m}^{2} /$s [@Kamra2015].
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
Comparing figures (\[fig:Sneqvsfreq\]) and (\[fig:SzerovsT\]), we find that the spin current shot noise far exceeds the thermal noise over the considered temperature range. Furthermore, due to the empirically postulated cut-off $\hbar \omega_{c} \approx k_B (30$ K) discussed above, it may be possible that the shot noise dominates the thermal noise all the way up to the room temperature. This feature is in sharp contrast with the frequency-temperature range in which the shot noise dominates in electronic (fermionic) systems, and may be understood as a special property of a non-conserved Boson gas with a coherently driven mode. Roughly speaking, the noise is directly proportional to the number of excitations. The coherent drive creates a large population of excitations in one mode while the remaining modes are populated gradually with increasing temperature. Thus, as far as the spin current across the interface is concerned, thermal noise does not pose any serious challenges to the detection of the shot noise.
Our analysis above has been perturbative in the exchange interaction between F and N. It has been tacitly assumed that the spin current exchange between F and N does not affect the distribution functions of the normal excitations in either of the subsystems. In other words, it has been assumed that the rate of equilibration in F and N far exceeds the rate of mutual spin exchange. While this is a good assumption for N (such as Pt) with strong spin-flip scattering, it breaks down for sufficiently thin F necessitating consideration of higher order terms in the perturbation parameter $\mathcal{J}$. Such an analysis accounting for the “backflow” effects [@Sharma2016], carried out within the LLG phenomenology for a thin films YIG$|$Pt bilayer, indicates that the thermal noise is further suppressed by the higher order correction. On the other hand, the shot noise stays the same since it has little to do with equilibration in F.
Employing the fluctuation-dissipation theorem [@Callen1951], it can be shown [@Sharma2016; @Kamra2014] that the thermal spin current noise is directly proportional to the spin conductivity of the F$|$N interface [@Xiao2015], i.e. the spin current absorbed by F when a non-equilibrium spin chemical potential exists in N. Thus our detailed results on spin current noise \[equations (\[scl2dt\]) to (\[squ3do\])\] also provide information on the interfacial spin conductivity over a broad parameter range.
Summary {#sec:summary}
=======
We have evaluated shot plus thermal noise of the spin current injected into a non-magnetic conductor (N) by an adjacent ferromagnet (F) subjected to a coherent microwave drive. The focus has been on the spin transfer mediated by the collective magnetization dynamics in F, and thus spin current polarized along the equilibrium magnetization is considered. We find that the shot noise indicates Poissonian spin transfer in lumps of $\hbar^* = \hbar (1 + \delta)$ representing the non-integer spin of the uniform squeezed-magnon [@Kamra2016] mode that is driven by the coherent drive. Furthermore, the shot noise increases with temperature and is white up to the larger between the drive frequency and the temperature (in units of frequency). The thermal noise is constituted by contributions that may be classified as classical and quantum, with the latter surviving even at zero temperature. At very low temperatures, both contributions are approximately equal with the classical noise dominating as the temperature increases. On the other hand, the quantum noise is found to dominate at large frequencies while the thermal noise stays white up to the temperature (in units of frequency). The shot noise is found to dominate its thermal counterpart for typical experimental parameters encouraging the former’s measurement. This shall allow for a first observation of non-integer spin of the squeezed-magnons and pave the way for exploration of their further non-trivial properties.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Sanchar Sharma (Delft) for valuable discussions, and acknowledge financial support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the DFG through SFB 767 and SPP 1538.
Sum over wavevectors
====================
We evaluate the classical contribution to the equilibrium noise \[equation (\[scl2\])\] by transforming the sum over all s-magnon modes into integral over a quasi-continuous wavevector space. The quantum contribution to noise \[equation (\[squ2\])\] can be evaluated in an analogous fashion and does not require the crude approximations, to be discussed below, that are needed for obtaining closed form expressions for the classical noise.
Ignoring dipolar interaction such that the magnon dispersion is given by $ E/\hbar = \omega_{\pmb{q}} = \omega_{\mathrm{za}} + D q^2$ and making other assumptions discussed in section \[ssec:eqres\], equation (\[scl2\]) in the quasi-2D limit leads to: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{2D}}(\Omega) = & \mathcal{A} \int N_2(E) \ 2 \hbar \alpha^\prime \ n_{B}(E) \ \left[ w\left( \frac{E}{\hbar} + \Omega \right) + w \left( \frac{E}{\hbar} - \Omega \right)\right] \ d E, \label{sclq2d}\end{aligned}$$ where $N_2(E) = (1/4 \pi \hbar D) \ \Theta(E - \hbar \omega_{\mathrm{za}})$ is the 2D magnon density of states, and we repeat for convenience that $n_{B}(E) = 1/[\exp(E/k_B T) - 1]$ and $w(x) = \hbar x \coth (\hbar x / 2 k_B T)$. Similarly, in the quasi-3D limit: $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{3D}}(\Omega) = & V_{\mathrm{F}} \int N_3(E) \ 2 \hbar \alpha^\prime \ n_{B}(E) \ \left[ w \left( \frac{E}{\hbar} + \Omega \right) + w \left( \frac{E}{\hbar} - \Omega \right)\right] \ d E, \label{sclq3d}\end{aligned}$$ with the 3D magnon density of states $N_3(E) = \Theta(E - \hbar \omega_{\mathrm{za}}) \ \sqrt{E - \hbar \omega_{\mathrm{za}}} / [4 \pi^2 (\hbar D)^{3/2}] $. Based on equations (\[sclq2d\]) and (\[sclq3d\]), we may discuss the crude approximations made in obtaining the closed form expressions for the classical noise.
In evaluating $S_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{2D,T}}(\Omega)$ from equation (\[sclq2d\]), we assume large temperature replacing $n_{B}(E)$ by $\Theta(k_B T - E) \ k_B T/E$ and $w(x)$ by $2 k_B T$, and obtain equation (\[scl2dt\]) on further simplification. The exactly same replacements, in addition to disregarding $\hbar \omega_{\mathrm{za}}/ k_B T$, leads from equation (\[sclq3d\]) to our final result for $S_{\mathrm{cl}}^{\mathrm{3D,T}}(\Omega)$ presented in equation (\[scl3dt\]). For evaluating the analogous results in the large $\Omega$ regime \[equations (\[scl2do\]) and (\[scl3do\])\], we need to make exactly the same approximations for $n_{B}(E)$, but now $w(E / \hbar \pm \Omega)$ reduces to $\hbar |\Omega|$.
[^1]: Strictly speaking, the magnetostatic approximation is not valid for a certain narrow range of low k excitations [@Akhiezer1968]. However, as we see in the final results, the thermal noise has contribution from excitations in a wide k range making the error due to an imprecise treatment of a fraction of this range negligible.
[^2]: The $\gamma / |\gamma|$ factor, which is often omitted assuming positive $\gamma$, is essential for a valid transformation consistent with angular momentum conservation.
[^3]: The “single-sided” (also known as “one-sided” or “unilateral”) power spectral density $S(\Omega)$ is defined as twice the usual power for positive frequencies ($\Omega > 0$) and zero for negative frequencies ($\Omega < 0$). The definition is a matter of convenience so that in evaluating the total power in a signal via the Parseval theorem [@Howard2004], one needs to integrate over positive frequencies only.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Nuclear matrix elements of the neutrinoless double beta ($0\nu\beta\beta$) decays of $^{96}$Zr, $^{100}$Mo, $^{116}$Cd, $^{128}$Te, $^{130}$Te and $^{136}$Xe are calculated for the light-neutrino exchange mechanism by using the proton-neutron quasiparticle random-phase approximation (pnQRPA) with a realistic nucleon-nucleon force. The $g_{\rm pp}$ parameter of the pnQRPA is fixed by the data on the two-neutrino double beta decays and single beta decays. The finite size of a nucleon, the higher-order terms of nucleonic weak currents, and the nucleon-nucleon short-range correlations (s.r.c) are taken into account. The s.r.c. are computed by the traditional Jastrow method and by the more advanced unitary correlation operator method (UCOM). Comparison of the results obtained by the two methods is carried out. The UCOM computed matrix elements turn out to be considerably larger than the Jastrow computed ones. This result is important for the assessment of the neutrino-mass sensitivity of the present and future double beta experiments.'
author:
- Markus Kortelainen
- Jouni Suhonen
title: 'Nuclear matrix elements of $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay with improved short-range correlations'
---
Introduction
============
The neutrinoless double beta ($0\nu\beta\beta$) decay plays a key role in the search for massive Majorana neutrinos and their mass scale. The experimental search for $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay has become front-line physics due to the verification of the existence of neutrino mass by the oscillation experiments [@Oscillations] and the claimed discovery of the $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay [@KLA01; @KLA04]. At present there are two important experiments taking data, namely the NEMO 3 [@ARN05a] and CUORICINO [@ARN05b] experiments. A host of important future experiments are under R&D planning and construction [@BAR04]. For all these expensive experiments the computed values of the involved nuclear matrix elements have become an important issue [@ELL02; @ELL04; @BIL04; @GEH07]. They are essential when one starts to extract quantitative neutrino properties from the measured data.
Many nuclear models of different types have been deviced to compute the nuclear matrix elements of the $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay [@SUH98]. There are essentially two complementary families of nuclear models on the market, the nuclear shell model [@HAX84; @CAU99; @CAU05] and the proton-neutron quasiparticle random-phase approximation (pnQRPA) [@VOG86; @CIV87; @SUH98]. The pnQRPA is constructed to describe the energy levels of odd-odd nuclei and their beta decays to the neighboring even-even nuclei [@SUH07]. Also its derivative, renormalized pnQRPA [@TOI95], has been used [@TOI97; @ROD06] to compute double-beta matrix elements. The pnQRPA (and the renormalized pnQRPA) calculations can be fine tuned by the so-called particle-particle strength parameter, $g_{\rm pp}$, that controls the magnitude of the proton-neutron two-body interaction for the $1^+$ intermediate states in double beta decay [@VOG86; @CIV87]. There are two ways to fix the value of this parameter, either by using the data on two-neutrino double beta ($2\nu\beta\beta$) decays [@ROD06] or the data on single beta decays [@SUH05; @CIV05]. In this work we use the $2\nu\beta\beta$ data to fix the possible values of $g_{\rm pp}$ and cross check it by single beta decays wherever possible.
In the mass mode of the $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay a light virtual Majorana neutrino is exchanged by the two decaying neutrons of the initial nucleus. The average exchanged momentum is large so that the two neutrons tend to overlap. To prevent this a Jastrow type of correlation function was introduced in [@HAX84; @ENG88] following the parametrization of Miller and Spencer [@MIL76]. This method, although microscopically inspired, is just a phenomenological way to introduce *short-range correlations* into the two-nucleon relative wave function. The Jastrow function simply cuts off the wave function of the two nucleons at short relative distances $r$ leading to a violation of the norm of the wave function.
In the present calculations we improve on the Jastrow method by engaging the more sophisticated microscopic approach of unitary correlation operator method (UCOM) [@FEL98]. In the UCOM one obtains the correlated many-particle state from the uncorrelated one by a unitary transformation and thus the norm of the correlated state is conserved and no amplitude is lost in the relative wave function. In the $0\nu\beta\beta$ calculations this leads to a more complete description of the relative wave function for small $r$, as was demonstrated in [@KOR07] for the decays of $^{48}$Ca and $^{76}$Ge. In this work and in [@KOR07b], where the decays of $^{76}$Ge and $^{82}$Se were analyzed, it is demonstrated that the Jastrow procedure leads to the excessive reduction of 25% – 40% in the magnitudes of the $0\nu\beta\beta$ nuclear matrix elements. At the same time the UCOM reduces the magnitudes of the matrix elements only by 4% – 16%. The magnitude of the short-range corrections affects the magnitudes of the nuclear matrix elements which, in turn, dictate the neutrino-mass sensitivity of the potentially succesful future double beta experiments. The notable differences between the Jastrow and UCOM corrections influence the cost estimates of large-scale experiments if a given neutrino-mass sensitivity is wanted.
In the article we continue the work of [@KOR07b], where the $0\nu\beta\beta$ nuclear matrix elements of $^{76}$Ge and $^{82}$Se were derived. We apply the UCOM and Jastrow short-range correlations on matrix elements derived by the pnQRPA method and corrected for the *higher-order terms of nucleonic weak current* and the *nucleon’s finite size* using the recipes of [@ROD06; @SIM99]. We analyze the $0\nu\beta\beta$-decay matrix elements of $^{96}$Zr, $^{100}$Mo, $^{116}$Cd, $^{128}$Te, $^{130}$Te and $^{136}$Xe for all the mentioned corrections. The necessary theoretical background is briefly described in Sec. II and the numerical application is reviewed in Sec. III. The results are discussed in Sec. IV, and the summary and conclusions are presented in Sec. V.
Theoretical background
======================
We start this short review of the theory by presenting the expression for the half-life of the $2\nu\beta\beta$ decay: $$\left\lbrack t_{1/2}^{(2 \nu)}(0_{\rm i}^+ \rightarrow 0_{\rm f}^+)
\right\rbrack^{-1}=
G^{(2\nu )}\left\vert M_{\rm DGT}^{(2\nu )}\right\vert^2 \ .
\label{eq:2vbb}$$ The transition proceeds from the initial ground state, $0^+_{\rm i}$, to the final ground state, $0^+_{\rm f}$. Here $ G^{(2 \nu)}$ is an integral over the phase space of the leptonic variables [@SUH98; @DOI85]. The involved double Gamow–Teller matrix element, $M_{\rm {DGT}}^{(2 \nu)}$, can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
M_{ \rm {DGT}}^{(2 \nu)} & = & \sum_{n} \frac{
(0_{\rm f}^{+} \mid \mid \sum_j \mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}(j) t^{-}_j
\mid \mid 1_n^{+})}{( {{1} \over {2}} Q_{\beta \beta}+
E_n -M_{\rm i})/ m_{\rm e} +1} \nonumber \\
& & \times (1_n^{+} \mid \mid \sum_j \mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}(j) t^{-}_j
\mid \mid 0_{\rm i}^+) \; ,
\label{eq:mdgt}\end{aligned}$$ where the transition operators are the usual Gamow-Teller operators for $\beta^-$ transitions, $Q_{\beta \beta}$ is the $2\nu\beta\beta$ $Q$ value, $E_n$ is the energy of the $n$th intermediate state, $M_{\rm i}$ is the mass energy of the initial nucleus, and $m_{\rm e}$ is the rest-mass of the electron. It has to be noted here that the expression (\[eq:mdgt\]) is scaled by the electron rest mass to yield a dimensionless matrix element. This definition deviates from that of some other authors, like [@ROD06], where the scaling is not done.
The $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay can proceed via the exchange of a light virtual Majorana neutrino. Assuming this neutrino-mass mechanism to be the dominant one, the inverse of the $0\nu\beta\beta$ half-life can be written as $$\label{eq:0nbbhl}
\left[ t_{1/2}^{(0\nu)}(0_{\rm i}^+ \rightarrow 0_{\rm f}^+)
\right]^{-1} = G_{1}^{(0\nu)}
\left( \frac{\langle m_{\nu}\rangle }{m_{\rm e}} \right)^{2}
\left( M^{(0\nu)}\right)^{2}\ ,\quad M^{(0\nu)} = M_{\rm GT}^{(0\nu)} -
\left( \frac{g_{\rm V}}{g_{\rm A}}
\right)^{2} M_{\rm F}^{(0\nu)} + M_{\rm T}^{(0\nu)} .$$ In the above expression $M^{(0\nu)}$ is the total nuclear matrix element consisting of the Fermi, Gamow–Teller and tensor contributions. The effective mass of the neutrino is given by $$\langle m_{\nu}\rangle = \sum_{j} \lambda^{\rm CP}_{j} m_{j}
|U_{{\rm e}j}|^{2} \ ,$$ where $\lambda^{\rm CP}_{j}$ is the CP phase and $U_{{\rm e}j}$ is a component of the neutrino mixing matrix. The definition of the leptonic phase-space factor $G_{1}^{(0\nu)}$ can be found in [@SUH98].
The nuclear matrix elements involved in the mass mode of the $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bbfermi}
M_{\rm F}^{(0\nu)} & = & \sum_{a} (0^{+}_{\rm f} || h_{\rm F}
(r_{mn},E_{a}) || 0^{+}_{\rm i}) \, , \\
\label{eq:bbgamowt}
M_{\rm GT}^{(0\nu)} & = & \sum_{a} (0^{+}_{\rm f} || h_{\rm GT}
(r_{mn},E_{a}) \mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}_{m}\cdot
\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}_{n} || 0^{+}_{\rm i}) \, ,\end{aligned}$$ where the summation runs over all the intermediate states and the integration is taken over the relative coordinate $r_{mn}=\vert\mathbf{r}_m -
\mathbf{r}_n\vert$ between the nucleons $m$ and $n$. The neutrino potential $h_{K}(r_{mn},E_{a})$, $K={\rm F,GT}$, is defined as $$\label{eq:nupot}
h_{K}(r_{mn},E_{a}) = \frac{2}{\pi}R_{\rm A} \int dq
\frac{qh_{K}(q^{2})}{q+E_{a}-(E_{\rm i}+E_{\rm f})/2} j_{0}(qr_{mn}) \, ,$$ where $R_{A} = 1.2A^{1/3}\,{\rm fm}$ is the nuclear radius and $j_{0}$ is the spherical Bessel function. The term $h_{K}(q^{2})$ in (\[eq:nupot\]) includes the contributions arising from the induced currents and the finite nucleon size [@ROD06; @SIM99].
Next we write the nuclear matrix elements explicitly in the pnQRPA framework. They are given by $$\begin{aligned}
M_{K}^{(0\nu)} & = & \sum_{J^{\pi},k_{1},k_{2},J'} \sum_{pp'nn'}
(-1)^{j_{n}+j_{p'}+J+J'} \sqrt{2J'+1} \nonumber \\
& & \times \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} j_{p} & j_{n} & J \\
j_{n'} & j_{p'} & J'\end{array} \right\}
( pp':J' \vert\vert {\mathcal O}_K \vert\vert nn':J' )
\\ & & \times
( 0^{+}_{\rm f} \vert \vert \left[ c^{\dag}_{p'}
\tilde{c}_{n'}\right]_J \vert \vert J^{\pi}_{k_{1}} )
\langle J^{\pi}_{k_{1}} \vert J^{\pi}_{k_{2}} \rangle
( J^{\pi}_{k_{2}} \vert \vert \left[ c^{\dag}_{p}
\tilde{c}_{n}\right]_J \vert \vert 0^{+}_{\rm i}) \, , \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $k_1$ and $k_2$ label the different pnQRPA solutions for a given multipole $J^{\pi}$. The operators ${\mathcal O}_K$ inside the two-particle matrix element derive from (\[eq:bbfermi\]) and (\[eq:bbgamowt\]) and they can be written as $${\mathcal O}_{\rm F} = h_{\rm F}(r,E_k)\ ,\quad
{\mathcal O}_{\rm GT} = h_{\rm GT}(r,E_k)\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}_{1}\cdot
\mbox{\boldmath{$\sigma$}}_{2} \ ,\quad r=\vert\mathbf{r}_1 -
\mathbf{r}_2\vert \ .$$ The expression for the pnQRPA transition densities $( 0^{+}_{\rm f} \vert \vert [ c^{\dag}_{p'}
\tilde{c}_{n'}]_J \vert \vert J^{\pi}_{k_{1}} )$ and $( J^{\pi}_{k_{2}} \vert \vert [ c^{\dag}_{p}
\tilde{c}_{n}]_J \vert \vert 0^{+}_{\rm i})$, and for the overlap factor $\langle J^{\pi}_{k_{1}} \vert J^{\pi}_{k_{2}} \rangle$ can be found e.g. in [@SUH98; @SUH07].
The traditional way to include the short-range correlations in the $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay calculations is by introducing the Jastrow correlation function $f_{\rm J}(r)$, which depends on the relative distance $r=|{\bf r}_{1}-{\bf r}_{2}|$ of two nucleons. In the Jastrow scheme the uncorrelated operator ${\mathcal O}$ is replaced by the correlated operator ${\mathcal O}_{\rm J}$ by a procedure $$\label{eq:Osrc}
(0^{+}_{f} || {\mathcal O} || 0^{+}_{i}) \to
(0^{+}_{f} || {\mathcal O}_{\rm J} || 0^{+}_{i}) =
(0^{+}_{f} || f_{\rm J} {\mathcal O} f_{\rm J} || 0^{+}_{i}) \, .$$ A typical choice for the function $f_{\rm J}$ in $0\nu\beta\beta$ calculations is [@TOM91] $$\label{eq:jastrow}
f_{\rm J}(r) = 1 - e^{-ar}\left( 1- br^{2} \right) \, ,$$ with $a=1.1 \, {\rm fm}^{2}$ and $b=0.68 \, {\rm fm}^{2}$. Such application of the Jastrow correlation function is very rudimentary and, consequently, the Jastrow correlation cuts out the $r\leq 1\,\textrm{fm}$ part from the relative two-particle wave function. In Ref. [@KOR07] it was demonstrated that this leads to overestimation of the effects of short-range correlations on the many-body wave function.
To circumvent the difficulties associated to the Jastrow correlations the more refined unitary correlation operator method (UCOM) [@FEL98] was used in the $0\nu\beta\beta$ decay calculations of Ref. [@KOR07]. In UCOM one obtains the correlated many-body state $\vert \tilde{\Psi} \rangle$ from the uncorrelated one as $$\vert \tilde{\Psi} \rangle = C \vert\Psi\rangle \, ,$$ where $C$ is the unitary correlation operator. The operator $C$ is a product of two unitary operators: $C=C_{\Omega}C_{r}$, where $C_{\Omega}$ describes short-range tensor correlations and $C_{r}$ central correlations. Due to the unitary of the operator $C$ the norm of the correlated state is conserved. Moreover, since the correlated matrix element of the operator ${\mathcal O}$ can be written as $$\langle \tilde{\Psi} \vert {\mathcal O} \vert \tilde{\Psi}' \rangle
= \langle \Psi \vert C^{\dag}{\mathcal O} C \vert \Psi' \rangle
= \langle \Psi \vert \tilde{{\mathcal O}} \vert \Psi' \rangle ,$$ it is therefore equivalent to use either correlated states or correlated operators. For the Fermi and Gamow-Teller $0\nu\beta\beta$ nuclear matrix elements the effect of the tensor correlation operator $C_{\Omega}$ vanishes and one is thus left only with the central correlation operator. The UCOM parameters used in our $0\nu\beta\beta$ calculations are the Bonn-A parameters taken from [@NEF03].
Numerical application
=====================
In [@KOR07b] we applied the pnQRPA to compute the $0\nu\beta\beta$ nuclear matrix elements of $^{76}$Ge and $^{82}$Se in the model space containing the 1p-0f-2s-1d-0g-0h$_{11/2}$ single-particle orbitals, both for protons and neutrons. Here we add to this model space the spin-orbit partner 0h$_{9/2}$ of the 0h$_{11/2}$ orbital, both for protons and neutrons, to describe the decays of $^{96}$Zr and $^{100}$Mo. For the rest of the decays, namely for the $^{116}$Cd, $^{128}$Te, $^{130}$Te and $^{136}$Xe decays we have extended the proton and neutron model spaces to include the 1p-0f-2s-1d-0g-2p-1f-0h single-particle orbitals. The single-particle energies were obtained from a spherical Coulomb-corrected Woods–Saxon potential with a standard parametrization, optimized for nuclei near the line of beta stability. Slight adjustments were done for some of the energies at the vicinity of the proton and neutron Fermi surfaces to reproduce better the low-energy spectra of the neighboring odd-$A$ nuclei and those of the intermediate nuclei.
We have used the Bonn-A G-matrix as the two-body interaction and we have renormalized it in the standard way [@SUH88; @SUH93] by fitting the pairing parameters of the BCS by comparing with the phenomenological pairing gaps, extracted from the atomic mass tables. The particle-hole parameter $g_{\rm ph}$ of the pnQRPA affects the position of the giant Gamow-Teller resonance and its value was fixed by the available data on the location of the giant state. Due to this phenomenological renormalization of the two-body interaction we did not perform an additional UCOM renormalization [@ROT05].
After fixing all the Hamiltonian parameters the only free parameter left is the proton-neutron particle-particle parameter $g_{\rm pp}$ of the pnQRPA. We obtained the physical values of $g_{\rm pp}$ by using the method of [@ROD06; @KOR07b]. Consequently, we used the extracted experimental matrix elements of [@ROD06] that include the experimental error limits and the uncertainty in the value of the axial-vector coupling constant $1.0\le g_{\rm A}\le 1.25$. The resulting intervals of the experimental $2\nu\beta\beta$ matrix elements are shown in the second column of Table \[tab:intervals\], and they are scaled by the electron rest mass according to (\[eq:mdgt\]). By performing the pnQRPA calculations of the $2\nu\beta\beta$ matrix elements the ranges of experimental matrix elements were subsequently converted to the intervals of $g_{\rm pp}$ values shown in column three of Table \[tab:intervals\]. For some cases there exists $\log ft$ data on $\beta^-$ decay from the first $1^+$ state of the intermediate nucleus to the ground state of the double beta daughter nucleus. Applying the above procedure to this data leads to the experimental $\beta^-$ matrix elements and the corresponding ranges of $g_{\rm pp}$, listed in the last column of Table \[tab:intervals\].
Decay m.e.($2\nu\beta\beta$) $g_{\rm pp}$($2\nu\beta\beta$) $g_{\rm pp}$($\beta^-$)
------------------------------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------- -------------------------
$^{96}\textrm{Zr}\to\,^{96}\textrm{Mo}$ $0.026-0.112$ $1.06-1.11$ -
$^{100}\textrm{Mo}\to\,^{100}\textrm{Ru}$ $0.107-0.181$ $1.07-1.09$ $1.07-1.08$
$^{116}\textrm{Cd}\to\,^{116}\textrm{Sn}$ $0.058-0.102$ $0.97-1.01$ $0.82-0.84$
$^{128}\textrm{Te}\to\,^{128}\textrm{Xe}$ $0.011-0.037$ $0.89-0.92$ $0.86-0.88$
$^{130}\textrm{Te}\to\,^{130}\textrm{Xe}$ $0.014-0.054$ $0.84-0.90$ -
$^{136}\textrm{Xe}\to\,^{136}\textrm{Ba}$ $\le 0.023$ $\ge 0.74$ -
: \[tab:intervals\] Values of the $g_{\rm pp}$ parameter extracted from the data. First column shows the decay and the second column the matrix element values extracted from the $2\nu\beta\beta$-decay data by [@ROD06]. Third column gives the range of $g_{\rm pp}$ corresponding to the matrix elements of the second column. The $g_{\rm pp}$ ranges of the last column were extracted from the available $\beta^-$ decay data.
As can be seen from Table \[tab:intervals\], the values of $g_{\rm pp}$ extracted from the $\beta^-$ and $2\nu\beta\beta$ data are (roughly) compatible for the decays of $^{100}$Mo and $^{128}$Te, whereas for the $^{116}$Cd decay this is not the case. This discrepancy was already pointed out in [@SUH05]. The reason for this discrepancy is not clear but an interesting observation is that the $^{116}$Cd decay obeys very closely the single-state dominance hypothesis whereas the $^{128}$Te decay obeys it slightly less and the $^{100}$Mo decay the least, as clearly shown in Table 1 of [@CIV99].
Discussion of the results
=========================
In Table \[t:mcomparison\] we show the evolution of the values of the $0\nu\beta\beta$ nuclear matrix elements as we add more corrections to the bare matrix element. In the first column we list the used $g_{\rm pp}$ value which was taken to be in the middle of the $g_{\rm pp}$ interval of Table \[tab:intervals\]. The following columns list the bare matrix element (b.m.e.), the matrix element including the higher-order terms of the nucleonic weak current (b.m.e.+A), and the matrix element with finite nucleon size effects added (b.m.e.+A+B). In the last two columns we have added either the Jastrow (C) or UCOM (D) short range correlations. The value $g_{\rm A}=1.25$ was used in these calculations.
Nucleus $g_{\rm pp}$ b.m.e. $+$A $+$A$+$B $+$A$+$B$+$C $+$A$+$B$+$D
------------ -------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------- --------------
$^{96}$Zr 1.085 $-5.308$ $-4.814$ $-3.736$ $-2.454$ $-3.521$
$^{100}$Mo 1.08 $-6.126$ $-5.571$ $-4.358$ $-2.914$ $-4.113$
$^{116}$Cd 0.99 $-5.726$ $-5.172$ $-4.263$ $-3.169$ $-4.076$
$^{128}$Te 0.905 $-7.349$ $-6.673$ $-5.260$ $-3.563$ $-4.979$
$^{130}$Te 0.87 $-6.626$ $-6.021$ $-4.777$ $-3.285$ $-4.530$
$^{136}$Xe 0.74 $-4.715$ $-4.269$ $-3.478$ $-2.537$ $-3.317$
: Total matrix element $M^{(0\nu)}$ of (\[eq:0nbbhl\]) computed by correcting the bare matrix element (b.m.e) for the higher-order terms of the nucleonic weak current (A), for the finite nucleon size (B), and for either the Jastrow (C) or UCOM (D) correlations. The used value of $g_{\rm pp}$ is indicated in the first column.[]{data-label="t:mcomparison"}
Table \[t:mcomparison\] shows that the Jastrow method produces a much larger reduction in the magnitude of $M^{(0\nu)}$ than the UCOM. The UCOM (D) with higher-order term (A) and finite nucleon size (B) corrections included seems to reduce the magnitude of $M^{(0\nu)}$ by a rough factor of $2/3$ from its bare value. A similar scaling factor was also present for the $0\nu\beta\beta$ results of $^{76}$Ge and $^{82}$Se in [@KOR07b]. At the same time one obtains a reduction factor of $1/2$ for the corresponding Jastrow (C) results.
![(Color online) Calculated values of $M^{(0\nu)}$ for the indicated $0\nu\beta\beta$ decays as functions of $g_{\rm pp}$. The UCOM (D) was used with $g_{\rm A}=1.25$ including all the other (+A+B) corrections.[]{data-label="f:mgpp"}](mgpp-c.eps){width="10cm"}
We visualize the $g_{\rm pp}$ dependence of $M^{(0\nu)}$ in Fig. \[f:mgpp\]. The calculations included the higher-order term (A), finite-size (B) and UCOM (D) corrections. The calculations are shown for the interval $g_{\rm pp}\le 1.1$, the upper limit lying near the breaking point of the pnQRPA for all shown nuclear systems.
![Multipole decomposition of $M^{(0\nu)}$ for the calculated $0\nu\beta\beta$ decays.[]{data-label="f:multipoles"}](multipoles.eps){width="15cm"}
In Fig. \[f:multipoles\] we have plotted the multipole decomposition of the total $0\nu\beta\beta$ matrix element $M^{(0\nu)}$ for all calculated decays. The upper (lower) end of each bar corresponds to the lower (upper) end of the $g_{\rm pp}$ interval of Table \[tab:intervals\]. For the $^{136}$Xe decay we can only give upper limits since only the lower limit of $g_{\rm pp}$ is known as indicated in the last line of Table \[tab:intervals\]. From the Fig. \[f:multipoles\] one can see that the widest spread appears in the bar corresponding to the $1^{+}$ contribution. Furthermore, the $g_{\rm pp}$ interval extracted from the $2\nu\beta\beta$ data confines the $1^{+}$ contribution in a striking way: for $^{96}$Zr and $^{100}$Mo the $1^{+}$ contribution is of opposite sign to the other contributions. This interference with the rest of the contributions reduces the magnitude of $M^{(0\nu)}$ for these two decays. Another notable feature is that the $1^-$ contribution is always the leading one, the $2^-$ contribution being usually of comparable size. This pattern is different from the one of $^{76}$Ge and $^{82}$Se decays where the $2^-$ contribution was the dominant one [@KOR07]. All these observations are in qualitative agreement with the results of [@ROD06].
We have collected the obtained $g_{\rm pp}$ limits of Table \[tab:intervals\] and their corresponding $0\nu\beta\beta$ matrix elements of (\[eq:0nbbhl\]) in Table \[t:mvali\]. It is worth pointing out that the magnitudes of the tensor matrix element $M_{\rm T}^{(0\nu)}$ are quite small and are not indicated in the table. As discussed earlier, the $g_{\rm pp}$ limits arise from both the $2\nu\beta\beta$ and beta decay data. For $^{136}$Xe only experimental lower limit of the $2\nu\beta\beta$ half-life is available, yielding only a lower limit for $g_{\rm pp}$. For $^{128}$Te the available beta decay data give $g_{\rm pp}=0.86$ and for $^{116}$Cd they give $g_{\rm pp}=0.82$. In the last column of Table \[t:mvali\] we also tabulate our predicted half-life limits in units of ${\rm yr}/(\langle m_{\nu} \rangle [{\rm eV}])^{2}$. The beta-decay data yields a different $g_{\rm pp}$ interval than the data on $2\nu\beta\beta$ decays for $^{116}$Cd and $^{128}$Te. This discrepancy is especially striking for $^{116}$Cd. Implications of this discrepancy and its cure are still open questions [@SUH05].
Nucleus $g_{\rm pp}$ $g_{\rm A}$ $M_{\rm F}^{(0\nu)}$ $M_{\rm GT}^{(0\nu)}$ $M^{(0\nu)}$ $t^{(0\nu)}_{1/2}$
------------ ------------------------ ------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- -------------- ---------------------
$^{96}$Zr 1.06 1.00 1.350 $-$2.969 $-$4.319 $6.1\times 10^{23}$
1.11 1.25 1.261 $-$2.315 $-$3.117 $4.7\times 10^{23}$
$^{100}$Mo 1.07 1.00 1.583 $-$3.266 $-$4.849 $6.2\times 10^{23}$
1.09 1.25 1.543 $-$2.950 $-$3.931 $3.8\times 10^{23}$
$^{116}$Cd 0.82 ($\beta^-$ decay) 1.25 1.427 $-$4.021 $-$4.928 $2.3\times 10^{23}$
0.97 1.00 1.310 $-$3.372 $-$4.682 $6.3\times 10^{23}$
1.01 1.25 1.275 $-$3.124 $-$3.935 $3.6\times 10^{23}$
$^{128}$Te 0.86 ($\beta^-$ decay) 1.25 1.939 $-$4.276 $-$5.509 $5.2\times 10^{24}$
0.89 1.00 1.866 $-$3.975 $-$5.841 $1.1\times 10^{25}$
0.92 1.25 1.792 $-$3.650 $-$4.790 $6.9\times 10^{24}$
$^{130}$Te 0.84 1.00 1.699 $-$3.743 $-$5.442 $5.3\times 10^{23}$
0.90 1.25 1.575 $-$3.219 $-$4.221 $3.5\times 10^{23}$
$^{136}$Xe 0.74 1.00 1.104 $-$2.615 $-$3.719 $1.1\times 10^{24}$
: Calculated $0\nu\beta\beta$ nuclear matrix elements, the used $g_{\rm pp}$ and $g_{\rm A}$ values and the resulting half-lives. The UCOM and other corrections are included. The half-lives $t_{1/2}^{(0\nu)}$ are expressed in units of ${\rm yr}/(\langle m_{\nu} \rangle [{\rm eV}])^{2}$.[]{data-label="t:mvali"}
Our results for $0\nu\beta\beta$ nuclear matrix elements disagree with those of [@ROD06] and [@SIM99]. In fact, just recently [@ROD07] the Tübingen-Caltec collaboration has corrected their results for a coding error in their computer program. The results of the Erratum [@ROD07] agree nicely with our results for the Jastrow corrected nuclear matrix elements. This means that one can safely say that the Jastrow short-range correlations reduce the values of matrix elements some 25%–40%. On the other hand, for the UCOM we obtain only a 4%–16% reduction. For this reason our present, UCOM corrected matrix elements are larger than the Jastrow corrected ones. Such differences give rise to big differences in the predicted $0\nu\beta\beta$ half-lives for a given value of the effective neutrino mass $\langle m_{\nu}\rangle$. This invariably affects the sensitivity estimates for the presently running and planned double beta experiments.
Summary and conclusions
=======================
We have calculated the $0\nu\beta\beta$ nuclear matrix elements for the decays of $^{96}$Zr, $^{100}$Mo, $^{116}$Cd, $^{128}$Te, $^{130}$Te and $^{136}$Xe by using the proton-neutron quasiparticle random-phase approximation with realistic two-body interactions in realistic single-particle spaces. We have corrected the bare matrix elements for higher-order terms of the nucleonic weak currents, for the nucleon’s finite-size and for the nucleon-nucleon short-range correlations. The short-range correlations have been included by using the unitary correlation operator formalism. This method is superior to the rudimentary Jastrow procedure, traditionally adopted for the $0\nu\beta\beta$ calculations.
The UCOM reduces the magnitudes of the matrix elements less than the Jastrow procedure. This leads to larger matrix elements and shorter $0\nu\beta\beta$ half-lives as compared to some recent calculations quoted in the literature. This has a notable influence on the estimated neutrino-mass sensitivities of the presently running and future double beta experiments.
This work has been partially supported by the Academy of Finland under the Finnish Centre of Excellence Programme 2006-2011 (Nuclear and Accelerator Based Programme at JYFL). We thank also the EU ILIAS project under the contract RII3-CT-2004-506222.
[99]{} S. Fukuda [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 5651 (2001) ; Q.R. Ahmad [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 011301 (2002) ; H. Hagiwara [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 010001 (2002) ; K. Eguchi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 021802 (2003) ; M.H. Ahn [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 041801 (2003) ; S.N Ahmed [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 181301 (2004). H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus [*et al.*]{}, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**16**]{}, 2409 (2001). H.V. Klapdor-Kleingrothaus [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**586**]{}, 198 (2004). R. Arnold [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 182302 (2005). C. Arnaboldi [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 142501 (2005). A.S. Barabash, Phys. Atom. Nucl. [**67**]{}, 458 (2004). S.R. Elliott and P. Vogel, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. [**52**]{}, 115 (2002). S.R. Elliott and J. Engel, J. Phys. G [**30**]{}, R183 (2004). S.M. Bilenky and S.T. Petcov, hep-ph/0405237. V.M. Gehman and S.R. Elliott, hep-ph/0701099. J. Suhonen and O. Civitarese, Phys. Rep. [**300**]{}, 123 (1998). W.C. Haxton and G.J. Stephenson Jr., Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. [**12**]{}, 409 (1984). E. Caurier, F. Nowacki, A. Poves, and J. Retamosa, Nucl. Phys. A [**654**]{}, 973c (1999). E. Caurier [*et al.*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{}, 427 (2005). P. Vogel and M.R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **57**]{}, 3148 (1986). O. Civitarese, A. Faessler, and T. Tomoda, Phys. Lett. B [**194**]{}, 11 (1987). J. Suhonen, [*From Nucleons to Nucleus: Concepts of Microscopic Nuclear Theory*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2007). J. Toivanen and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 410 (1995). J. Toivanen and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C [**55**]{}, 2314 (1997). V.A. Rodin, A. Faessler, F. Šimkovic, and P. Vogel, Nucl. Phys. A [**766**]{}, 107 (2006). J. Suhonen, Phys. Lett. B [**607**]{}, 87 (2005). O. Civitarese and J. Suhonen, Phys. Lett. B [**626**]{}, 80 (2005), [*ibid*]{} Nucl. Phys. A [**761**]{}, 313 (2005). J. Engel, P. Vogel, and M.R. Zirnbauer, Phys. Rev. C [**37**]{}, 731 (1988). G.A. Miller and J.E. Spencer, Ann. Phys. [**100**]{}, 562 (1976). H. Feldmeier, T. Neff, R. Roth, and J. Schnack, Nucl. Phys. A [**632**]{}, 61 (1998). M. Kortelainen, O. Civitarese, J. Suhonen, and J. Toivanen, Phys. Lett. B [**647**]{}, 128 (2007). M. Kortelainen and J. Suhonen, Phys. Rev. C [**75**]{}, 051303(R) (2007). F. Šimkovic, G. Pantis, J.D. Vergados, and A. Faessler, Phys. Rev. C [**60**]{}, 055502 (1999). M. Doi, T. Kotani, and E. Takasugi, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. [**83**]{}, 1 (1985). T. Tomoda, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**54**]{}, 53 (1991). T. Neff and H. Feldmeier, Nucl. Phys. A [**713**]{}, 311 (2003). J. Suhonen, T. Taigel, and A. Faessler, Nucl. Phys. A [**486**]{}, 91 (1988). J. Suhonen, Nucl. Phys. A [**563**]{}, 205 (1993), [*ibid*]{} [**700**]{}, 649 (2002). R. Roth [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. C [**72**]{}, 034002 (2005). O. Civitarese and J. Suhonen, Nucl. Phys. A [**653**]{}, 321 (1999). V.A. Rodin, A. Faessler, F. Šimkovic, and P. Vogel, arXiv:0706.4304v1 \[nucl-th\], and to appear as Erratum in Nucl. Phys. A (2007).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The nano-scale intrinsic Josephson junctions in highly anisotropic cuprate superconductors have potential for generation of terahertz electromagnetic waves. When the thickness of a superconductor sample is much smaller than the wavelength of electromagnetic waves in vacuum, the superconductor renders itself as a cavity. Unlike conventional lasers, the presence of the cavity does not guarantee a coherent emission because of the internal degree of freedom of the superconductivity phase in long junctions. We study the excitation of terahertz wave by solitons in a stack of intrinsic Josephson junctions, especially for relatively short junctions. Coherent emission requires a rectangular configuration of solitons. However such a configuration is unstable against weak fluctuations, contrarily solitons favor a triangular lattice corresponding to an out-phase oscillation of electromagnetic waves. To utilize the cavity, we propose to use an array of stacks of short intrinsic Josephson junctions to generate powerful terahertz electromagnetic waves. The cavity synchronizes the plasma oscillation in different stacks and the emission intensity is predicted to be proportional to the number of stacks squared.'
author:
- 'Shi-Zeng Lin and Xiao Hu'
title: 'Radiation of Terahertz Electromagnetic Waves from Build-in Nano Josephson Junctions of Cuprate High-$T_c$ Superconductors'
---
Introduction
============
Generations of electromagnetic (EM) waves are mainly based on two principles; the low frequency waves are generated by electronic oscillations while the high frequency waves are generated by photonic methods. Because of the fundamental electron-velocity limits, the performance of microwave electronic circuits degrades very rapidly above 100GHz. The photonic generators are also limited to the frequency higher than several terahertz (THz). There exists a frequency gap ranging roughly from 0.1THz to 10THz, which is usually dubbed as the THz gap. The THz waves, on the other hand, have potential for wide applications, such as drug detection, security check and so on[@Ferguson02; @Tonouchi07]. Thus it is extremely demanding to develop solid-state, compact generators of THz EM waves. The Josephson effect in cuprate high-$T_c$ superconductors is promising for this purpose[@HuReview09].
When two superconductors get sufficiently close to each other to form a tunnel junction or Josephson junction, macroscopic quantum phase coherence will be established between them. According to the uncertainty relation between the number of Cooper pairs and the superconductivity phase, a supercurrent appears in the tunnel junction, which is given by the dc Josephson relation[@BaroneBook] $$\label{eq1}
I = I_c \sin P,$$ with $P$ being the phase difference between these two superconductors and $I_c$ the critical current. Biased by a dc voltage $V$, the Josephson junction is essentially a two-level system with energy difference $2eV$. As Cooper pairs are tunneling, EM wave is emitted from the junction, whose frequency is governed by the ac Josephson relation $$\label{eq1}
\hbar \omega=\hbar \partial_t P=2eV.$$ For instance, $1$mV corresponds to $0.483$THz. In principle, the operating frequency can be tuned continuously by the biased voltage. In contrast to conventional lasers, the population inversion can be achieved in a meta-stable superconducting state with finite normal resistance realized in a junction with small conductance. The radiation from a single junction, however, is only about 1pW and the frequency is below THz limited by the small superconducting energy gap[@Yanson65; @Langenberg65].
One may fabricate an array of Josephson junctions to enhance the radiation power[@Jain84; @Barbara99]. Actually, it was found in 1992 that layered high-$T_c$ superconductors, such as $\rm{Bi_2Sr_2CaCu_2O_{8+\delta}}$(BSCCO), intrinsically form a stack of Josephson junctions (IJJs) of nano-scale thickness[@Kleiner92], as drawn schematically in Fig. \[f1\](a). The advantages of IJJs are: 1) large superconductivity energy gap, which allows for operations up to 15THz; 2) almost homogeneous in the atomic scale, which makes superradiation possible; 3) these nano-scale build-in junctions render a huge inductive coupling between neighboring junctions. The proposed device using BSCCO single crystal to generate THz wave is depicted in Fig. \[f1\](b).
The following two conditions must be met in order to achieve strong THz emission. First, coherent emission of EM waves involves synchronized oscillations of individual elements. Synchronization requires mutual couplings between each oscillator and usually involves long-range interactions. In the context of the Kuramoto model[@Acebron05], it was found that the lower critical dimensions for long-range synchronous oscillations is four[@Hong05]. Practically, one introduces a common resonator that couples to all oscillators. This resonator provides a feedback mechanism and establishes a long-range interaction between oscillators, which forces all oscillators to run at its resonant frequency. For one dimensional array of Josephson junctions connected to a common RLC resonant circuit, it was demonstrated rigorously that the system can be mapped to the infinite dimensional Kuramoto model[@Wiesenfeld96], where each junction is coupled to the rest junctions. For a stack of IJJs, it was formulated theoretically[@Bulaevskii06PRL; @Koshelev08] that there exists a significant impedance mismatch for a stack of thickness of several micrometers as in the recent experiments[@Ozyuzer07; @kadowaki08], similar to that in a thin capacitor. Thus a thin stack of IJJs intrinsically forms a cavity, which is helpful for synchronizing all junctions.
Secondly, for a stack of IJJs to work as an efficient gain medium, the supercurrent should be modulated in the lateral directions such that considerable dc input power can be pumped into the Josephson plasma oscillation, a collective composite wave of electromagnetic oscillations and back-and-forth tunneling of Cooper pairs. One well-known example of the modulation in a single Josephson junction is $2\pi$ change in the superconductivity phase, corresponding to a shuttling soliton, a nonlinear quantized topological excitation. Another example is the recently discovered new dynamic state in a stack of strong inductively coupled IJJs[@szlin08b; @Koshelev08b; @Hu08; @szlin09a; @Hu09], where $\pi$ phase changes are localized at the nodes of electric fields and stacked periodically along the $c$ axis. By exciting the in-phase plasma mode, this $\pi$ kink state supports strong THz emissions.
Yet a cavity becomes a standard ingredient in most lasers and is almost indispensable to coherent radiation. However, for a stack of long IJJs embedded in the cavity formed by the stack itself, because of the existence of internal degree of freedom, the superconductivity phases of different junctions may organize themselves in a way that the oscillations in neighboring junctions are out-phase. To be concrete, let us consider the stack shown in Fig. \[f1\](a). The stack forms a two dimensional cavity and the plasma mode is $\cos(m\pi x/L)\sin(q\pi z/L_z)$ or is simply denoted as $(m, q)$ mode. Here $L$ is the length of the stack and $L_z$ is the thickness. Coherent emission from edges at $x=0$ or $x=L$ requires the excitation of $q=1$ mode which is not realized in some specific configurations of the superconductivity phase such as solitons as will be discussed later. Therefore it is of both theoretical and practical importance to understand the behavior of superconductivity phase in a resonant cavity.
In the present paper, we investigate the behaviors of solitons in a stack of IJJs, especially in a relatively short one. We find that in a short stack with radiating boundary condition, the soliton becomes incomplete and resembles oscillating standing waves. We also find that the rectangular lattice of solitons associated with in-phase plasma oscillation is unstable. The out-phase oscillation of soliton in a cavity leads us to consider an array of short junctions enclosed in a cavity to avoid the internal structure of phases in individual stacks. This configuration provides an alternative scheme to achieve strong THz radiation from Josephson junctions.
Model
=====
We assume that the stack is infinitely long in the $y$ direction and the system is reduced into two dimensions as shown in Fig. \[f1\](a). The dynamics in a stack of IJJs is governed by the well-known inductively coupled sine-Gordon equations[@Sakai93; @Bulaevskii96; @Koyama96; @Koshelev01] $$\label{eq3}
\partial _x^2 P_l = (1 - \zeta \Delta_{\rm{d}})[\sin P_l + \beta \partial _t P_l + \partial _t^2 P_l - J_{{\rm{ext}}}],$$ where $P_l$ is the gauge invariant phase difference at the $l$-th junction, $\zeta$ the inductive coupling of order of $10^5$, $\beta$ the normalized conductivity and $J_{{\rm{ext}}}$ the external current[@szlin09a]. Length is in unit of the London penetration depth $\lambda_c\approx200\rm{\mu m}$ and time in unit of the Josephson plasma frequency $\omega_J\approx0.5\rm{THz}$. $\Delta_{\rm{d}}$ is the finite difference operator defined as $\Delta_{\rm{d}} f_l\equiv f_{l+1}+f_{l-1}-2f_l$. We use $\beta=0.02$ and $\zeta=7.1\times 10^4$, which are typical for BSCCO.[@szlin09a] The normalized magnetic field $B_l$ and electric field $E_l$ in $l$-th junction are related to $P_l$ by $(1 - \zeta \Delta_{\rm{d}})B_l^y=\partial_x P_l$ and $E_l=\partial_t P_l$. Because of the significant impedance mismatch, the oscillating magnetic field is extremely small at the edges, thus as a good approximation, the boundary condition can be written as $$\label{eq4}
\partial _t P_l=Z\partial _x P_l,$$ with the impedance of the stack $Z\sim\lambda_{\rm{EM}}/L_z\gg1$. Here $\lambda_{\rm{EM}}\sim300\rm{\mu m}$ is the wavelength of THz EM wave in vacuum and $L_z\sim1\rm{\mu m}$ is the thickness of the stack. We consider a situation where no external magnetic field is applied to the stack. Equation (\[eq3\]) together with the boundary condition Eq. (\[eq4\]) is solved numerically and the electromagnetic fields are then derived from $P_l$.
Solitons solution and its stability
===================================
Equation (\[eq3\]) exhibits rich dynamical behaviors[@HuReview09] and one possible dynamic state is the solitons state. A soliton carries quantum flux $\Phi_0=hc/2e\approx2.0\times10^{-15}\rm{Wb}$, and it experiences repulsive force from other solitons with the same polarity. The interplay between the interaction between solitons and the cavity gives rise to rich configurations of solitons, from the rectangular lattice to triangular one. For a rectangular configuration of solitons along the $z$ axis, Eq. (\[eq3\]) is decoupled and the problem essentially becomes single-junction physics. We first discuss the properties of the uniform soliton solution and then consider its stability.
A soliton has characteristic length of $\lambda_c$ and undergoes Lorentz contraction when its velocity approaches the plasma velocity, i.e. the light velocity in junctions. Thus, to support a pronounced soliton structure, the length of junction should be much larger than $\lambda_c$. As shown in Fig. \[f2\](a) for $L=4\lambda_c$, a well-defined soliton propagates leftwards and get reflected at the left edge and becomes an anti-soliton. This anti-soliton then travels rightwards and repeats the above process. In one period, the phase increases by $2\pi$ and the period is given by the voltage according to Eq. (\[eq1\]). The periodic motion and reflection of solitons inside the cavity excite plasma oscillation at a frequency depending on the pattern of solitons in the $x$ direction, and induce current steps at voltages $V=2n\pi/L$ with $n$ being the number of solitons in the lateral direction [@szlin09a].
It would be interesting to study the structure of soliton in a junction with length comparable to $\lambda_c$ and with slightly open boundary condition. In this case, it is difficult to see a complete soliton traveling across the junction and the dynamics of $P_l$ resemble oscillations of standing waves in addition to a linear term in time, as shown in Fig. \[f2\](b). However, because of the commonly underlying parametric instability for solitons, the frequency spectrum is the same as that of long junction, namely many frequency harmonics are visible, and the radiation frequency and voltage does not obey the ac Josephson relation as depicted in Fig. \[f2\](c), opposed to the recent experiments[@Ozyuzer07].
In a recent work, a new state exhibiting standing wave oscillations but with the same *IV* characteristics as those of solitons solution was found in a relatively short junction[@Tachiki09]. Our simulations of solitons in a junction with length comparable to $\lambda_c$ reproduce all the results in Ref. [@Tachiki09], which lead one to assign the dynamic state in Ref. [@Tachiki09] as a soliton state.
We then investigate the stability of the uniform soliton solution by including small fluctuations into the system, e.g. adding white-noise currents at the right-hand side of Eq. (\[eq3\]). The uniform solution then becomes unstable and the system evolves into the $\pi$ kink state. The uniform solution cannot be stabilized by introducing dissipation, radiation or a small magnetic field either. Indeed, due to the strong mutual repulsive interaction, the solitons favor triangular lattice corresponding to the $q=N$ cavity mode with $N$ the number of junctions in the stack. Thus in the soliton state, due to the internal degree of freedom, the cavity does not guarantee a coherent oscillations in all junctions.
An Array of Stacks of IJJs
==========================
To utilize the cavity, one way is to adopt an array of stacks of short IJJs to avoid the complicated behaviors of $P_l$ in individual stacks. A schematic view of such a setup is depicted in Fig. \[f3\](a).
We consider short IJJs with $L\ll\lambda_{\rm{c}}$, thus the soliton state cannot be stabilized. The short IJJs also allow for efficient cooling and less Joule heating[@Krasnov01]. For simplicity, the height of the cavity is assumed to the same as of IJJs and $L_y$ is assumed to be infinite as before. For $L_z\ll\lambda_{\rm{EM}}$, only the mode with the wave vector $k_z=0$ can propagate in vacuum. This uniform mode tends to excite in-phase mode in IJJs. The electromagnetic waves in the cavity are therefore governed by $$\label{eqa1}
\partial _x^2P=J_c'(x)\sin P+\beta '(x)\partial _tP+\epsilon '(x)\partial _t^2P-J_{\text{ext}}'(x).$$ In IJJs, Eq. (\[eqa1\]) is the uniform-mode correspondence of Eq. (\[eq3\]), while in vacuum $P$ should be interpreted as an auxiliary variable determined by $\partial_x P=B_y$ and $\partial_t P=E_z$. In junctions $\beta '(x)=\beta$, $J_c'(x)=J_c$, $J_{\text{ext}}'(x)=J_{\text{ext}}$ and $\epsilon '(x)=1$, while in vacuum $\beta '(x)$, $J_c'(x)$, $J_{\text{ext}}'(x)$ are zero and $\epsilon '(x)=\epsilon_d$ with $\epsilon_d$ being the dielectric constant of vacuum. We assume a metallic cavity, and at the edges of the cavity $x=0$ or $x=L_c$, we have $E_z=0$ for an ideal cavity. The radiation effect is taken into account by introducing an effective surface impedance $Z_c$ for the cavity. Then the radiation power is given by $S_r=|E_z^2|/(2Z_c)$.
The solution to Eq. (\[eqa1\]) in the linear region is $$\label{eqa2}
P = \omega t + {\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} [ - i A g(\omega_c, x)\exp (i\omega t)],$$ where the first term is the rotating phase responsible for the dc voltage and the second term is the uniform plasma oscillations along the $z$ axis. $g(\omega_c, x)$ is the cavity mode with the resonant frequency $\omega_c$, which can be determined by neglecting the Josephson current, external current and dissipations, since the Josephson current and external current are responsible for the excitation of EM waves while dissipation has the effect of broadening the resonance line width. The profile of $g(x)$ for the first mode is shown in Fig. \[f3\](b), where there is a half wavelength residing in the cavity. The amplitude of the plasma oscillation $A$ then is given by $$\label{eqa3}
A=\frac{\int_0^{L_c} dx J_c'(x)g(x)}{\int_0^{L_c} dx \left[\left(\omega ^2-\omega _c^2\right)\epsilon '(x)-i \beta '(x)\omega
\right]g(x)^2}.$$ The radiation slightly modulates the supercurrent in each stack and pumps energy into the plasma oscillation. The amplification of the plasma oscillation is most efficient for the first cavity mode because the radiation in the region with $g(x)<0$ is anti-phase for higher modes. For the first mode, we have $A\sim N_i$ with $N_i$ being the number of IJJs stacks. Thus the total radiation power increases as $N_i$ squared as shown in Fig. \[f3\](c), which presumes a superradiation. It is remarked that IJJs are not necessarily identical since the cavity helps to synchronize them.[@Jain84; @Barbara99]
Conclusions
===========
To summarize, we have discussed the possible radiation of terahertz electromagnetic waves from cuprate high-$T_c$ superconductors and the associated dynamics of superconductivity phase. We studied the behaviors of a soliton in a relatively short junction, and found that the soliton becomes incomplete and resembles the oscillating standing waves. We also found the in-phase configuration of solitons is unstable even though they are embedded in a cavity. The instability is caused by the mutual interaction between solitons. Based on these observations, we proposed to integrate an array of stacks of short intrinsic Josephson junctions in an external cavity to attain the powerful terahertz emission. The short junctions avoid complicated behaviors of the superconductivity phase and allow for efficient synchronization by the external cavity. Once they are synchronized, the radiation power increases as the number of stacks squared according to our calculations.
[*Acknowledgement –*]{} This work was supported by WPI Initiative on Materials Nanoarchitronics, MEXT, Japan and CREST-JST Japan.
[27]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{}bibnamefont \#1[\#1]{}bibfnamefont \#1[\#1]{}citenamefont \#1[\#1]{}url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefix\[2\][\#2]{} \[2\]\[\][[\#2](#2)]{}
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ().
, ** (, ).
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, , , , , , , , , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , , ****, ().
, ****, ().
, ****, ().
, , , ****, ().
, , , , ****, ().
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Dynamic mode decomposition (DMD) is a versatile approach that enables the construction of low-order models from data. Controller design tasks based on such models require estimates and guarantees on predictive accuracy. In this work, we provide a theoretical analysis of DMD model errors that reveals impacts of model order and data availability. The analysis also establishes conditions under which DMD models can be made asymptotically exact. We numerically validate our theoretical results using a 2D diffusion system.'
address: 'Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1415 Engineering Dr., Madison, WI 53706, USA (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]).'
author:
- Qiugang Lu
- Sungho Shin
- 'Victor M. Zavala'
bibliography:
- 'ifacconf.bib'
title: 'Characterizing the Predictive Accuracy of Dynamic Mode Decomposition for Data-Driven Control'
---
Dynamic mode decomposition; data; control; low-order models; error bounds
Introduction
============
Dynamic mode decomposition (DMD) is a versatile approach that enables the construction of low-order models from data [@schmid2010dynamic; @tu2014dynamic]. DMD uses singular value decomposition (SVD) to extract modes that describe dominant patterns in the data and temporal frequencies associated with those modes [@zhang2019online]. Interesting connections between DMD and Koopman operator theory have been recently established by [@mezic2013analysis]. DMD has been applied to video processing [@kutz2016dynamicVideo], fluid dynamics [@tissot2014model], and finance [@mann2016dynamic].
A key feature of DMD is that it builds low-order models directly from data and thus contrasts with traditional model reduction approaches such as balanced truncation [@moore1981principal; @troltzsch2009pod] (which seek to reduce an [*existing*]{} full-order model). Moreover, compared with other reduction techniques such as proper orthogonal decomposition (POD), DMD extracts dominant modes that are spatially and temporally critical for the system [@zhang2017evaluating; @berkooz1993proper]. Thus, DMD enables modeling and control of high-dimensional systems (e.g., spatiotemporal) for which a full order representation might be difficult or impossible to construct [@proctor2016dynamic; @korda2018linear]. A control application based on DMD models in wind farms has been recently reported by [@annoni2016wind].
Despite the wide applicability of DMD, the characterization of its predictive accuracy remains an open problem. [@korda2018convergence] established asymptotic convergence of extended DMD models to Koopman operators with respect to the sample size. An empirical analysis of model accuracy of DMD is conducted by [@duke2012error] using synthetic waveforms that resemble instability structures in shear flows. [@zhang2017evaluating] proposes a criterion to evaluate the accuracy of each DMD mode against the corresponding Koopman modes. More recently, [@lu2019predictive] develops an upper bound on the predictive error of DMD; here, the error is defined as the difference between DMD predicted states and the true states (obtained with a full-order model). We emphasize that these works characterize predictive accuracy for autonomous systems (with no control). To the best of our knowledge, characterizations of the predictive accuracy of DMD models with control (often called DMDc) have not been reported. Characterizing the predictive accuracy of such models is essential for controller design (e.g., establishing stability and robustness properties). We highlight that characterizations of predictive accuracy of DMDc differ from those of classical model reduction methods such as balanced truncation (for which extensive literature exist) because DMDc builds low-order models directly from data.
In this work, we present a theoretical analysis of the predictive accuracy of DMDc models. We derive an explicit error bound that reveals the effect of model order and the number of data samples. Our analysis also establishes conditions under which the error vanishes. These insights indicate that DMDc provides a coherent approach for data-driven control. We provide a case study for a 2D diffusion system to illustrate the developments. The paper is organized as follows: In Section \[DMDc\] we summarize the DMDc algorithm. In Section \[Section3\] we analyze the prediction error of DMDc and establish theoretical properties. In Section \[Section4\] we present a 2D diffusion system to verify the theoretical results. Conclusions and a preview of future work are presented in Section \[Section5\].
DMD with Control (DMDc) {#DMDc}
=======================
DMDc uses data snapshots of state measurements and inputs to construct a low-order representation of the full-order model: $$\mathbf{x}_{k+1} = \mathbb{A} \mathbf{x}_{k} + \mathbb{B} \mathbf{u}_{k}, \label{TrueLinearModel}$$ where $\mathbb{A}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ and $\mathbb{B}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times q}$, are the system matrices. We are interested in systems with high state dimension (order) $n\gg 1$. Symbol $\mathbf{x}_{k}$ denotes the state vector and $\mathbf{u}_{k}$ is the control input. In our setting, the full-order model represents the ground truth. Given a sample of size $m$, we stack the state-input observations in the data matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{X}&=\left[\mathbf{
x_{1}~x_{2}~\cdots~x_{m-1}}
\right]\nonumber\\
\mathbf{Y}&=\left[\mathbf{
x_{2}~x_{3}~\cdots~x_{m}}
\right] \nonumber \\
\mathbf{\Upsilon}&=\left[\mathbf{
u_{1}~u_{2}~\cdots~u_{m-1}}
\right]. \label{Data}\end{aligned}$$ Model can be expressed in matrix-data form as: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Y} &= \mathbb{A} \mathbf{X} + \mathbb{B} \mathbf{\Upsilon}\nonumber\\
& = \mathbf{\Theta} \mathbf{\Omega}, \label{TrueDataFormat}\end{aligned}$$ where $ \mathbf{\Theta}:=[\mathbb{A}~\mathbb{B}]$ and $\mathbf{\Omega}:=[\mathbf{X}^{T}~\mathbf{\Upsilon}^{T}]^{T}$. In DMDc, the system matrices embedded in $ \mathbf{\Theta}$ are estimated by minimizing the Frobenius norm of the residuals $\|\mathbf{Y}-\mathbf{\Theta\Omega}\|_{F}$. This can be done by using a truncated SVD of $\mathbf{\Omega}$ [@proctor2016dynamic], $$\hat{\mathbf{\Theta}}=\mathbf{Y}\mathbf{\Omega}_s^{\dagger}=\mathbf{Y}\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_{s}^{-1}\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}^{T}, \label{FullOrderTruncatedSVD}$$ where $s$ is truncation order; $\mathbf{\Omega}_s= \hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{s}^{T}$ is the rank-$s$ approximation of $\Omega$; $(\cdot)^\dag$ is the psuedoinverse of the argument. This least-squares solution induces an error between $\hat{\mathbf{\Theta}}$ and $\mathbf{\Theta}$. Partitioning $\hat{\mathbf{\Theta}}$ yields the estimated system matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{A}}=\mathbf{Y}\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_{s}^{-1}\mathbf{\hat{U}}_{1,s}^{T}, ~ \hat{\mathbf{B}}=\mathbf{Y}\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_{s}^{-1}\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{2,s}^{T}, \label{FullOrderEstimates}\end{aligned}$$ with $\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{1,s}\in \mathbb{R}^{m\times s}$, $\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{2,s}\in \mathbb{R}^{q\times s}$, and $\hat{\mathbf{U}}^{T}_{s}=[\hat{\mathbf{U}}^{T}_{1,s}~\hat{\mathbf{U}}^{T}_{2,s}]$. These matrices give the approximated representation: $$\mathbf{x}_{k+1} \approx \mathbf{\hat{A}} \mathbf{x}_{k} +
\mathbf{\hat{B}} \mathbf{u}_{k}, \label{Ahat}$$ We note that $\hat{\mathbf{A}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{B}}$ are of the same dimension as $\mathbb{A}$ and $\mathbb{B}$. Consequently, when $n$ is large, storing $\hat{\mathbf{A}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{B}}$ and performing computations with them can cause tractability issues. This motivates the use of low-order model representations. Direct use of $\hat{\mathbf{U}}_s$ to reduce the model does not provide a suitable basis because this spans the joint space of states and inputs (while we are only interested in reducing the state space). A common approach (discussed by [@kutz2016dynamic]) to handle this is to use a second truncated SVD on $\mathbf{Y}$: $$\mathbf{Y}=\mathbf{U}_{r}\mathbf{\Sigma}_{r}\mathbf{V}_{r}^{T}, \label{SVD_Y}$$ with truncation order $r \le s \ll n$. The columns of $\mathbf{U}_{r}$ are used to obtain the low-order model: $$\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{k+1} = \tilde{\mathbf{A}} \tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{k} + \tilde{\mathbf{B}} \mathbf{u}_{k}, \label{ROM}$$ where $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{k}\in \mathbb{R}^{r}$, $\tilde{\mathbf{A}}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times r}$, $\tilde{\mathbf{B}}\in\mathbb{R}^{r\times q}$, with expressions $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\mathbf{A}} &= \mathbf{U}_{r}^{T}\hat{\mathbf{A}}\mathbf{U}_{r}=\mathbf{U}_{r}^{T}\mathbf{Y}\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_{s}^{-1}\mathbf{\hat{U}}_{1,s}^{T}\mathbf{U}_{r}, \label{ReducedOrderEstimateAtilde}\\ \tilde{\mathbf{B}} &= \mathbf{U}_{r}^{T}\hat{\mathbf{B}}=\mathbf{U}_{r}^{T}\mathbf{Y}\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_{s}^{-1}\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{2,s}^{T}. \label{ReducedOrderEstimateBtilde}\end{aligned}$$ The true state can be approximated as $\mathbf{x}_{k}\approx \hat{\mathbf{x}}_{k}=\mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{k}$ where $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{k}$ is the reconstructed state. Leading eigenvalues and eigenvectors $(\mathbf{\Lambda},\mathbf{\Phi})$ of the matrix $\hat{\mathbf{A}}$ are computed through the eigendecomposition $\tilde{\mathbf{A}}=\mathbf{W\Lambda W}^{-1}$, with $$\mathbf{\Phi}=\mathbf{U}_{r}\mathbf{W}. \label{DMDEigenvectors}$$ Instead of using exact DMD (as in [@tu2014dynamic]), we use to compute the eigenvectors of $\hat{\mathbf{A}}$ (this is known as the projected DMD) and has been explored in [@schmid2010dynamic]. An attractive feature associated with DMDc is that computations rely entirely on the data matrices and do not involve operations in the high-dimensional space ($\hat{\mathbf{\Theta}}$ is not explicitly needed to obtain a low-order model).
We define the error induced by the DMDc model as: $$\mathbf{e}_{k}=\mathbf{x}_{k}-\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{k}. \label{ReconstructionError}$$ This is a reconstruction error if $k\le m$ and a predictive error if $k>m$. Since $\mathbf{x}_{k}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{k}$ are dynamic, the error $\mathbf{e}_{k}$ has dynamics as well. In this work, we seek to characterize the dynamics of this error and identify critical factors that affect the error amplitude.
As shown in [@kutz2016dynamic], under mild conditions, DMDc is a special case of an identification technique known as eigensystem realization algorithm (ERA). A key difference of DMDc with traditional subspace identification methods such as MOSEP, N4SID and CVA is that these first identify a (possibly low-order) state sequence from the block Hankel data matrix (stacking delay-embedded data in ), followed by least-squares to estimate system matrices. The resultant state sequence conveys similar compressed information as the reduced-order state vector $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}$ in from DMDc. A formal study of the relationship between DMDc and subspace identification methods is an important topic for future work.
Predictive Accuracy of DMDc {#Section3}
===========================
In this section we characterize the predictive accuracy of DMDc. We derive an upper bound on the prediction error and this reveals important factors that can be tuned to improve model accuracy. We also establish conditions under which the model can be asymptotically exact.
Preliminaries
-------------
We introduce assumptions and technical results that are necessary for the subsequent analysis.
*Assumption 1.* \[Asm1\] For model , let $\{\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{n}\}$ be the eigenvalues of $\mathbb{A}$. We assume that $\mathbb{A}$ is Hurwitz with spectral radius: $$\rho(\mathbb{A}):=\max_{i=1,\ldots,n} |\lambda_{i}| < 1. \label{Hurwitz}$$ It will be shown that the dynamics of the error $\mathbf{e}_{k}$ depend on the eigenvalues of $\mathbb{A}$. The system matrix $\mathbb{A}$ being Hurwitz ensures that the error $\mathbf{e}_{k}$ decays asymptotically over time (in the absence of inputs).
\[Lem1\] For any matrix $\mathbf{A}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$ with spectral radius $\rho(\mathbf{A})<1$, there exists a constant $\bar{\rho}\in (\rho(\mathbf{A}),1)$ and a constant $M\ge1$ such that, for each nonnegative integer $k$, $$\|\mathbf{A}^{k}\| \le M \bar{\rho}^{k}. \label{Lemma1}$$
The proof follows from Gelfand’s formula; thus is omitted. $\blacksquare$
If the matrix $\mathbb{A}$ is symmetric (e.g., when the system model is obtained by discretizing PDEs) we have that $\|\mathbb{A}^{k}\|$ is bounded by powers of its spectral radius $\|\mathbb{A}^{k}\| \le \rho(\mathbb{A})^k$. The following corollary can be established from Lemma \[Lem1\].
\[Cor1\] Consider square matrices $\mathbf{A},\mathbf{R}\in \mathbb{R}^{n\times n}$, where $\mathbf{A}$ is Hurwitz. For some constant $M>0$ and $\bar{\rho} \in (\rho(\mathbf{A}),1)$, $$\|\mathbf{R}\mathbf{A}^{k}\| \le M\bar{\rho}^{k}.$$
The proof to Corollary \[Cor1\] follows from the submultiplicative property of matrix norms.
Error Dynamics for DMDc Model
-----------------------------
We first examine the error incurred from the estimation of $\hat{\mathbf{\Theta}}$ in .
\[Thm1\] Consider the true model and the least-squares estimate obtained via the truncated SVD and define also the true solution as $\mathbf{\Theta}$. The estimation error is given by: $$\| \hat{\mathbf{\Theta}}-\mathbf{\Theta}\| = \|\mathbf{\Theta}( \mathbf{I}-\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}^{T})\| = \varepsilon_{s}, \label{FullOrderErrorBound}$$ where $\varepsilon_{s} $ is a constant that decreases as the truncation order $s$ increases. Furthermore, the estimation errors for $\hat{\mathbf{A}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{B}}$ are: $$\|\mathbb{A}-\hat{\mathbf{A}}\| = \varepsilon^{A}_{s}, ~\|\mathbb{B}-\hat{\mathbf{B}}\| = \varepsilon^{B}_{s}, \label{HatBound}$$ where $\varepsilon^{A}_{s}$ and $\varepsilon^{B}_{s}$ are constants decreasing as $s$ increases.
The full-order SVD of $\mathbf{\Omega}$ can be expressed as: $$\mathbf{\Omega}=\left[\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}~\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{e} \right]
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_{s} & \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} & \hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_e
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{s}^{T} \\
\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{e}^{T}
\end{array}
\right], \label{FullSVD}$$ where $\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{e}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{e}$ represent collections of the remaining left and right singular vectors of $\mathbf{\Omega}$, respectively. Substituting into and applying we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{\Theta}} &= \mathbf{\Theta} \mathbf{\Omega}\mathbf{\Omega}_s^{\dagger}\nonumber\\
&=\mathbf{\Theta}\left[\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}~\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{e} \right]
\left[
\begin{array}{cc}
\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_{s} & \mathbf{0} \nonumber\\
\mathbf{0} & \hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_e
\end{array}
\right]
\left[
\begin{array}{c}
\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{s}^{T}\nonumber \\
\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{e}^{T}
\end{array}
\right]\hat{\mathbf{V}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{\Sigma}}_{s}^{-1}\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}^{T}\\
&=\mathbf{\Theta}\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}^{T}.\end{aligned}$$ We can thus obtain the error between the estimated $\hat{\mathbf{\Theta}}$ and the true matrix $\mathbf{\Theta}$ as $\mathbf{\Theta}-\hat{\mathbf{\Theta}}=\mathbf{\Theta}( \mathbf{I}-\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}^{T})$. We thus have that follows. Note that $\mathbf{\Theta}( \mathbf{I}-\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}^{T})$ can be interpreted as the projection of the row space of $\mathbf{\Theta}$ onto the orthogonal complement of the space spanned by the columns of $\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}$. We thus have that, as the truncation order $s$ increases, $\|\mathbf{\Theta}( \mathbf{I}-\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}\hat{\mathbf{U}}_{s}^{T})\| $ decreases. The error expressions for $\hat{\mathbf{A}}$ and $\hat{\mathbf{B}}$ follow directly. $\blacksquare$
As shown in Theorem \[Thm1\], $\varepsilon_{s}$, $\varepsilon_{s}^{A}$ and $\varepsilon_{s}^{B}$ are directly related to the truncation order $s$ in the SVD of $\mathbf{\Omega}$.The selection of $s$ is determined by the distribution of singular values of $\mathbf{\Omega}$, which has a close relationship with the quality of the input signal $\mathbf{\Upsilon}$. Moreover, analogous to system identification theory, when there is noise contaminating the data, a larger sample size can give a smaller covariance of the estimates. Therefore, with properly designed input signals, a reasonably higher truncation order $s$ and larger sample size $m$ can be used to reduce the estimation error in the presence of noise. We also note that an excessively large order $s$ may render the estimates overly sensitive to noise.
The following is our main result.
\[Theorem2\] Consider system and its low-order approximation obtained from DMDc. Under Assumption 1, the prediction error $\mathbf{e}_{k}$ (for $k>m$) can be bounded as: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|\mathbf{e}_{k}\| \le M\bar{\rho}^{k-m} \|\mathbf{e}_{m}\|+M(k-m)\bar{\rho}^{k-1-m}(M_{s,m}+M_{r,m}) \nonumber \\ &\quad \cdot\|\mathbf{x}_{m}\| +M(\varepsilon_{s}^{B}+\varepsilon_{r}^{B})\sum\nolimits_{i=0}^{k-1-m} \bar{\rho}^{k-1-m-i}\|\mathbf{u}_{i+m}\| + \nonumber \\ & \quad M (M_{s,m}+ M_{r,m})\sum\nolimits_{i=0}^{k-2-m}(i+1)\bar{\rho}^{i}\|\mathbb{B}\mathbf{u}_{k-2-i}\|, \label{Thm2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{\rho}\in(\rho(\mathbb{A}),1)$, $M>0$ is a constant such that $\|\mathbf{\Phi}\mathbf{\Lambda}^{k}\mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf}\| \le M \bar{\rho}^{k}$, $\forall k>0$, and positive constants $M_{s,m}$, $M_{r,m}$, $\varepsilon_{r}^B$, and $\varepsilon_{s}^B$ decrease as the SVD truncation orders $r$, $s$, and the sample size $m$ increase.
From the definition of $\mathbf{e}_{k}$ and noting that $\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{k}=\mathbf{U}_{r}^{T}\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{k}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}_{k} &= \mathbf{x}_{k} - \mathbf{\hat{x}}_{k} = \mathbf{x}_{k}-\mathbf{U}_{r} \tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{k} \\
&= \mathbb{A}\mathbf{x}_{k-1} + \mathbb{B} \mathbf{u}_{k-1} -\mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{A}}\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{k-1} - \mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{B}} \mathbf{u}_{k-1} \\
&= \mathbb{A}(\mathbf{x}_{k-1}-\hat{\mathbf{x}}_{k-1}) + \mathbb{A} \hat{\mathbf{x}}_{k-1} + \mathbb{B} \mathbf{u}_{k-1} \\
& \quad -\mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{A}}\tilde{\mathbf{x}}_{k-1} - \mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{B}} \mathbf{u}_{k-1} \\
&=\mathbb{A}\mathbf{e}_{k-1} + (\mathbb{A}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{A}}\mathbf{U}_{r}^{T}) \hat{\mathbf{x}}_{k-1} + (\mathbb{B}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{B}})\mathbf{u}_{k-1} \\
&=\mathbb{A} \mathbf{e}_{k-1} + (\mathbb{A}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{A}}\mathbf{U}_{r}^{T}) (\mathbf{x}_{k-1}-\mathbf{e}_{k-1}) \\
&\quad +(\mathbb{B}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\mathbf{\tilde{B}}) \mathbf{u}_{k-1} \\
&=\mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{A}}\mathbf{U}_{r}^{T} \mathbf{e}_{k-1} + (\mathbb{A}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{A}}\mathbf{U}_{r}^{T}) \mathbf{x}_{k-1} \\
& \quad + (\mathbb{B}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\mathbf{\tilde{B}}) \mathbf{u}_{k-1} \\
&= \mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf} \mathbf{e}_{k-1} + (\mathbb{A}-\mathbf{\Phi \Lambda \Phi}^{-1})\mathbf{x}_{k-1} \\
& \quad + (\mathbb{B}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\mathbf{\tilde{B}}) \mathbf{u}_{k-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the last equality follows from and $\mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf}:=\mathbf{W}^{-1}\mathbf{U}_{r}^{T}$ is defined as the left inverse of $\mathbf{\Phi}$. Iterating the above equation over $k$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{e}_{k} &= \mathbf{\Phi \Lambda}^{k-m} \mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf} \mathbf{e}_{m} + \sum\nolimits_{i=0}^{k-1-m} \mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{\Lambda}^{i} \mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf} \mathbf{\Psi}_{k-1-i},
\label{ek}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{\Psi}_{i}=(\mathbb{A}-\mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf}) \mathbf{x}_{i}+(\mathbb{B}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{B}})\mathbf{u}_{i}$. When the sample size $m$ is large, we can safely assume $\hat{\mathbf{A}}$ to be Hurwitz. This implies that $\mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{\Lambda}^{k} \mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf}$ is stable with bounded norm for all $k\ge 0$. Using the definition of $M$ we can establish that $\|\mathbf{e}_{k}\|$ in satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf{e}_{k}\| &\le M\bar{\rho}^{k-m} \|\mathbf{e}_{m}\| + M\sum\nolimits_{i=m}^{k-1} \bar{\rho}^{k-1-i} \|\mathbf{\Psi}_{i}\|.
\label{ek_norm}\end{aligned}$$ Now let us focus on $\mathbf{\Psi}_{i}$ with $m\le i\le k-1$; this can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{\Psi}_{i} &=(\mathbb{A}-\hat{\mathbf{A}})\mathbf{x}_{i}+ (\hat{\mathbf{A}}-\mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf}) \mathbf{x}_{i}+(\mathbb{B}-\hat{\mathbf{B}})\mathbf{u}_{i} \nonumber \\
&\qquad +(\hat{\mathbf{B}}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\tilde{\mathbf{B}})\mathbf{u}_{i} \nonumber\\
&=(\mathbb{A}-\hat{\mathbf{A}})\mathbb{A}^{i-m}\mathbf{x}_{m}+\sum\nolimits_{j=0}^{i-1-m}(\mathbb{A}-\hat{\mathbf{A}})\mathbb{A}^{j}\mathbb{B}\mathbf{u}_{i-1-j} + \nonumber \\
& \quad (\hat{\mathbf{A}}-\mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf}) \mathbb{A}^{i-m}\mathbf{x}_{m} + \sum\nolimits_{j=0}^{i-1-m}(\hat{\mathbf{A}}-\mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf}) \nonumber \\
& \quad ~\cdot\mathbb{A}^{j}\mathbb{B}\mathbf{u}_{i-1-j} + (\mathbb{B}-\hat{\mathbf{B}})\mathbf{u}_{i} + (\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\mathbf{U}_{r}^{T})\hat{\mathbf{B}}\mathbf{u}_{i} \label{Psi}.\end{aligned}$$ As shown in [@korda2018convergence], the estimated DMD modes converge to the true Koopman modes when the sample size $m$ tends to infinity. Moreover, it is shown that larger SVD truncation orders increase the accuracy of DMD, provided that the inverse of singular values in relevant computations does not cause numerical issue or stability problem. Thus, we can establish that: $$\|\hat{\mathbf{A}}-\mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf}\| \le c_{r,m}, \label{cmr}$$ where $c_{r,m}>0$ is a constant decreasing as $r$ or $m$ increases. The results in Lemma \[Lem1\], Corollary \[Cor1\], and Theorem \[Thm1\], yield: $$\begin{aligned}
&\|(\mathbb{A}-\hat{\mathbf{A}})\mathbb{A}^{i}\| \le M_{s,m}\bar{\rho}^{i},~\|(\hat{\mathbf{A}}-\mathbf{\Phi} \mathbf{\Lambda} \mathbf{\Phi}^{-1}_{lf})\mathbb{A}^{i}\| \le M_{r,m} \bar{\rho}^{i}, \nonumber \\
&\|(\mathbf{I}-\mathbf{U}_{r}\mathbf{U}_{r}^{T})\hat{\mathbf{B}}\| \le \varepsilon_{r}^{B}, \label{Constants}\end{aligned}$$ where $M_{s,m}>0$, $M_{r,m}>0$ are constants decreasing as $s$, $r$, or $m$ increases and the constant $\varepsilon_{r}^{B}>0$ decreases as $r$ increases. Combining and we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{i=m}^{k-1} \bar{\rho}^{k-1-i} \|\mathbf{\Psi}_{i}\|
\le (k-m)\bar{\rho}^{k-1-m}(M_{s,m}+M_{r,m})\|\mathbf{x}_m\| \nonumber \\
& + (\varepsilon_{s}^{B}+\varepsilon_{r}^{B}) \sum_{i=0}^{k-1-m} \bar{\rho}^{k-1-m-i} \|\mathbf{u}_{i+m}\|+(M_{s,m}+M_{r,m})\cdot \nonumber \\
&
\sum_{i=0}^{k-1-m}\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}\bar{\rho}^{k-1-m-i+j} \|\mathbb{B}\mathbf{u}_{i+m-1-j}\|. \label{Psi_norm}\end{aligned}$$ With change of variables, the result in follows by substituting into . $\blacksquare$
Theorem \[Thm1\] provides a characterization of the error dynamics of DMDc models. The result reveals the role of the sample size $m$ and SVD truncation orders $s$ and $r$. According to , a larger sample size and higher SVD truncation orders reduce the error (as expected) and asymptotic convergence is obtained. However, similar to the error analysis of balanced truncation presented in [@moore1981principal], the predictive errors of DMDc depend on the amplitude of the input $\mathbf{u}_{k}$. This effect is not analyzed here and is left as a topic of future work. We also highlight that the error bound obtained in Theorem \[Theorem2\] is not tight, and alternative bounding approaches are also an important topic of future work.
We now show that as $k\to\infty$, the prediction error is upper bounded if the amplitude of the input signal is bounded.
\[Cor2\] For the prediction error bound obtained from Theorem \[Theorem2\] with finite sample size $m$ and fixed truncation orders $s,r \le n$, assume that the input is bounded $\|\mathbf{u}_{k}\|\le \bar{u}$. As $k\to\infty$, the prediction error is upper bounded by $$\lim_{k\to\infty}\|\mathbf{e}_{k}\| \le \frac{M\bar{u}}{1-\bar{\rho}}(\varepsilon_{s}^{B}+\varepsilon_{r}^{B})+\frac{M\|\mathbb{B}\|\bar{u}}{(1-\bar{\rho})^2}(M_{s,m}+M_{r,m}).$$
The first two terms in vanish as $k\to\infty$ since $|\bar{\rho}|<1$. For the last two terms, we can establish the result by using the fact that $\lim_{l\to\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{l}z^{k}=1/(1-z)$ and $\lim_{l\to\infty} \sum_{k=0}^{l}(k+1)z^{k}=1/(1-z)^2$, for all $|z|<1$. $\blacksquare$
![Sketch of 2D diffusion system used for validating DMDc errors. []{data-label="2DDiffusionSchematics"}](TwoDdiffusion_2){width="6.5cm"}
{width="90.00000%"}
Note that the theorems above demonstrate the pointwise bounds of the prediction error at a specific time instant from DMDc. As a comparison, for the balanced truncation, the corresponding Hankel-norm error bound is in terms of the $H_\infty$ norm of the error dynamic system, i.e., it measures the peak energy (or $L_2$) gain of the error signal over all types of inputs, across time from zero to infinity, instead of at a specific time instant.
Case Study {#Section4}
==========
We use a 2D heat diffusion system to verify our proposed error bound for the predictive accuracy of DMDc. In this experiment, our aim is to imitate a heat diffusion process along a 2D domain with heat sources located at four edges, as shown in Fig. \[2DDiffusionSchematics\]. Each of the four heat source (inputs) $u_1$, $u_2$, $u_3$ and $u_4$ in Fig. \[2DDiffusionSchematics\] spans a width along the edge, similar to the heat radiator on the wall of a room. Defining $\xi(a,b,t)$ as the temperature value at location $(a,b)$ at time $t$, the diffusion equation reads as $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\partial \xi}{\partial t}=\alpha \left(\frac{\partial^2 \xi}{\partial a^2} + \frac{\partial^2 \xi}{\partial b^2}\right) + f(a,b), \label{2DDiffusion} \\
&(a,b)\in (0,L_a) \times (0,L_b),~t\in(0,T], \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha$ is the diffusion coefficient, $f(a,b)$ is the source at location $(a,b)$, $L_a$, $L_b$ are the spatial length along $a$ and $b$ directions, and $T$ is the simulation duration. $\xi(L_a,0,t) = \xi_a, ~ \xi(0,L_b,t) = \xi_b$ are the boundary conditions and $\xi(a,b,0) = I(a,b)$ is the initial condition.
We use backward Euler scheme to simulate the evolution of and we use a central finite difference scheme in the spatial domain. We set $L_a=L_b=40$ and discretize the 2D space into a $71\times 71$ mesh with $\Delta a=\Delta b = 0.5714$. We also set $\Delta t=1 s$ and $\alpha=0.45$. To construct our ground truth model, we identify the high-dimensional system from the 2D diffusion equation , where $\mathbb{A}$ in is required to be Hurwitz according to Assumption 1. To eliminate the adverse effects from boundary conditions, we shrink our interested region to an inner domain (a $50\times 50$ mesh) of the 2D space, as highlighted in the blue area in Fig. \[2DDiffusionSchematics\]. Each heat source spans 21 discrete spatial locations and so in total there are $q=84$ heating points mounted evenly on four edges to heat up the 2D board. We used pseudo random binary signals to excite the diffusion process and collected data over an horizon of $T=20,000$ seconds. The data was used to identify the state-space matrix $\mathbb{A}\in\mathbb{R}^{2500\times 2500}$ and $\mathbb{B}\in \mathbb{R}^{2500\times 84}$ in and we verified matrix $\mathbb{A}$ is stable.
To examine the predictive accuracy of DMDc, we simulated the high-dimensional model under sinusoidal inputs for all heat actuators. For simplicity, it is assumed that all inputs are identical. The amplitude and frequency of the sinusoidal signal are 2 and $0.02$ Hz, respectively. The simulation time was set to $T=1,200$ seconds and this covers more than two periods of the sinusoidal input. We first used $m=600$ samples of data to construct the low-order model with DMDc. Here, the SVD truncation orders are $s=26$ and $r=17$ and these were set based on the singular values of $\mathbf{\Omega}$ and $\mathbf{Y}$, respectively. The next 600 samples of data were used to assess the predictive performance of the DMDc model. Fig. \[TrueDMDCompare\] illustrates that the DMDc model is accurate (despite this being of low order) but accuracy strongly depends on data availability.
We now evaluate the impact of data size and order on the predictive accuracy. To this end, we separately test the predictive errors against varying values of $m$, $s$, and $r$. For $m$, we select values of 600, 800, and 1000, while keeping $s=26$ and $r=17$. The prediction error bound was computed using and the true error was computed using . Fig. \[ErrorBoundSampleSize\] shows that, as the sample size increases, the error bound and actual error decrease. We also see that the error stabilizes as one moves forward in the horizon (consistent with the error dynamics predicted).
We next obtained the errors using truncation orders $r=10,16,23$ (with $s=26$ and $m=800$). Fig. \[ErrorBoundr\] confirms the trend predicted by our theoretical bound (larger truncation orders lead to smaller errors). For the last scenario, we fix the sample size to $m=800$ and alter the values of $s$. Here, we found that the contributed errors from both $r$ (being fixed) and $s$ change over different values of $s$ and this gives misleading results because we are only interested in examining the effects of $s$. This is due to the fact that the objective of the second SVD, determined by $r$ in , is to estimate $\hat{\mathbf{A}}$ from the first SVD. If $r$ is fixed but $s$ varies (and thus $\hat{\mathbf{A}}$ varies), the gap between $r$ and $s$ will change, causing the contributed errors from $r$ to be different. Hence, here we set $r=s-3$ (recall that $r\le s$ in the DMDc procedure) so that the order $r$ changes with $s$. Fig. \[ErrorBounds\] shows error trajectories for $s=17,21,26$. We can see that increasing the truncation order $s$ gives lower error bounds and actual error, confirming our theoretical results. Finally, we examined the norm of the error at the end of the prediction horizon $\|\mathbf{e}_{T}\|$ for different sample sizes and orders. Fig. \[ErrorPlot\] shows that the error decreases as the truncation orders $s$ and $r$ and sample size $m$ increase and we observe asymptotic convergence. This confirms that DMDc provides a coherent modeling approach for data-driven control.
![Error bounds and actual errors for DMDc under different sample sizes $m$.[]{data-label="ErrorBoundSampleSize"}](ErrorBoundSampleSize){width="0.97\columnwidth"}
![Error bounds and actual errors for DMDc under different truncation orders $r$.[]{data-label="ErrorBoundr"}](ErrorBoundr){width="0.97\columnwidth"}
![Error bounds and actual errors for DMDc under different truncation orders $s$.[]{data-label="ErrorBounds"}](ErrorBounds){width="0.97\columnwidth"}
![Predicted terminal error $\|\mathbf{e}_{T}\|$ under different truncation orders and sample sizes.[]{data-label="ErrorPlot"}](ErrorPlot){width="0.97\columnwidth"}
Conclusions and Future Work {#Section5}
===========================
In this work we characterize the prediction errors of DMDc. Our analysis highlights the effect of SVD truncation orders and data samples on the error dynamics and provides conditions under which the error can be driven to zero. This analysis provides consistent guarantees for DMDc models that are desirable from a control stand-point. As part of future work, we will investigate alternative strategies to provide tighter error bounds. Moreover, we will seek to design model-predictive control based on ROMs from DMDc to control high-dimensional systems. The relationship between DMDc with subspace identification methods will also be explored.
The authors acknowledge support from the members of the TWCCC consortium.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Teodora-Liliana Dinu\
Department of Mathematics, “Fraţii Buzeşti" College, Bd. Ştirbei–Vodă No. 5, 200352 Craiova, Romania\
E-mail: [[email protected]]{}
title: Nonlinear eigenvalue problems in Sobolev spaces with variable exponent
---
[. We study the boundary value problem $-{\rm div}((|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)
-2}+|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-2})\nabla u)=f(x,u)$ in $\Omega$, $u=0$ on $\partial\Omega$, where $\Omega$ is a smooth bounded domain in $\RR^N$. We focus on the cases when $f_\pm (x,u)=\pm(-\lambda|u|^{m(x)-2}u+|u|^{q(x)-2}u)$, where $m(x):=\max\{
p_1(x),p_2(x)\}<q(x)<
\frac{N\cdot m(x)}{N-m(x)}$ for any $x\in\overline\Omega$. In the first case we show the existence of infinitely many weak solutions for any $\lambda>0$. In the second case we prove that if $\lambda$ is large enough then there exists a nontrivial weak solution. Our approach relies on the variable exponent theory of generalized Lebesgue-Sobolev spaces, combined with a $\ZZ_2$-symmetric version for even functionals of the Mountain Pass Lemma and some adequate variational methods.\
35D05, 35J60, 35J70, 58E05, 68T40, 76A02.\
$p(x)$-Laplace operator, generalized Lebesgue-Sobolev space, critical point, weak solution, electrorheological fluids.]{}
Introduction and preliminary results
====================================
Electrorheological fluids (sometimes referred to as “smart fluids"), are particular fluids of high technological interest whose apparent viscosity changes reversibly in response to an electric field. The electrorheological fluids have been intensively studied from the 1940’s to the present. The first major discovery on electrorheological fluids is due to Willis M. Winslow [@WW]. He noticed that such fluids’ (for instance lithium polymetachrylate) viscosity in an electrical field is inversely proportional to the strength of the field. The field induces string-like formations in the fluid, which are parallel to the field. They can raise the viscosity by as much as five orders of magnitude. This phenomenon is known as the Winslow effect. For a general account of the underlying physics confer [@hal] and for some technical applications [@pfe]. We just remember that any device which currently depends upon hydraulics, hydrodynamics or hydrostatics can benefit from electrorheological fluids’ properties. Consequently, electrorheological fluids are most promising in aircraft and aerospace applications. For more information on properties and the application of these fluids we refer to [@AM; @D; @hal; @R].
The mathematical modelling of electrorheological fluids determined the study of variable Lebesgue and Sobolev spaces $L^{p(x)}$ and $W^{1,p(x)}$, where $p(x)$ is a real-valued function. Variable exponent Lebesgue spaces appeared in the literature for the first time already in a 1931 article by W. Orlicz [@orl]. In the years 1950 this study was carried on by Nakano [@nak] who made the first systematic study of spaces with variable exponent. Later, the Polish mathematicians investigated the modular function spaces (see, e.g., the basic monograph Musielak [@M]). Variable exponent Lebesgue spaces on the real line have been independently developed by Russian researchers. In that context we refer to the work of Tsenov [@tse], Sharapudinov [@sha] and Zhikov [@Z1; @Z2]. For deep results in weighted Sobolev spaces with applications to partial differential equations we refer to the excellent monographs by Drabek, Kufner and Nicolosi [@dkn], by Hyers, Isac and Rassias [@isac], and by Kufner and Persson [@kp].
Our main purpose is to study the boundary value problem $$\label{Pr1}
\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
-{\rm div}((|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)-2}+|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-2})\nabla u)=
f(x,u), &\mbox{for}& x\in\Omega\\
u=0, &\mbox{for}& x\in\partial\Omega
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\Omega\subset\RR^N$ ($N\geq 3$) is a bounded domain with smooth boundary and $1<p_i(x)$, $p_i(x)\in C(\overline\Omega)$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$. We are looking for nontrivial weak solutions of Problem in the generalized Sobolev space $W^{1,m(x)}(\Omega)$, where $m(x)=\max\{p_1(x),p_2(x)\}$ for any $x\in\overline\Omega$. We point out that problems of type were intensively studied in the past decades. We refer to [@CF; @FZh; @FZZ] for some interesting results.
We recall in what follows some definitions and basic properties of the generalized Lebesgue–Sobolev spaces $L^{p(x)}(\Omega)$ and $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$, where $\Omega$ is a bounded domain in $\RR^N$.
Set $$C_+(\overline\Omega)=\{h;\;h\in C(\overline\Omega),\;h(x)>1\;{\rm
for}\;
{\rm all}\;x\in\overline\Omega\}.$$ For any $h\in C_+(\overline\Omega)$ we define $$h^+=\sup_{x\in\Omega}h(x)\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad h^-=
\inf_{x\in\Omega}h(x).$$ For any $p(x)\in C_+(\overline\Omega)$, we define the variable exponent Lebesgue space $$L^{p(x)}(\Omega)=\{u;\ u\ \mbox{is a
measurable real-valued function such that }
\int_\Omega|u(x)|^{p(x)}\;dx<\infty\}.$$ We define a norm, the so-called [*Luxemburg norm*]{}, on this space by the formula $$|u|_{p(x)}=\inf\left\{\mu>0;\;\int_\Omega\left|
\frac{u(x)}{\mu}\right|^{p(x)}\;dx\leq 1\right\}.$$ Variable exponent Lebesgue spaces resemble classical Lebesgue spaces in many respects: they are Banach spaces [@KR Theorem 2.5], the Hölder inequality holds [@KR Theorem 2.1], they are reflexive if and only if $1 < p^-\leq
p^+<\infty$ [@KR Corollary 2.7] and continuous functions are dense if $p^+
<\infty$ [@KR Theorem 2.11]. The inclusion between Lebesgue spaces also generalizes naturally [@KR Theorem 2.8]: if $0 <
|\Omega|<\infty$ and $r_1$, $r_2$ are variable exponents so that $r_1(x) \leq r_2(x)$ almost everywhere in $\Omega$ then there exists the continuous embedding $L^{r_2(x)}(\Omega)\hookrightarrow L^{r_1(x)}(\Omega)$, whose norm does not exceed $|\Omega|+1$.
We denote by $L^{p^{'}(x)}(\Omega)$ the conjugate space of $L^{p(x)}(\Omega)$, where $1/p(x)+1/p^{'}(x)=1$. For any $u\in L^{p(x)}(\Omega)$ and $v\in L^{p^{'}(x)}(\Omega)$ the Hölder type inequality $$\label{Hol}
\left|\int_\Omega uv\;dx\right|\leq\left(\frac{1}{p^-}+
\frac{1}{{p^{'}}^-}\right)|u|_{p(x)}|v|_{p^{'}(x)}$$ holds true.
An important role in manipulating the generalized Lebesgue-Sobolev spaces is played by the [*modular*]{} of the $L^{p(x)}(\Omega)$ space, which is the mapping $\rho_{p(x)}:L^{p(x)}(\Omega)\rightarrow\RR$ defined by $$\rho_{p(x)}(u)=\int_\Omega|u|^{p(x)}\;dx.$$ If $(u_n)$, $u\in L^{p(x)}(\Omega)$ and $p^+<\infty$ then the following relations hold true $$\label{L4}
|u|_{p(x)}>1\;\;\;\Rightarrow\;\;\;|u|_{p(x)}^{p^-}\leq\rho_{p(x)}(u)
\leq|u|_{p(x)}^{p^+}$$ $$\label{L5}
|u|_{p(x)}<1\;\;\;\Rightarrow\;\;\;|u|_{p(x)}^{p^+}\leq
\rho_{p(x)}(u)\leq|u|_{p(x)}^{p^-}$$ $$\label{L6}
|u_n-u|_{p(x)}\rightarrow 0\;\;\;\Leftrightarrow\;\;\;\rho_{p(x)}
(u_n-u)\rightarrow 0.$$ Spaces with $p^+ =\infty$ have been studied by Edmunds, Lang and Nekvinda [@edm].
Next, we define $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)$ as the closure of $C_0^\infty(\Omega)$ under the norm $$\|u\|_{p(x)}=|\nabla u|_{p(x)}.$$ The space $(W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega),\|\cdot\|_{p(x)})$ is a separable and reflexive Banach space. We note that if $q\in C_+(\overline
\Omega)$ and $q(x)<p^\star(x)$ for all $x\in\overline\Omega$ then the embedding $W_0^{1,p(x)}(\Omega)\hookrightarrow L^{q(x)}(\Omega)$ is compact and continuous, where $p^\star(x)=\frac{Np(x)}{N-p(x)}$ if $p(x)<N$ or $p^\star(x)=+\infty$ if $p(x)\geq N$. We refer to [@edm2; @edm3; @FSZ; @FZ1; @KR] for further properties of variable exponent Lebesgue-Sobolev spaces.
\[r1\] If $p_1(x)$, $p_2(x)\in C_+(\overline\Omega)$ it is clear that $m(x)\in C_+(\overline\Omega)$ where $m(x)=\max\{p_1(x),p_2(x)\}$ for any $x\in\overline\Omega$. On the other hand since $p_1(x)$, $p_2(x)\leq m(x)$ for any $x\in\overline\Omega$ it follows that $W_0^{1,m(x)}(\Omega)$ is continuously embedded in $W_0^{1,p_i(x)}(\Omega)$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$.
Main results
============
In this paper we study Problem if $f(x,t)=\pm(-\lambda|t|^{m(x)-2}t+|t|^{q(x)-2}t)$, where $$m(x):=\max\{p_1(x),p_2(x)\}<q(x)<\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
&\di \frac{N\cdot m(x)}{N-m(x)}&\di \qquad\mbox{if $m(x)<N$}\\
&\di +\infty&\di \qquad\mbox{if $m(x)\geq N$}\,,\end{array}\right.$$ for any $x\in\overline\Omega$ and all $\lambda>0$.
We first consider the problem $$\label{2}
\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
-{\rm div}((|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)-2}+|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-2})\nabla u)=
-\lambda |u|^{m(x)-2}u+|u|^{q(x)-2}u, &\mbox{for}& x\in\Omega\\
u=0, &\mbox{for}& x\in\partial\Omega.
\end{array}\right.$$ We say that $u\in W_0^{1,m(x)}(\Omega)$ is a [*weak solution*]{} of problem if $$\int_\Omega(|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)-2}+|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-2})\nabla u
\nabla v\;dx+\lambda\int_\Omega |u|^{m(x)-2}uv\;dx-\int_\Omega
|u|^{q(x)-2}uv\;dx=0,$$ for all $v\in W_0^{1,m(x)}(\Omega)$.
We prove
\[t1\] For every $\lambda>0$ problem has infinitely many weak solutions, provided that $2\leq p_i^-$ for $i\in\{1,2\}$, $m^+<q^-$ and $q^+<\frac{N\cdot m^-}{N-m^-}$.
Next, we study the problem $$\label{P3}
\left\{\begin{array}{lll}
-{\rm div}((|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)-2}+|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-2})\nabla u)=
\lambda |u|^{m(x)-2}u-|u|^{q(x)-2}u, &\mbox{for}& x\in\Omega\\
u=0, &\mbox{for}& x\in\partial\Omega.
\end{array}\right.$$
We say that $u\in W_0^{1,m(x)}(\Omega)$ is a [*weak solution*]{} of problem if $$\int_\Omega(|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)-2}+|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-2})\nabla u
\nabla v\;dx-\lambda\int_\Omega |u|^{m(x)-2}uv\;dx+\int_\Omega
|u|^{q(x)-2}uv\;dx=0,$$ for all $v\in W_0^{1,m(x)}(\Omega)$.
We prove
\[t2\] There exists $\lambda^\star>0$ such that for any $\lambda\geq
\lambda^\star$ problem has a nontrivial weak solution, provided that $m^+<q^-$ and $q^+<\frac{N\cdot m^-}{N-m^-}$.
Proof of Theorem \[t1\]
=======================
The key argument in the proof of Theorem \[t1\] is the following $\ZZ_2$-symmetric version (for even functionals) of the Mountain Pass Lemma (see Theorem 9.12 in [@Rab]):
\[mpl\] Let $X$ be an infinite dimensional real Banach space and let $I\in C^1(X,\RR)$ be even, satisfying the Palais-Smale condition (that is, any sequence $\{x_n\}
\subset X$ such that $\{I(x_n)\}$ is bounded and $I^{'}(x_n)
\rightarrow c$ in $X^\star$ has a convergent subsequence) and $I(0)=0$. Suppose that
(I1) There exist two constants $\rho$, $a>0$ such that $I(x)\geq a$ if $\|x\|=\rho.$
(I2) For each finite dimensional subspace $X_1\subset X$, the set $\{x\in X_1;\;I(x)\geq 0\}$ is bounded.
Then $I$ has an unbounded sequence of critical values.
Let $E$ denote the generalized Sobolev space $W_0^{1,m(x)}(\Omega)$.
The energy functional corresponding to problem is defined by $J_\lambda:E\rightarrow\RR$, $$J_\lambda(u)=\int_\Omega\frac{1}{p_1(x)}|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)}\;dx+
\int_\Omega\frac{1}{p_2(x)}|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)}\;dx+\lambda
\int_\Omega\frac{1}{m(x)}|u|^{m(x)}\;dx-\int_\Omega\frac{1}{q(x)}
|u|^{q(x)}\;dx.$$ A simple calculation based on Remark \[r1\], relations and and the compact embedding of $E$ into $L^{s(x)}(\Omega)$ for all $s\in C_+(\overline\Omega)$ with $s(x)<m^\star(x)$ on $\overline\Omega$ shows that $J_\lambda$ is well-defined on $E$ and $J_\lambda\in C^1(E,\RR)$ with the derivative given by $$\langle J_\lambda^{'}(u),v\rangle=\int_\Omega(|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)-2}
+|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-2})\nabla u\nabla v\;dx+\lambda\int_\Omega
|u|^{m(x)-2}uv\;dx-\int_\Omega|u|^{q(x)-2}uv\;dx,$$ for any $u$, $v\in E$. Thus the weak solutions of are exactly the critical points of $J_\lambda$.
\[le1\] There exist $\eta>0$ and $\alpha>0$ such that $J_\lambda(u)\geq\alpha>0$ for any $u\in E$ with $\|u\|_{m(x)}=
\eta$.
We first point out that since $m(x)=\max\{p_1(x),p_2(x)\}$ for any $x\in\overline\Omega$ then $$\label{L8}
|\nabla u(x)|^{p_1(x)}+|\nabla u(x)|^{p_2(x)}\geq|\nabla
u(x)|^{m(x)},\;\;\;\forall x\in\overline\Omega.$$ On the other hand, we have $$\label{L9}
|u(x)|^{q^-}+|u(x)|^{q^+}\geq|u(x)|^{q(x)},\;\;\;\forall x\in\overline
\Omega.$$ Using and we deduce that $$\label{L10}
\begin{array}{lll}
J_\lambda(u)&\geq&\di\frac{1}{\max\{p_1^+,p_2^+\}}\cdot\di\int_\Omega
|\nabla u|^{m(x)}\;dx-\di\frac{1}{q^-}\cdot\left(\di\int_\Omega|u|^
{q^-}\;dx+\di\int_\Omega|u|^{q^+}\;dx\right)\\
&\geq&\di\frac{1}{m^+}\cdot\di\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^
{m(x)}\;dx-\di\frac{1}{q^-}\cdot\left(\di\int_\Omega|u|^{q^-}\;dx
+\di\int_\Omega|u|^{q^+}\;dx\right)\,,
\end{array}$$ for any $u\in E$.
Since $m^+<q^-\leq q^+<m^\star(x)$ for any $x\in\overline\Omega$ and $E$ is continuously embedded in $L^{q^-}(\Omega)$ and in $L^{q^+}(\Omega)$ it follows that there exist two positive constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that $$\label{L11}
\|u\|_{m(x)}\geq C_1\cdot|u|_{q^+},\;\;\;\|u\|_{m(x)}\geq C_2\cdot
|u|_{q^-},\;\;\;\forall u\in E.$$ Assume that $u\in E$ and $\|u\|_{m(x)}<1$. Thus, by , $$\label{L12}
\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^{m(x)}\;dx\geq\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+}.$$ Relations , and yield $$\begin{aligned}
J_\lambda(u)&\geq&\frac{1}{m^+}\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+}-\frac{1}{q^-}
\cdot\left[\left(\frac{1}{C_1}\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)}\right)^{q^+}+
\left(\frac{1}{C_2}\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)}\right)^{q^-}\right]\\
&=&(\beta-\gamma\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)}^{q^+-m^+}-\delta\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)}^
{q^--m^+})\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+}\end{aligned}$$ for any $u\in E$ with $\|u\|_{m(x)}<1$, where $\beta$, $\gamma$ and $\delta$ are positive constants.
We remark that the function $g:[0,1]\rightarrow\RR$ defined by $$g(t)=\beta-\gamma\cdot t^{q^+-m^+}-\delta\cdot t^{q^--m^+}$$ is positive in a neighborhood of the origin. We conclude that Lemma \[le1\] holds true.
\[le2\] Let $E_1$ be a finite dimensional subspace of $E$. Then the set $S=\{
u\in E_1;\;J_\lambda(u)\geq 0\}$ is bounded.
In order to prove Lemma \[le2\], we first show that $$\label{SS1}
\int_\Omega\frac{1}{p_1(x)}|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)}\;dx\leq K_1\cdot
(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^+}),\;\;\;\forall u\in E$$ where $K_1$ is a positive constant.
Indeed, using relations and we have $$\label{SS2}
\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)}\;dx\leq|\nabla u|_{p_1(x)}^{p_1^-}+
|\nabla u|_{p_1(x)}^{p_1^+}=\|u\|_{p_1(x)}^{p_1^-}+
\|u\|_{p_1(x)}^{p_1^+},\;\;\;\forall u\in E.$$ On the other hand, Remark \[r1\] implies that there exists a positive constant $K_0$ such that $$\label{SS3}
\|u\|_{p_1(x)}\leq K_0\cdot \|u\|_{m(x)},\;\;\;\forall u\in E.$$ Inequalities and yield $$\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)}\;dx\leq
(K_0\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)})^{p_1^-}+
(K_0\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)})^{p_1^+},\;\;\;\forall u\in E$$ and thus holds true.
With similar arguments we deduce that there exists a positive constant $K_2$ such that $$\label{SS4}
\int_\Omega\frac{1}{p_2(x)}|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)}\;dx\leq K_2\cdot
(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^+}),\;\;\;\forall u\in E.$$ Using again and we have $$\int_\Omega|u|^{m(x)}\;dx\leq|u|_{m(x)}^{m^-}+|u|_{m(x)}^{m^+},
\;\;\;\forall u\in E.$$ Since $E$ is continuously embedded in $L^{m(x)}(\Omega)$, there exists of a positive constant ${\overline{K}}$ such that $$|u|_{m(x)}\leq{\overline{K}}\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)},\;\;\;\forall u\in E.$$ The last two inequalities show that for each $\lambda>0$ there exists a positive constant $K_3(\lambda)$ such that $$\label{SS5}
\lambda\cdot\int_\Omega\frac{1}{m(x)}|\nabla u|^{m(x)}\;dx\leq
K_3(\lambda)\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+}),\;\;\;
\forall u\in E.$$ By inequalities , and we get $$J_\lambda(u)\leq K_1\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^+})
+K_2\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^+})+K_3(\lambda)
\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+})-\frac{1}{q^+}
\int_\Omega|u|^{q(x)}\;dx,$$ for all $u\in E$.
Let $u\in E$ be arbitrary but fixed. We define $$\Omega_<=\{x\in\Omega;\;|u(x)|<1\},\;\;\;\Omega_\geq=\Omega
\setminus\Omega_<.$$ Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
J_\lambda(u)&\leq& K_1\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^+})
+K_2\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^+})+K_3(\lambda)
\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+})-\\
&&\frac{1}{q^+}\int_\Omega|u|^{q(x)}\;dx\\
&\leq&K_1\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^+})
+K_2\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^+})+K_3(\lambda)
\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+})-\\
&&\frac{1}{q^+}\int_{\Omega_\geq}|u|^{q(x)}\;dx\\
&\leq&K_1\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^+})
+K_2\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^+})+K_3(\lambda)
\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+})-\\
&&\frac{1}{q^+}\int_{\Omega_\geq}|u|^{q^-}\;dx\\
&\leq&K_1\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^+})
+K_2\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^+})+K_3(\lambda)
\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+})-\\
&&\frac{1}{q^+}\int_{\Omega}|u|^{q^-}\;dx+\frac{1}{q^+}
\int_{\Omega_<}|u|^{q^-}\;dx.\end{aligned}$$ But there exists a positive constant $K_4$ such that $$\frac{1}{q^+}\int_{\Omega_<}|u|^{q^-}\leq K_4,\;\;\;\forall
u\in E.$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
J_\lambda(u)&\leq&K_1\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^+})
+K_2\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^+})+K_3(\lambda)
\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+})-\\
&&\frac{1}{q^+}\int_\Omega|u|^{q^-}\;dx+K_4,\;\;\;\forall u\in E.\end{aligned}$$ The functional $|\,\cdot\,|_{q^-}:E\rightarrow\RR$ defined by $$|u|_{q^-}=\left(\int_\Omega|u|^{q^-}\;dx\right)^{1/{q^-}}$$ is a norm in $E$. In the finite dimensional subspace $E_1$ the norms $|\,\cdot\,|_{q^-}$ and $\|\,\cdot\,\|_{m(x)}$ are equivalent, so there exists a positive constant $K=K(E_1)$ such that $$\|u\|_{m(x)}\leq K\cdot|u|_{q^-},\;\;\;\forall u\in E_1.$$ As a consequence we have that there exists a positive constant $K_5$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
J_\lambda(u)&\leq&K_1\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^+})
+K_2\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^+})+K_3(\lambda)
\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+})-\\
&&K_5\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)}^{q^-}+K_4,\;\;\;\forall u\in E_1.\end{aligned}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
K_1\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_1^+})
&+&K_2\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{p_2^+})+K_3(\lambda)
\cdot(\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}+\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^+})\\
&-&K_5\cdot\|u\|_{m(x)}^{q^-}+K_4\geq 0,\;\;\;\forall u\in S\end{aligned}$$ and since $q^->m^+$ we conclude that $S$ is bounded in $E$. The proof of Lemma \[le2\] is complete.
\[le3\] Assume that $\{u_n\}\subset E$ is a sequence which satisfies the properties: $$\label{L13}
|J_\lambda(u_n)|<M$$ $$\label{L14}
J_\lambda^{'}(u_n)\rightarrow 0\;\;\;{\rm as}\;n\rightarrow\infty$$ where $M$ is a positive constant. Then $\{u_n\}$ possesses a convergent subsequence.
First, we show that $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in $E$. Assume by contradiction the contrary. Then, passing eventually at a subsequence, still denoted by $\{u_n\}$, we may assume that $\|u_n\|_{m(x)}
\rightarrow\infty$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. Thus we may consider that $\|u_n\|_{m(x)}>1$ for any integer $n$.
By we deduce that there exists $N_1>0$ such that for any $n>N_1$ we have $$\|J_\lambda^{'}(u_n)\|\leq 1.$$ On the other hand, for any $n>N_1$ fixed, the application $$E\ni v\rightarrow\langle J_\lambda^{'}(u_n),v\rangle$$ is linear and continuous. The above information yields $$|\langle J_\lambda^{'}(u_n),v\rangle|\leq
\|J_\lambda^{'}(u_n)\|\cdot\|v\|_{m(x)}\leq\|v\|_{m(x)},\;\;\;\forall
v\in E,\;n>N_1.$$ Setting $v=u_n$ we have $$-\|u_n\|_{m(x)}\leq\int_\Omega|\nabla u_n|^{p_1(x)}\;dx+\int_\Omega
|\nabla u_n|^{p_2(x)}\;dx+\lambda\int_\Omega|u_n|^{m(x)}\;dx-
\int_\Omega|u_n|^{q(x)}\;dx\leq\|u_n\|_{m(x)},$$ for all $n>N_1$. We obtain $$\label{L15}
-\|u_n\|_{m(x)}-\int_\Omega|\nabla u_n|^{p_1(x)}\;dx-\int_\Omega
|\nabla u_n|^{p_2(x)}\;dx-\lambda\int_\Omega|u_n|^{m(x)}\;dx\leq
-\int_\Omega|u_n|^{q(x)}\;dx$$ for any $n>N_1$.
Assuming that $\|u_n\|_{m(x)}>1$, relations , and imply $$\begin{aligned}
M>J_\lambda(u_n)&\geq&\left(\frac{1}{m^+}-\frac{1}{q^-}\right)
\cdot\int_\Omega(|\nabla u_n|^{p_1(x)}+|\nabla u_n|^{p_2(x)})\;dx\\
&+&\lambda\cdot\left(\frac{1}{m^+}-\frac{1}{q^-}\right)\cdot
\int_\Omega|u_n|^{m(x)}\;dx-\frac{1}{q^-}\cdot\|u_n\|_{m(x)}\\
&\geq&\left(\frac{1}{m^+}-\frac{1}{q^-}\right)\cdot\int_\Omega
|\nabla u_n|^{m(x)}\;dx-\frac{1}{q^-}\|u_n\|_{m(x)}\\
&\geq&\left(\frac{1}{m^+}-\frac{1}{q^-}\right)\cdot\|u_n\|_{m(x)}
^{m^-}-\frac{1}{q^-}\|u_n\|_{m(x)}.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $n\rightarrow\infty$ we obtain a contradiction. It follows that $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in $E$.
Since $\{u_n\}$ is bounded in $E$, there exist a subsequence, again denoted by $\{u_n\}$, and $u_0\in E$ such that $\{u_n\}$ converges weakly to $u_0$ in $E$. Since $E$ is compactly embedded in $L^{m(x)}(\Omega)$ and in $L^{q(x)}(\Omega)$ it follows that $\{u_n\}$ converges strongly to $u_0$ in $L^{m(x)}(\Omega)$ and $L^{q(x)}(\Omega)$. The above information and relation imply $$\langle J_\lambda^{'}(u_n)-J_\lambda^{'}(u_0),u_n-u_0\rangle
\rightarrow 0\;\;\;{\rm as}\;n\rightarrow\infty.$$ On the other hand, we have $$\label{L16}
\begin{array}{lll}
\di\int_\Omega(|\nabla u_n|^{p_1(x)-2}\nabla u_n&+&|\nabla u_n|^
{p_2(x)-2}\nabla u_n-|\nabla u_0|^{p_1(x)-2}\nabla u_0-|\nabla u_0|^
{p_2(x)-2}\nabla u_0)\cdot(\nabla u_n-\nabla u_0)\;dx\\
&=&\langle J_\lambda^{'}(u_n)-J_\lambda^{'}(u_0),u_n-u_0\rangle\\
&-&\lambda\cdot\di\int_\Omega(|u_n|^{m(x)-1}u_n-|u_0|^{m(x)-1}u_0)
(u_n-u_0)\;dx\\
&+&\di\int_\Omega(|u_n|^{q(x)-1}u_n-|u_0|^{q(x)-1}u_0)(u_n-u_0)\;dx
\end{array}$$ Using the fact that $\{u_n\}$ converges strongly to $u_0$ in $L^{q(x)}
(\Omega)$ and inequality we have $$\begin{array}{lll}
\left|\di\int_\Omega(|u_n|^{q(x)-1}u_n-|u_0|^{q(x)-1}u_0)
(u_n-u_0)\;dx\right|&\leq&
\left|\di\int_\Omega|u_n|^{q(x)-2}u_n(u_n-u_0)\;dx\right|\\
&+&\left|\di\int_\Omega|u_0|^{q(x)-2}u_0(u_n-u_0)\;dx\right|\\
&\leq&C_3\cdot||u_n|^{q(x)-1}|_{\frac{q(x)}{q(x)-1}}\cdot|u_n-u_0|_
{q(x)}\\
&+&C_4\cdot||u_0|^{q(x)-1}|_{\frac{q(x)}{q(x)-1}}\cdot
|u_n-u_0|_{q(x)}\,,
\end{array}$$ where $C_3$ and $C_4$ are positive constants. Since $|u_n-u_0|_
{q(x)}\rightarrow 0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$ we deduce that $$\label{L17}
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_\Omega(|u_n|^{q(x)-1}u_n-|u_0|^{q(x)-1}u_0)
(u_n-u_0)\;dx=0.$$ With similar arguments we obtain $$\label{L18}
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_\Omega(|u_n|^{m(x)-1}u_n-|u_0|^{m(x)-1}u_0)
(u_n-u_0)\;dx= 0.$$ By , and we get $$\label{L19}
\begin{array}{lll}
\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_\Omega(|\nabla u_n|^{p_1(x)-2}\nabla u_n&+&|\nabla u_n|^
{p_2(x)-2}\nabla u_n-|\nabla u_0|^{p_1(x)-2}\nabla u_0\\
&-&|\nabla u_0|^
{p_2(x)-2}\nabla u_0)\cdot(\nabla u_n-\nabla u_0)\;dx= 0.
\end{array}$$ Next, we apply the following elementary inequality (see [@diaz Lemma 4.10]) $$\label{L20}
(|\xi|^{r-2}\xi-|\psi|^{r-2}\psi)\cdot(\xi-\psi)\geq C\,|\xi-\psi|^r,\;\;\;\forall r\geq 2,\;\xi,\psi\in\RR^N.$$ Relations and yield $$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_\Omega|\nabla u_n-\nabla u_0|^{p_1(x)}\;dx+\int_\Omega
|\nabla u_n-\nabla u_0|^{p_2(x)}\;dx=0$$ or using relation we get $$\lim\limits_{n\rightarrow\infty}
\int_\Omega|\nabla u_n-\nabla u_0|^{m(x)}\;dx=0.$$ That fact and relation imply $\|u_n-u_0\|_{m(x)}\rightarrow
0$ as $n\rightarrow\infty$. The proof of Lemma \[le3\] is complete.
[Proof of Theorem \[t1\] completed.]{} It is clear that the functional $J_\lambda$ is even and verifies $J_\lambda(0)=0$. Lemma \[le3\] implies that $J_\lambda$ satisfies the Palais-Smale condition. On the other hand, Lemmas \[le1\] and \[le2\] show that conditions (I1) and (I2) are satisfied. Applying Theorem \[mpl\] to the functional $J_\lambda$ we conclude that equation has infinitely many weak solutions in $E$. The proof of Theorem \[t1\] is complete.
Proof of Theorem \[t2\]
=======================
Define the energy functional associated to Problem by $I_\lambda:E\rightarrow\RR$, $$I_\lambda(u)=\int_\Omega\frac{1}{p_1(x)}|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)}\;dx+
\int_\Omega\frac{1}{p_2(x)}|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)}\;dx-\lambda
\int_\Omega\frac{1}{m(x)}|u|^{m(x)}\;dx+\int_\Omega\frac{1}{q(x)}
|u|^{q(x)}\;dx.$$ The same arguments as those used in the case of functional $J_\lambda$ show that $I_\lambda$ is well-defined on $E$ and $I_\lambda\in C^1(E,\RR)$ with the derivative given by $$\langle I_\lambda^{'}(u),v\rangle=\int_\Omega(|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)-2}
+|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-2})\nabla u\nabla v\;dx-\lambda\int_\Omega
|u|^{m(x)-2}uv\;dx+\int_\Omega|u|^{q(x)-2}uv\;dx,$$ for any $u$, $v\in E$. We obtain that the weak solutions of are the critical points of $I_\lambda$.
This time our idea is to show that $I_\lambda$ possesses a nontrivial global minimum point in $E$. With that end in view we start by proving two auxiliary results.
\[PL1\] The functional $I_\lambda$ is coercive on $E$.
In order to prove Lemma \[PL1\] we first show that for any $a$, $b>0$ and $0<k<l$ the following inequality holds $$\label{stea1}
a\cdot t^k-b\cdot t^l\leq a\cdot\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^{k/(l-k)},
\;\;\;\forall\;t\geq 0.$$ Indeed, since the function $$[0,\infty)\ni t\rightarrow t^\theta$$ is increasing for any $\theta>0$ it follows that $$a-b\cdot t^{l-k}<0,\;\;\;\forall\;t>\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^
{1/(l-k)},$$ and $$t^k\cdot(a-b\cdot t^{l-k})\leq a\cdot t^k< a\cdot\left(\frac{a}{b}
\right)^{k/(l-k)},\;\;\;\forall\;t\in\left[0,\left(\frac{a}{b}
\right)^{1/(l-k)}\right].$$ The above two inequalities show that holds true.
Using we deduce that for any $x\in\Omega$ and $u\in E$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\lambda}{m^-}|u(x)|^{m(x)}-\frac{1}{q^+}|u(x)|^{q(x)}
&\leq&\frac{\lambda}
{m^-}\left[\frac{\lambda\cdot q^+}{m^-}\right]^{m(x)/(q(x)-m(x))}\\
&\leq&\frac{\lambda}{m^-}\left[\left(\frac{\lambda\cdot q^+}{m^-}
\right)^{m^+/(q^--m^+)}+\left(\frac{\lambda\cdot q^+}{m^-}
\right)^{m^-/(q^+-m^-)}\right]={\cal C},\end{aligned}$$ where ${\cal C}$ is a positive constant independent of $u$ and $x$. Integrating the above inequality over $\Omega$ we obtain $$\label{stea2}
\frac{\lambda}{m^-}\int_\Omega|u|^{m(x)}\;dx-\frac{1}{q^+}
\int_\Omega|u|^{q(x)}\;dx\leq{\cal D}$$ where ${\cal D}$ is a positive constant independent of $u$.
Using inequalities and we obtain that for any $u\in E$ with $\|u\|_{m(x)}>1$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
I_\lambda(u)&\geq&\frac{1}{m^+}\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^{m(x)}\;dx-
\frac{\lambda}{m^-}\int_\Omega|u|^{m(x)}\;dx+\frac{1}{q^+}
\int_\Omega|u|^{q(x)}\;dx\\
&\geq&\frac{1}{m^+}\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}-\left(\frac{\lambda}{m^-}
\int_\Omega|u|^{m(x)}\;dx-\frac{1}{q^+}\int_\Omega|u|^{q(x)}\;dx
\right)\\
&\geq&\frac{1}{m^+}\|u\|_{m(x)}^{m^-}-{\cal D}.\end{aligned}$$ Thus $I_\lambda$ is coercive and the proof of Lemma \[PL1\] is complete.
\[PL2\] The functional $I_\lambda$ is weakly lower semicontinuous.
In a first instance we prove that the functionals $\Lambda_i:E
\rightarrow\RR$, $$\Lambda_i(u)=\int_\Omega\frac{1}{p_i(x)}|\nabla u|^{p_i(x)}\;dx,
\;\;\;\forall\;i\in\{1,2\}$$ are convex. Indeed, since the function $$[0,\infty)\ni t\rightarrow t^\theta$$ is convex for any $\theta>1$, we deduce that for each $x\in\Omega$ fixed it holds that $$\left|\frac{\xi+\psi}{2}\right|^{p_i(x)}\leq
\left|\frac{|\xi|+|\psi|}{2}\right|^{p_i(x)}\leq\frac{1}{2}
|\xi|^{p_i(x)}+\frac{1}{2}|\psi|^{p_i(x)},\;\;\;\forall\xi,\psi
\in\RR^N,\;i\in\{1,2\}.$$ Using the above inequality we deduce that $$\left|\frac{\nabla u+\nabla v}{2}\right|^{p_i(x)}\leq
\frac{1}{2}|\nabla u|^{p_i(x)}+\frac{1}{2}|\nabla v|^{p_i(x)},
\;\;\;\forall u,v\in E,\;x\in\Omega,\;i\in\{1,2\}.$$ Multiplying with $\frac{1}{p_i(x)}$ and integrating over $\Omega$ we obtain $$\Lambda_i\left(\frac{u+v}{2}\right)\leq\frac{1}{2}\Lambda_i(u)+
\frac{1}{2}\Lambda_i(v),\;\;\;\forall u,v\in E,\;i\in\{1,2\}.$$ Thus $\Lambda_1$ and $\Lambda_2$ are convex. It follows that $\Lambda_1+\Lambda_2$ is convex
Next, we show that the functional $\Lambda_1+\Lambda_2$ is weakly lower semicontinuous on $E$. Taking into account that $\Lambda_1+
\Lambda_2$ is convex, by Corollary III.8 in [@B] it is enough to show that $\Lambda_1+\Lambda_2$ is strongly lower semicontinuous on $E$. We fix $u\in E$ and $\epsilon>0$. Let $v\in E$ be arbitrary. Since $\Lambda_1+\Lambda_2$ is convex and inequality holds true we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_1(v)+\Lambda_2(v)&\geq&\Lambda_1(u)+\Lambda_2(u)+\langle
\Lambda_1^{'}(u)+\Lambda_2^{'}(u),v-u\rangle\\
&\geq&\Lambda_1(u)+\Lambda_2(u)-\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^{p_1(x)-1}
|\nabla(v-u)|\;dx--\int_\Omega|\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-1}
|\nabla(v-u)|\;dx\\
&\geq&\Lambda_1(u)+\Lambda_2(u)-D_1\cdot||\nabla u|^{p_1(x)-1}|_
{\frac{p_1(x)}{p_1(x)-1}}\cdot|\nabla(u-v)|_{p_1(x)}-\\
&&D_2\cdot||\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-1}|_{\frac{p_2(x)}{p_2(x)-1}}\cdot
|\nabla(u-v)|_{p_2(x)}\\
&\geq&\Lambda_1(u)+\Lambda_2(u)-D_3\cdot\|u-v\|_{m(x)}\\
&\geq&\Lambda_1(u)+\Lambda_2(u)-\epsilon\end{aligned}$$ for all $v\in E$ with $\|u-v\|_{m(x)}<\epsilon/[||\nabla u|^
{p_1(x)-1}|_{\frac{p_1(x)}{p_1(x)-1}}+||\nabla u|^{p_2(x)-1}|_
{\frac{p_2(x)}{p_2(x)-1}}]$, where $D_1$, $D_2$ and $D_3$ are positive constants. It follows that $\Lambda_1+\Lambda_2$ is strongly lower semicontinuous and since it is convex we obtain that $\Lambda_1+\Lambda_2$ is weakly lower semicontinuous.
Finally, we remark that if $\{u_n\}\subset E$ is a sequence which converges weakly to $u$ in $E$ then $\{u_n\}$ converges strongly to $u$ in $L^{m(x)}(\Omega)$ and $L^{q(x)}(\Omega)$. Thus, $I_\lambda$ is weakly lower semicontinuous. The proof of Lemma \[PL2\] is complete. By Lemmas \[PL1\] and \[PL2\] we deduce that $I_\lambda$ is coercive and weakly lower semicontinuous on $E$. Then Theorem 1.2 in [@S] implies that there exists $u_\lambda\in E$ a global minimizer of $I_\lambda$ and thus a weak solution of problem .
We show that $u_\lambda$ is not trivial for $\lambda$ large enough. Indeed, letting $t_0>1$ be a fixed real and $\Omega_1$ be an open subset of $\Omega$ with $|\Omega_1|>0$ we deduce that there exists $u_0\in C_0^\infty(\Omega)\subset E$ such that $u_0(x)=t_0$ for any $x\in\overline\Omega_1$ and $0\leq u_0(x)\leq t_0$ in $\Omega
\setminus\Omega_1$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
I_\lambda(u_0)&=&\int_\Omega\frac{1}{p_1(x)}|\nabla u_0|^{p_1(x)}\;dx
+\int_\Omega\frac{1}{p_2(x)}|\nabla u_0|^{p_2(x)}\;dx-\lambda
\int_\Omega\frac{1}{m(x)}|u_0|^{m(x)}\;dx+\int_\Omega\frac{1}{q(x)}
|u_0|^{q(x)}\;dx\\
&\leq&L-\frac{\lambda}{m^+}\int_{\Omega_1}|u_0|^{m(x)}\;dx\\
&\leq&L-\frac{\lambda}{m^+}\cdot t_0^{m^-}\cdot|\Omega_1|\end{aligned}$$ where $L$ is a positive constant. Thus, there exists $\lambda^\star>0$ such that $I_\lambda(u_0)<0$ for any $\lambda\in[\lambda^\star,\infty)$. It follows that $I_\lambda(u_\lambda)<0$ for any $\lambda\geq\lambda^\star$ and thus $u_\lambda$ is a nontrivial weak solution of problem for $\lambda$ large enough. The proof of Theorem \[t2\] is complete.
[99]{}
E. Acerbi and G. Mingione, Regularity results for a class of functionals with nonstandard growth, [*Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.*]{} [**156**]{} (2001), 121-140.
H. Brezis, [*Analyse fonctionnelle: théorie et applications*]{}, Masson, Paris, 1992.
J. Chabrowski and Y. Fu, Existence of solutions for $p(x)$-Laplacian problems on bounded domains, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*]{}, in press (doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2004.10.028).
J. I. Díaz, [*Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations and Free Boundaries. Elliptic Equations*]{}, Research Notes in Mathematics, 106, Pitman, Boston, London, Melbourne, 1986.
L. Diening, [*Theorical and numerical results for electrorheological fluids*]{}, Ph.D. thesis, University of Frieburg, Germany, 2002.
P. Drabek , A. Kufner, and F. Nicolosi, [*Quasilinear Elliptic Equations with Degenerations and Singularities*]{}, Gruyter Series in Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, Vol. 5, Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1997.
D. E. Edmunds, J. Lang, and A. Nekvinda, On $L^{p(x)}$ norms, [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A*]{} [**455**]{} (1999), 219-225.
D. E. Edmunds and J. Rákosník, Density of smooth functions in $W^{k,p(x)}(\Omega)$, [*Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A*]{} [**437**]{} (1992), 229-236.
D. E. Edmunds and J. Rákosník, Sobolev embedding with variable exponent, [*Studia Math.*]{} [**143**]{} (2000), 267-293.
X. Fan, J. Shen and D. Zhao, Sobolev Embedding Theorems for Spaces $W^{k,p(x)}(\Omega)$, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**262**]{} (2001), 749-760.
X. L. Fan and Q. H. Zhang, Existence of solutions for $p(x)$-Laplacian Dirichlet problem, [*Nonlinear Anal*]{} [**52**]{} (2003), 1843-1852.
X. L. Fan, Q. H. Zhang, and D. Zhao, Eigenvalues of $p(x)$-Laplacian Dirichlet problem, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*]{} [**302**]{} (2005), 306-317.
X. L. Fan and D. Zhao, On the Spaces $L^{p(x)}(\Omega)$ and $W^{m,p(x)}(\Omega)$, [*J. Math. Anal. Appl.*]{}, [**263**]{} (2001), 424-446.
D. Gilbarg and N. S. Trudinger, [*Elliptic Partial Differential Equations of Second Order*]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1998.
T. C. Halsey, Electrorheological fluids, [*Science*]{} [**258**]{} (1992), 761-766.
D. Hyers, G. Isac and T. Rassias, [*Topics in Nonlinear Analysis and Applications*]{}, World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 1997.
O. Kováčik and J. Rákosník, On spaces $L^{p(x)}$ and $W^{1,p(x)}$, [*Czechoslovak Math. J.*]{} [**41**]{} (1991), 592-618.
A. Kufner and L.–E. Persson, [*Weighted Inequalities of Hardy Type*]{}, World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 2003.
J. Musielak, [*Orlicz Spaces and Modular Spaces*]{}, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 1034, Springer, Berlin, 1983.
H. Nakano, [*Modulared Semi-ordered Linear Spaces*]{}, Maruzen Co., Ltd., Tokyo, 1950.
W. Orlicz, Über konjugierte Exponentenfolgen, [ *Studia Math.*]{} [**3**]{} (1931), 200-212.
K. Perera, Multiple positive solutions for a class of quasilinear elliptic boundary-value problems, [*Electronic Journal of Differential Equations*]{} [**7**]{} (2003), 1-5.
C. Pfeiffer, C. Mavroidis, Y. Bar-Cohen, and B. Dolgin, Electrorheological fluid based force feedback device, in [ *Proceedings of the 1999 SPIE Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies VI Conference (Boston, MA)*]{}, Vol. 3840 (1999), pp. 88-99.
P. Rabinowitz, Minimax methods in critical point theory with applications to differential equations, [*Expository Lectures from the CBMS Regional Conference held at the University of Miami*]{}, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1984.
M. Ruzicka, [*Electrorheological Fluids Modeling and Mathematical Theory*]{}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.
I. Sharapudinov, On the topology of the space $L^{p(t)}([0;1])$, [*Matem. Zametki*]{} [**26**]{} (1978), 613-632.
M. Struwe, [*Variational Methods: Applications to Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations and Hamiltonian Systems*]{}, Springer, Heidelberg, 1996.
I. Tsenov, Generalization of the problem of best approximation of a function in the space $L^s$, [*Uch. Zap. Dagestan Gos. Univ.*]{} [**7**]{} (1961), 25-37.
M. Willem, [*Minimax Theorems*]{}, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1996.
W. M. Winslow, Induced Fibration of Suspensions, [*J. Appl. Phys.*]{} [**20**]{} (1949), 1137-1140.
V. Zhikov, Averaging of functionals in the calculus of variations and elasticity, [*Math. USSR Izy.*]{} [**29**]{} (1987), 33-66.
V. Zhikov, On passing to the limit in nonlinear variational problem, [*Math. Sb.*]{} [**183**]{} (1992), 47-84.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'The purpose of this paper is to come up with a Pilot Wave model of quantum field theory that incorporates particle creation and annihilation without sacrificing causality. In some sense, this work echoes the work of Nikolić in [@nikolicb] and [@nikolicf] (I call “visibility” what he calls “effectiveness”), but in my work I choose position and visibility as beables, as opposed to field beables that are used in his.'
author:
- |
Roman Sverdlov\
Raman Research Institute,\
C.V. Raman Avenue, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore – 560080, India
date: 'May 12, 2010'
title: 'Incorporating particle creation and annihilation into Bohm’s Pilot Wave model'
---
1. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
---------------
The problem of the interpretation of quantum mechanics is well known. While its predictions are formulated in terms of the probabilities of the collapse of wave function after its interaction with a so-called “measuring device", the definition of “measurement" as well as what happens while it is carried out is not understood. Furthermore, in order for the classical system called “measuring device" to exist in the first place, that multi-particle system has to somehow “collapse" without any a priori measuring device to cause that collapse, which leaves us with a circular argument. Finally, the very concept that the result of a measurement can not be predicted with absolute certainty violates our deep held beliefs in determinism.
These question were addressed in the context of non-relativistic quantum mechanics by Bohm, and subsequently by the follow-up work of others. According to these models, particles and waves exist as separate substances. Waves evolve according to Schrödinger’s equation, while particles are moving according to well defined trajectories based on the interaction with that wave, which is called *guidance equation*. Both of these evolution equations are completely deterministic. Bohm had shown that if we take the point of view of configuration space rather than our usual one, then the model predicts the probability distribution of $\vert \psi \vert^2$ as well as the appearance of a collapse of the wave function. That collapse is not real, since the same dynamics governs the system at all times. Thus, Bohm called it “effective collapse". Furthermore, $\vert \psi \vert^2$ is a probability in a classical sense rather than quantum mechanical: the system itself is deterministic, and the use of probabilities is only necessary due to our own lack of detailed knowledge of the initial conditions of the system.
However, this theory is not compatible with creation and annihilation of particles. After all, these processes are not continuous and, therefore, can not be construed as part of the continuous equation of the Pilot Wave model. In [@jumps] a theory was proposed according to which a continuous evolution is being interrupted by these jumps. But the timing of these jumps was chosen at random, which violates determinism.
The goal of this paper is to make these jumps “continuous" which will allow them to be parts of a deterministic model. I do that by saying that point particles don’t truly disappear, but rather they become “invisible". This allows me to postulate “visibility degrees" that vary *continuously* between $0$ and $1$. While the particles are distinguishable and none of them are created or destroyed, the particles with visibility degree $0$ are not subject to interaction, which leads to the *appearance* of the particles’ annihilation. Then, when its visibility degree stops being $0$, it leads to the *appearance* of particle creation.
It is important to point out that “less visible” particles are not “less real”. On the contrary, *all* particles have well defined positions in space *at all times*. Visibility is simply the degree of interaction of a particle, *not* a degree of its reality. For example, if the only interaction that exists was electromagnetic one, the neutrons would have been “invisible”; but they would still be real. In our case, due to the fact that Pilot Wave model is Aristotelian, an interaction of a particle is reflected in its velocity rather than acceleration. Therefore, the “invisible” particles are almost stationary in space, as they await something to make them “visible” at which point they will be allowed to move.
In general, the greater their visibility degree is, the stronger particles interact. Thus, a particle with visibility degree 1/2 appears as half a particle. However, the particle spends very little time in such state (although still a finite amount of time), thus *most of the time* the number of particles is integer. I accomplish this by introducing compactified extra dimension, $x_4$, and claiming that the visibility degree of a particle is given by $f(x_4)$ for some specified differentiable function $f$. If $f$ happens to be a differentiable approximation to a step function, this would give me the desired result.
The Hamiltonian is the same as in ordinary quantum field theory, which means that creation and annihilation operators represent *instantaneous* creation and annihilation, as usual. Accordingly, this Hamiltonian only determines the probability amplitudes of the states where all particles have visibility degrees $0$ or $1$. However, the probability amplitude is then extrapolated to states where point particles have other visibility degrees through weighted averages of probability amplitudes of the above *extreme* states, where the products of visibility degrees serve as coefficients. We then use the probability amplitude, as opposed to the Hamiltonian, to write down a Pilot Wave model of particles with continuously changing positions and visibility degrees.
Of course, as with all Pilot Wave models, this proposal violates the principles of relativity at its core, by defining beable as a non-local *spatial* configuration of particles that evolves in time, the latter being a *preferred* time direction. While we know that creation and annihilation of particles is linked to relativity, according to this model this is purely a coincidence. Likewise, the fact that the Hamiltonian is taken from *relativistic* quantum field theory is viewed as coincidental, as well. Nevertheless, the fact that it *happened* to borrow both of these features allows us to hope that it predicts the *appearance* of relativity in the lab.
Finally, it is important to mention that similar idea has been proposed by Nikolić back in 2004 (see [@nikolicb] and [@nikolicf]): what I call “visibility” of a particle, he calls “effectiveness”. Unfortunately, I was unaware of it when I posted first two versions of this paper, and I am apologizing to Nikolić for not having given him appropriate references until now. There are, however, some differences between my work and his. I will compare and contrast these concepts in Chapter 6 of the current version.
2. Pilot Wave model for fixed number of particles {#pilot-wave-model-for-fixed-number-of-particles .unnumbered}
-------------------------------------------------
In this section we will briefly outline Pilot Wave model originally proposed by Bohm in 1952. For more details, the reader is referred to his original work in [@Bohm1], which is continued in [@Bohm2].
If the total number of particles in the universe is fixed (say, it is $N$), it is well known that a configuration of *all* of them is represented by a single point in $3N$-dimensional *configuration space*. It is conjectured that the defining feature of so-called “classical” systems is that they are complex enough to “remember” their interaction with their environment. Their “memory”, of course, corresponds to configuration of their particles and, therefore, can be encoded in a single point in a configuration space (the latter represents all particles in the universe, *including* the “classical” system we are interested in).
Therefore, during double slit experiment the screen “remembers” where it was hit by an electron and when. Thus, the points in a configuration space corresponding to the memory of an electron hitting a screen at a given location and at a given time are not accessible from the other points corresponding to the memories other outcomes. In other words, the wave function in configuration space, that represents all the particles in the universe, splits into several non-overlapping branches, each corresponding to one of the outcomes of double slit experiment.
According to Everett, each of these branches represents one of the “parallel universes”. Bohm, on the other hand, believes that there is one *single* universe which is defined *not* as one of the branches, but rather by a particle in configuration space (or, equivalently, $N$ particles in ordinary one) that is localized *at all times*. Its behavior is described by *guidance equation*, = Im ( )( (t)). He have shown that, after sufficient time has passed, the probability density of finding that particle can be, indeed, approximated by $\vert \psi \vert^2$, provided that $\psi$ evolves according to Schrödinger’s equation. At the same time, after the branches split, the particle will be forced to stay in only *one* of these branches. Thus, there will be an appearance of collapse of wave function, despite the fact that no such collapse occurred. This is called “effective collapse”.
3. Creation and annihilation of particles {#creation-and-annihilation-of-particles .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------
We are now ready to move on to introduce creation and annihilation of particles into the Pilot Wave model. Among other things, this means replacing the wave function described by Schrödinger’s equation by probability amplitudes described by quantum field theory. These probability amplitudes describe states with varying numbers of particles. Our goal is to describe a way in which one multiparticle state evolves into the other deterministically, while the number of particles is not fixed.
As was explained in the introduction, the key concept that allows us to introduce creation and annihilation is introducing the notion of *visibility* of particles, which continuously varies between $0$ and $1$. Thus, the total number of degrees of freedom is fixed at all times, and while particles with visibility $0$ do not interact, they continue to exist. Furthermore, visibility can only change in a continuous fashion. Thus, while it is near $0$ or $1$ *most of the time*, it takes a small but finite amount of time to make a transition between these two states. This allows us to incorporate particle creation and annihilation into Pilot Wave model, since now these processes are continuous and thus can be described in terms of a differential equation.
In order to formally introduce the notion of visibility of the particle, we introduce an extra coordinate, $x_4$, that is compactified: $x_4 + 2 \pi = x_4$ (not to be confused with the time coordinate; we agree that the time coordinate is $x_0$, while $x_4$ is an extra spacelike one; in some literature it is denoted by $x_5$ to avoid confusion, but in this paper we stick with calling it $x_4$). We make sure that visibility is near $0$ or $1$ most of the time by setting it to be $f(x_4)$ rather than $x_4$ itself, and we choose a fixed function $f$ in such a way that $1- \epsilon < f(x_4) <1 $ whenever $x_4 \in (\delta; \pi - \delta)$, and $0< f(x_4) < \epsilon$ whenever $x_4 \in (\pi + \delta, 2 \pi - \delta)$, for sufficiently small $\epsilon$ and $\delta$. The specific way in which we choose that function is not important, as long as that function is continuous and differentiable. For definiteness, we can set f(x\_4) = + \^[-1]{} (n x\_4), where $n$ is some fixed very large number.
However, as mentioned in the introduction, the Hamiltonian continues to be the one of ordinary quantum field theory. In particular, the creation and annihilation operators of the Hamiltonian are *instantaneous*, the particles living in the state space in which it acts only have visibilities *exactly* zero or one, and finally, due to unitarity, the number of particles can be arbitrarily large, and thus exceed the number of degrees of freedom of the space we are interested in. The approach of this theory is to come up with “projections" of probabilities from that space, onto the space we are interested in. The former is defined directly based on the amplitudes computed based on the rules of quantum field theory, the latter is not.
Let’s first consider a toy model, where we have only one spin-0 scalar field, and thus only one kind of particle. The space that is subject to standard quantum field theory is $Q = \mathbb{R}^0 \bigcup \mathbb{R}^3 \bigcup . . . \bigcup \mathbb{R}^{3n} \bigcup. . .$. We can denote a state in $Q$ where there are $n$ particles, at locations $\vec{x}_1^{(3)} \in \mathbb{R}^3$ through $\vec{x}_n^{(3)} \in \mathbb{R}^3$ by $\vert \vec{x}_1^{(3)}, . . . , \vec{x}_n^{(3)} \rangle$, where the (3) at the top serves to remind us that we are living in three-dimensional space, and do *not* include the extra coordinate we were talking about earlier. Furthermore, in that three-dimensional space we have an ordinary quantum mechanical state, evolving by the usual rules of quantum field theory, S(t) = \^[H(t-t\_0)]{} S(t\_0) , where $H$ is a Hamiltonian defined in the usual way: with creation and annihilation operators satisfying prescribed commutation (or anti-commutation if we replace bosons with fermions) relations. The Hamiltonian is three-dimensional. In other words, it takes the form H(t) = \^3 x\^[(3)]{} H((\^[(3)]{})). where $\phi (\vec{x}^{(3)})$ is a field operator at $x^{(3)}$. We can now view the quantum field theory amplitude as a function $\psi^{(3)} \colon Q \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ (there is an unfortunate lack of letters in the alphabet, so we should remember not to confuse $\psi$ with the fermionic field). That amplitude is defined as \^[(3)]{}(\_1\^[(3)]{}, . . . , \_n\^[(3)]{}) = \_1\^[(3)]{}, . . . , \_n\^[(3)]{} \^[H(t-t\_0)]{} s(t\_0)where $\phi$ is field operator. However, our beables are supposed to live in $4+1$ dimensions rather than $3+1$. Finally, for convenience, we will define a so-called “probability density” on $Q$: \^[(3)]{} (\_1\^[(3)]{}, . . . , \_n\^[(3)]{}) = \^[(3)]{}(\_1\^[(3)]{}, . . . , \_n\^[(3)]{}) \^2 This, however, is not the actual probability density since the beables live in $B$, not $Q$. Therefore, we have to “convert” $\rho^{(3)} \colon Q \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ to $\rho^{(4)} \colon B \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. We will do that by “projecting" the states in $4+1$ dimensional space onto the states in $3+1$ dimensional ones, and taking weighted averages of the values of $\rho^{(3)}$, to come up with a function $\rho^{(4)} \colon B \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
In order not to have ambiguities regarding the order of the coordinates in our configuration space, we can formally let the particles be distinguishable. This can be done without violating the statistics of indistinguishable particles. Consider, for example, a toy model of two particles which are only allowed to occupy two possible states. According to standard theory the system has only three possible states: both particles in state $1$, both particles in state $2$, and one particle in each state. They can be assumed to have probability $1/3$ each. In our case, however, we can formally break the last state we mentioned into two sub-states. Thus, we have four states, with probabilities $1/3$, $1/3$, $1/6$ and $1/6$. This is still consistent with the statistics of quantum mechanics.
Now that we have done that, we can formally define an operation $P \colon Q \rightarrow Q$ that “gets rid" of the particles with a specified numbers. More precisely, if $S \subset \mathbb{N}$, then the only particles that are being *retained* are the ones whose numbers are elements of $S$. For example, if $S = \{2, 5, 7\}$, then $P_S (x_1, . . . , x_8) = (x_2, x_5, x_7)$. We are now ready to define a probability density, $\rho^{(4)}$, in the space in which our beables live. If the number of beables is $N$, then their configuration space is $(\mathbb{R}^3 \times \Gamma)^N$, where $\Gamma$ is an extra dimension that we need to use in order to define visibility. The probability density $\rho^{(4)}$ in that space is defined as \^[(4)]{} (x\_[11]{}, . . ., x\_[14]{}, . . ., x\_[N1]{}, . . . , x\_[N4]{}) = = \_[S {1, . . . , N}]{} (\_[i S]{} f(x\_[i4]{}) ) (\_[j S]{} (1-f(x\_[j4]{})) \^[(3)]{} (P\_S (x\_1\^[(3)]{}, . . . , x\_N\^[(3)]{})) where I = d\^4 x\_1\^[(4)]{} . . . d\^4 x\_N\^[(4)]{} \_[S {1, . . . , N }]{} ( \_[i S]{} f(x\_[i4]{}) ) ( \_[j S]{} (1 - f(x\_[j4]{})) \^[(3)]{} (P\_S (x\_1\^[(3)]{} , . . . , x\_N\^[(3)]{})), x\_k\^[(3)]{} = (x\_[k1]{},x\_[k2]{},x\_[k3]{});x\_k\^[(4)]{} = (x\_[k1]{},x\_[k2]{},x\_[k3]{},x\_[k4]{}) and $x_{k4}$ is the extra coordinate that is being used for visibility. Here, it is understood that the total volume of our space is finite (for example, we might be living in a compact sphere and/or a space that has boundaries). Then, due to the finite number of particles, the volume of configuration space is finite as well, which is why the above expressions are well defined. Finally, in the above expression, the physics is contained in the numerator, while the denominator is just normalization.
$\rho^{(3)} (P_S (x_1^{(3)}, . . . , x_N^{(3)}))$ represents the probability amplitude, predicted by quantum mechanics, with only the particles with indexes in $S$ being present. Thus, the sum over all possible $S \subset \{1, . . . , N \}$ of that represents the superposition of the probability densities associated with all states with number of particles less than or equal to $N$. However, different $S$ come up with different coefficients, which means that some contribute more than others. In particular, since most of the time $f(x_4)$ is either close to $0$ or $1$, the same applies to each of the above coefficients. Therefore, the situation can be broken into three cases:
1\) All particles whose numbers are elements of $S$ have visibility close to $1$. All other particles have visibility close to $0$
2\) Some of the particles whose numbers are elements of $S$ have visibility close to $0$
3\) Some of the particles whole numbers are *not* elements of $S$ have visibility close to $1$.
In case of the first option, the product of $f(x_k)$ over all $k \in S$ is approximately $1$. Likewise, the product of $1-f(x_k)$ over all $k$ *not* in $S$ is also approximately equal to $1$. Thus, neither of the products have serious effect on the term. In case $2$, on the other hand, the product of $f(x_k)$ over $k \in S$ will be close to $0$, and thus the whole term will be close to $0$ as well. Finally in case $3$ the product of $1-f(x_k)$ over $k\not\in S$ will be close to $0$, which, again, would mean that a given term is close to $0$. Thus, the sum can be approximated as \_[S {1, . . . , N }]{} ( \_[i S]{} f(x\_[i4]{}) ) ( \_[j S]{} (1 - f(x\_[j4]{})) \^[(3)]{} (P\_S (x\_1\^[(3)]{} , . . . , x\_N\^[(3)]{}) ) \^[(3)]{} (P\_[T]{} (x\_1\^[(3)]{} , . . . , x\_N\^[(3)]{})) where $T$ is a set of integers for which the visibilities of corresponding particles are close to $1$. The right hand side of the above equation, of course, is $\rho^{(3)}$ dictated from quantum field theory. At the same time, the above approximation is true only in *most* cases but not all. After all, in light of continuity, sometimes visibilities are far away from both $0$ and $1$. The latter allows a continuous transition from one “typical” case to another. But, at the same time, it has no impact on our observations since, in light of the specifics of $f$, the transition region in $x_4$ is very small.
By looking at the left-hand side, we note that we now have a wave function over $x_k^{(4)}$ rather than $x_k^{(3)}$, which means that we have taken the extra coordinate seriously. However, we have been using $\rho^{(3)}(x^{(3)})$, in order to define $\rho^{(4)}(x^{(4)})$. Physically, we have used quantum field theory to compute the probability densities of *extreme* states where particles have visibilities of either $0$ or $1$, and then we have used a weighted average to extrapolate it on other states. In the case of extreme states, we no longer need $x_4$ since its only purpose is a *continuous* variation of visibility, which is why we have $x^{(3)}$ on our right-hand side. On the other hand, the coefficients of our weighted average are based on visibility, i.e., the fourth coordinate, which is why we have $x^{(4)}$ on our left-hand side, as well as the coefficients $f(x_{i4})$ and $1-f(x_{i4})$ at the right.
In general, the probability density of a state where particles have visibilities between $0$ and $1$ is equal to that of a mixed state. However, this is still viewed as a *pure* state. The situation is somewhat similar to saying that the probability density of a *pure* state consisting of half a particle is equal to the average of probability densities of vacuum and one-particle states. This, however, is not a perfect analogy either. In our case we *do* have all the particles present, as a *whole*. This is evidenced by the fact that the number of degrees of freedom of our configuration space is $4N$. However, the degree of interaction of some of the particles is weaker, which lead them to *appear* as half a particle, or even no particle. This weaker interaction is expressed in a gradient of a wave function with respect to $x_k^{(3)}$ being smaller than the one for other particles.
It is important to note that in the definition of $\psi^{(4)}$ we have only used the probability amplitudes of states where the number of particles is less than or equal to $N$. The validity of this depends on the conjecture that quantum field theory is formulated in such a way that the probability of generating more than $N$ particles is very small. If such is the case, we will not be able to disprove our theory in a lab. This would allow us to hypothesize that our theory is, in fact, exact rather than an approximation. What gives us hope is the fact that the existence of the upper bound on the number of particles is consistent with our everyday experience. However, explicit verification of this depends on appropriate renormalization procedure that assures us that probability amplitudes associated with multi-loop diagrams approach zero as the number of loops goes to infinity. The exploration of different kinds of renormalization techniques that can be used is beyond the scope of this paper.
Finally, we are ready to introduce more than one field, and, accordingly, more than one type of particle. Up until now we have established that the total number of particles is fixed. Now that we will have more than one kind of field, $\phi_1, . . . , \phi_A$, we need a more detailed description of particle numbers: the number of particles of field $k$ is set to be $N_k$. The space in which beables live is given by B = (\^3)\^[N\_1]{} ... (\^3)\^[N\_A]{}, while the quantum mechanical probabilities are defined on the space Q = \_[n\_1, . . . , n\_A]{} \^[3n\_1]{} . . . \^[3n\_A]{}. The probability amplitude $\psi^{(3)}$, as well as probability density $\rho^{(3)}$ continue to be defined in the usual way, except that now the state that is used to define it consist of more than one kind of particles, and finally the procedure for obtaining $\psi^{(4)} \colon B \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ out of $\psi^{(3)} \colon Q \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is identical, up to the above replacements.
It is important to note that, while we have done it for spin-0 bosons, the prescription is identical for bosons and fermions alike, and can be used for all spins. The only difference is in the Hamiltonian, where anticommuting operators will be used instead of commuting ones. Nevertheless, the usual methods of quantum field theory will still give us the probability amplitudes on Fock space, which is all we need.
Since we do not regard spins as parameters of our configuration space, we get rid of them while taking projection $Q \rightarrow B$. In particular, while $\rho^{(3)}$ will be a function of spins, $\rho^{(4)}$ will not be, since the latter will involve the sum over all possible spin assignments. Nevertheless, since spins are still present in $Q$, in practice some of the spin assignments will have significantly greater contribution than others to the dynamics of $B$. Furthermore, the information about spins will be depicted in $B$ through the configuration of photons that were emitted by the particles that supposedly have these spins. Likewise, the information about the polarization of photons can be guessed from their configuration, as well as the configuration of particle-antiparticle pairs that they have produced.
Finally, it is important to say a few words about “rotation" of one particle into the other. In light of the fact that the number of particles of each kind is specified, according to the framework of the theory, *all* available particles exist at all times, and they never change from one kind to the other. What *does* happen is that their visibility changes. Thus, if an electron’s visibility changes from $1$ to $0$, while a neutrino’s visibility changes from $0$ to $1$, and if these processes occur close enough in time, this would lead to the *appearance* that the electron has “rotated" into a neutrino. This, however, is not the case, since the given electron never stopped being an electron, and the given neutrino has never been anything else. The “electron" that the neutrino has turned into is a completely separate particle.
Now, the key to the appearance of “rotation" of the electron into a neutrino is a “coincidence in time": the visibility of the electron had decreased approximately when the visibility of the neutrino had increased. This, of course, is not really a coincidence, but instead a consequence of the Hamiltonian. In particular, if the visibility of the neutrino increased, but the visibility of the electron did *not* decrease, then the main contributor to our weighted average would come from a non-existing diagram of neutrino being created out of nothing. This means that the probability density of this would be nearly zero. As far as the Hamiltonian (or Feynman diagrams) are concerned, we *do* have the rotational symmetries, which explains the “coincidence". But since the space in which beables live in ($B$) is separate from the one that is subject to quantum field theory ($Q$), there is no “rotation" as far as $B$ is concerned.
In principle, we could have used rotation as a replacement for visibility, since this, too, is a continuous operation, and in fact is more natural. We chose not to do that because we would like to develop a general framework for all quantum mechanical processes, and the decay of a photon into an electron and a positron can’t be viewed as such. On the other hand, we *could* have avoided the problem in case of photon emission, if we were to make the choice to only use position beables for fermions and field beables (see, for example, [@minimalist]) for bosons (which would basically be a different paper, since our current choice is to use position beables for both). Thus, the ultimate reason we need visibility is that pair creation is “worse" than emission. This is due to a violation of crossing symmetry, which is linked to a violation of relativity in the definition of configuration space.
4. Pilot Wave model {#pilot-wave-model .unnumbered}
-------------------
4.1 The model {#the-model .unnumbered}
-------------
We are now ready to introduce the Pilot Wave model. We would like to define a smooth vector field $\vec{v} \colon \mathbb{R} \times (\mathbb{R}^3 \times \Gamma)^N \rightarrow (\mathbb{R}^3 \times \Gamma)^N$, and then postulate an equation of motion for $\vec{x} \in (\mathbb{R}^3)^N$ to be = (t, (t)). By the same argument as before, $\vec{v}$ should be a solution of the differential equation = - (\^[(4)]{} ), and this time $\vec{\nabla}$ is taken with respect to $(\mathbb{R}^3 \times \Gamma)^N$ coordinates.
However, unlike the case discussed in the previous section, we no longer have the Schrödinger equation at our disposal, so we can not re-express it in a form similar to the one we obtained in the previous chapter. The only price to pay for this is that the solution to this equation is not unique. Therefore, we “fix a gauge” by postulating an additional equation that assures the uniqueness of the solution, namely \^[(4)]{} = , for some scalar function $\lambda \colon (\mathbb{R}^3 \times \Gamma)^N \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$. This completely specifies $\vec{v}$: = , where $\lambda$ is a solution to the $4N$-dimensional Laplace equation on a cylinder, \^2 = - , with the boundary conditions that $\lambda$ is $0$ at infinity.
If we want, we can write the above in the integral form. In order for this to be more transparent, we notice that the problem is identical to electrostatics if we replace $\partial \vert \psi \vert^2$ with $\sigma$, and interpret it as a charge density. Then, $\lambda$ can be interpreted as electric potential, and $\vec{\nabla} \lambda$ as an electric field. Thus, our guidance equation becomes = We now use the method of images in order to compute $\vec{E}$ in compactified geometry. We consider an imaginary situation where coordinates $x_{4k}$ extend to infinity, and charge density is periodic in these coordinates, () = ( + 2 \_[4k]{}) By translational symmetry, we notice that () = ( + 2 \_[4k]{}) from which it is easy to see that the identical copy of $\vec{E}$ satisfies the same differential equation in the compactified geometry, without having any discontinuities at $x_{4k} = 2 \pi n$. Thus, this is a solution we are seeking. Now, from the non-compact case, we can show that the area of the sphere is given by A = r\^[4N-1]{}This tells us that the electric field is ()= \_[a\_1, . . . , a\_N]{} d\^[4N]{} x’ where \_[a\_1, . . . , a\_N]{} = 2 a\_i \_[4i]{} is a displacement of an “image charge”. Now by substituting back \^[(4)]{} ; we obtain a guidance equation () = \_[a\_1, . . . , a\_N]{} d\^[4N]{} x’
4.2 Concrete example {#concrete-example .unnumbered}
--------------------
Let us illustrate the way the model works by working out a concrete example. Suppose we have two particles, living in one dimensional space. For simplicity, we will assume there is no visibility coordinate. So both particles have visibility $1$ at all times. Now, suppose each particle is subject to its own potential, that does not interact with the other particle. As a result of these potentials, the probability densities of these two particles, $\rho_1$ and $\rho_2$, look like $\delta$-functions moving with constant velocities, which are defined as follows: \_1 (x\_1, t) = (x\_1 - a\_1 - v\_[10]{} t) ; \_2 (x\_2, t) = (x\_2 - a\_2 - v\_[20]{} t) where $x_1$ and $x_2$ are respective coordinates of these particles. The constants $v_{10}$ and $v_{20}$ represent the constant velocity of the guidence wave, and are not to be confused with $v_1$ and $v_2$, which are oscillating velocities of the point particles.
Now, from the point of view of configuration space, these two particles can be described as one *single* particle moving in two dimensions. Its coordinates are $\vec{r} = (x, y)$, where $x=x_1$ and $y=x_2$. The density distribution in this space is given by (’, t) = \^2 (’ - - \_0 t) where $\vec{v}_0 = (v_{10}, v_{20})$. Thus, the “charge density” is given by (’, t) = \^2 (’ - - \_0 t) Now, according to our model, the velocity of the particle is irrelevant to the electric field it produces. The latter is a function *only* of a position of particle *at that time*, and is independent of its velocity. Thus, in our case the electric field is given by = d\^2 r’ \^2 (’ - - \_0 t ) where the power of $3$ in the denominator was replaced by power of $2$ in light of the fact that we are in two dimensions. By pulling the time derivative out of the integral, we obtain = Physically, this represents an electric field of a dipole. Since a charge is a time derivative of a probability density, the charge at the “front” part of the delta function is positive, and at the “back” part is negative. After all, at the “front” part the probability changes from $0$ to $\infty$, while at the“back” part it changes back from the $\infty$ to $0$. More concretely, the charge distribution is (’, t) = - \_0 ’ \^2 (’ - - \_0 t), where $\vec{\nabla}'$ is a gradient with respect to $\vec{r}'$-coordinates. The electric field of the dipole we just described is given by = - d\^2 r’ \_0 ’ \^2 (’ - - \_0 t )By pulling $\vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla}'$ out of integral, this becomes = - \_0 ’ \_[’ = + \_0 t]{} It is easy to see that $\vec{\nabla}'$ can be replaced with $\vec{\nabla}$, if we change overall sign. Thus, = \_0 \_[’ = + \_0 t]{} Finally, substituting $\vec{a} + \vec{v}_0 t$ for $\vec{r}'$, we get = It is easy to see that this expression matches the one with time derivative. If we evaluate either of the two, we get the final expression for $\vec{E}$: = ( \_0 - ) Now, the velocity field is $\vec{v} = \vec{E}/\rho$, where $\rho$ is moving $\delta$-function. Thus, we get = ( \_0 - ) Now, if we transfer it to a moving frame, = - - \_0 t ; = - \_0 then the equation becomes = - - \_0 We would now like to find a shape of the curve traced by these field lines. Since most of that curve is taken up by the region *away* from the origin of the $\delta$ function, the first two terms on right hand side are infinitely larger than any other terms. Thus, the curve is defined by equating the sum of tehse two terms to $0$. By substituting \_0 = \_0 cos the equation inside the brackets tells us = - For convenience, we will select coordinate system for which the direction of $\vec{v}_0$ is one of the axes. Since $x$ and $y$ are already defined (namely, they are coordinates of each particle), we have to use $x'$ and $y'$ instead. The latter are defined as a rotation of $x$ and $y$ through
x’\
y’
=
cos & sin\
- sin & cos
x\
y
,where = tan\^[-1]{} Furthermore, we will define $(\xi, \theta)$ polar coordinates via x’ = cos ; y’ = sin In these coordinates, v\_[0 ]{} = \_0 cos ; v\_[0 ]{} = - \_0 sin ; s\_ = ; s\_ = 0 Substituting these into $d \xi / d \tau$ gives us = \_0 cos - = - \_0 cos and the equation for $d \theta /d \tau$ is = - The latter equation allows us to express $\xi$ in terms of $\theta$: = - Substituting this expression for $\xi$ into the $d \xi / d \tau$ equation gives us = cos After evaluating right hand side, this becomes cos = cos - sin . This implies that = 0, or, equivalently, = for some $\omega$. Substituting this into the equation for $d \theta /d \tau$, this becomes = - which gives us = - Converting it back into $(x', y')$ coordinates, we get x’ = cos = - sin () cos () = - sin (2 ) y’ = sin = - sin\^2 () = - + cos (2 ) This describes the equation of a circle of radius $\vert \vec{v}_0 \vert / 2 \omega$, with center located at $x'=0$ and $y'= - \vert \vec{v}_0 \vert / 2 \omega$. In light of the fact that $\omega$ can be both positive and negative, these circles can be displaced in both directions. Furthermore, since the magnitude of $\omega$ is arbitrary, every single point in our configuration space is intersected by at least one of these circles. Since $\omega$ changes from circle to circle, its value becomes a *function* of the coordinates of the point that it, supposedly, intersects. In particular, by using = tan\^[-1]{} and = - sin () = - = - we obtain = - Now, these circles can give us a dependence of a velocity on position, which is what we mean by a “guidance equation” in Pilot Wave model. In particular, for every point in space we should find a circle that intersects it, and then “read off” the velocity from that circle. If we differentiate $x'$ and $y'$ along any given circle, we get = - \_0 cos (2 ) = 2 y’ - \_0 and = - \_0 sin (2 ) = 2 x’ In tensor form, this becomes
x’\
y’
=
0 & - 2\
2 & 0
x’\
y’
-
\_0\
0
Now, since our aim is to define the dynamics of our two particles, and their coordinates are given by $x$ and $y$, we should convert $(x', y')$ coordinate system back to $(x, y)$. It is easy to check that the “rotated” form of the above equation is
x\
y
=
cos & - sin\
sin & cos
0 & -2\
2 & 0
cos & sin\
- sin & cos
x\
y
- -
cos & - sin\
sin & cos
\_0\
0
=
-2 y\
2 x
-
\_0 cos\
\_0 cos
Finally, by substituting = this becomes = - - \_0 cos = - - \_0 sin Since everything we have done is in configuration space, $\vec{v}_0$ is not physical. So, in our final answer we have to re-express it in terms of $v_{10}$ and $v_{20}$. We should do the same with $\lambda$. It is easy to check that \_0 = ; sin = ; cos = Substituting these gives us = - - v\_[10]{} = - - v\_[20]{} Here, we have replaced $(x, y)$ with $(x_1, x_2)$ since we have converted a single particle in configuration space back into two particles in the ordinary one. In the above equation $x_1$ and $x_2$ describe the velocity of particle beables, while $v_{10}$ and $v_{20}$ describe the velocity of a wave that *happened* to be localized at all times only in our example. The fact that $dx_1/d \tau$ depends on $x_2$ and $v_{20}$ clearly implies non-locality. We will discuss our interpretation of non-locality in chapter 5.
Now, the above parameter $\tau$ is not to be confused with $t$. In light of the fact that the probability density away from the $\delta$-function source is infinitely small, we expect the velocity $\vec{v}= \vec{E}/ \rho^{(4)}$ to be infinitely large. Thus, the particle spends infnitely small time on that circle and then returns to the origin of the $\delta$-function. However, it spends infinitely small time at the origin of the $\delta$-function as well, due to its infinitesimal size. Therefore, we have to compare one infinitesimal time to another, to find which is larger; in other words, at any given moment in time, where is the particle most likely be found?
In order to answer the above question, we replace $\delta$-function with a finite probability distribution, \^2 () e\^[- - \_0 t - \^2]{} where $\beta$ is a very large number. The electric field produced by the above distribution is given by = , where $\vec{D}$ is some other field, which satisfies = - e\^[- - \_0 t - \^2]{} To simplify the calculation, we define $r$ to be = - \_0 t - and $r = \vert \vec{r} \vert$. The $\vec{D}$-producting charge enclosed within the sphere of radius $r$ is given by Q\_D (r) = - \_0\^r e\^[- r\^2]{} 2 r’ dr’ = - (1 - e\^[- r\^2]{}) Thus, the $\vec{D}$-field is (r) = - Substitutting for $\vec{r}$ we get = - which gives us = - It is easy to see that $\partial/ \partial t$ can be replaced with $- \vec{v}_0 \cdot \vec{\nabla}$. Thus, the expression for $\vec{E}$ becomes = (\_0 ) ( ) where we have again expressed it in a condensed form, using $\vec{r}$. After evaluating the derivative, this becomes = e\^[- \^2]{} ( (\_0 ) - + ) + In order to obtain $\vec{v}$, we have to divide the above expression by $\rho = (\beta/ \pi) e^{- \beta \vert \vec{r} \vert^2}$. In light of the fact that $\beta$ is large, this would give us, in the vicinity of the origin, \_[ ]{} = (\_0 ) + 0 (1/ ) In light of the cosine of the angle that comes with inner product, $\vert \hat{r} (\vec{v}_0 \cdot \hat{r}) \vert < \vert \vec{v}_0 \vert$. Since the source of $\delta$-function moves right with a velocity $\vec{v}_0$, the particle “falls behind” within a time interval proportional to the width of the $\delta$-function. By dimensional analysis, the width of the $\delta$-function is proportional to $1/\sqrt{\beta}$; thus, the time it takes for the particle to “fall behind” is proportional to the same.Once the particle “fell behind” sufficienty far, its distance from the source of the $\delta$-function becomes sufficiently large for the earlier approximation to become valid. Thus, the particle starts on a large circle and then once it completes that circle it comes back to the $\delta$-function source *from the front*.
If we consider *only* the part of the circle where the distance to the source is greater than $\gamma$, then the probability density is smaller than $(\pi / \gamma) e^{-\beta \gamma^2}$. Thus, the velocity is bounded *below* by something proportional to $\gamma e^{\beta \gamma^2}$, and the time spent in that region is bounded *above* by something proportional to $(1/\gamma) e^{- \beta \gamma^2}$. Now, suppose $\gamma$ is a fixed small number, while $\beta$ goes to infinity. Then the above goes to $0$ *faster* than $\sqrt{\beta}$. In other words, the time spent on circle minus $\gamma$-segment is *much smaller* than the time spent in the origin of the $\delta$-function.
Now there is a mismatch: $\gamma$-segment is much larger than the origin of a $\delta$-function. We can adress this as follows. Since $\gamma$-segment is small enough, we can simply assume that whenever the particle is on a $\gamma$-segment, it is “very close to the origin”, regardless of whether or not it is inside the $\delta$-function. Thus, we are only interested in comparing the time particle spends inside the $\gamma$-segment with the time it spends outside.
Now, since the vicinity of $\delta$-function is part of $\gamma$-segment, the time the particle spends on $\gamma$-segment is *greater* than the time it spends in the vicinity of $\delta$-function. Since the latter is of the order $1/\sqrt{\beta}$, the time the particle spends inside the $\gamma$ segment is either of the order $1/\sqrt{\beta}$ *or greater*. On the other hand, as we said before, the time the particle spends *outside* of that segment is proportional to $(1/\gamma) e^{- \beta \gamma^2}$, which is much smaller then this. Thus, it spends most of the time inside the $\gamma$-segment. Since $\gamma$ can be arbitrary small, we conclude that the particle spends most of the time arbitrary close to the origin of $\delta$-function.
The other thing to take into account is that the radius of the circle is not fixed, which means that it can be arbitrary large, which would increase the time particle spends there. This point can be adressed as follows. The radius of a circle is determined by the angle by which it leaves the vecinity of $\delta$-function; in order for the former to be infinite, it has to leave the $\delta$ function in the direction *exactly* opposite to the velocity. This, of course, has probability $0$. Thus, for any given $\epsilon$ we can say that the probability is greater than $1- \epsilon$ that the radius of the circle is bounded above by $f (\epsilon)$. If we view $\epsilon$ as finite, we can again use the finite radius of the circle, and repeat above argument.
The fact that the particle spends most of the time close to origin of $\delta$-function is what we have expected. After all, we have *postulated* that probability is “large” at that point and $0$ everywhere else. So if we got anything other than the above something would have been terribly wrong. The above example also shows a mechanism by which the desired probability was enforced: since velocity is inversely proportional to probability density, the particle “flies faster” past the region where probability density is small, thus it spends very little time there. In above example, the radius of a circle might be quite large. Thus, the particle does *not* avoid the “forbidden” region. It simply moves very fast on that circle so that it is hard to “catch” it while its there.
The fact that the particle is almost certain to be found in arbitrary small region does *not* violate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. After all, the fact that probability looks like $\delta$-function implies that it has Fourier components of very different frequencies; in other words, the uncertainty of momentum is very large. The velocity, of course, is fixed; but it is not to be confused with momentum. Rather, $m \vec{v}$ is merely some form of “average” of the momentum over a very wide bell curve. This interpretation is confirmed by a well known theory of wave packets: the momentum is defined in terms of a wave length; the velocity of a wave packet simply *happens* to approximate the momentum but it can *not* serve as a definition of one.
4.3 Non-relativistic case {#non-relativistic-case .unnumbered}
-------------------------
It is important to mention that, while the model of section 4.1 is designed to reproduce relativistic quantum field theory, it also reproduces the results of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, by default. The reason it is not as explicit as in Bohm’s case is that, from the point of view of quantum field theory, any particle emits and re-absorbs other particles, which makes the theory fundamentally different. The transition from quantum field theory to quantum mechanics occurs on larger time scales, since these are the scales in which speed of light “looks” infinite. Physically, the emitted particles “had time” to be reabsorbed on these larger scales. On the other hand, uncertainty principle demands that we have more and more emitted particles on the smaller ones.
Thus, it is not completely correct to view creation and annihilation of particles as “interrupting” otherwise-continuous process (although this research direction is still worth considering; and it was in fact developed by Dürr at el in [@jumps] and other papers). On the contrary, since the smaller time scales are “building blocks” of the larger ones, fundamentally, as far as Hilbert space $Q$ is concerned, the process is not continuous at all, and the continuity is only an appearance on larger scales. Of course, in this paper we have restored continuity by introducing another space $B$. But in our case, the beables in $B$ “look” at the discontinuous processes in $Q$ and try to “mimic” them in “continuous” fashion, thanks to the continuous function $f$ we have introduced. This is very different from Bohm where continuity arises naturally. That is why Bohm’s argument for $\rho = \vert \psi \vert^2$ can not be explicitly reproduced.
In order to explicitly reproduce non-relativistic quantum mechanics, we have to do very large number of Feynman diagrams (and show how each diagram is “reflected” in our beable space). The number of Feynman diagrams should be large enough to “transition” from perturbative case to the non-perturbative one. While it is conceivable to do that in principle, it is beyond our practical capacities. Problems like this have not been resolved yet; in fact this is a main reason why the exact solution for relativistic hydrogen atom has not yet been found. On the other hand, general proofs that quantum mechanics arises as a low energy limit of quantum field theory do exist. The latter allows us to conclude that our model reproduced $\rho = \vert \psi \vert^2$ by default, without having to verify it explicitly.
5. Non-locality of the theory {#non-locality-of-the-theory .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
5.1 Does non-locality allow us to reproduce QFT {#does-non-locality-allow-us-to-reproduce-qft .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------------------
The Pilot Wave model we have presented has one unpleasant feature: the so-called “Coulumbs Law” we have been using is non-local.While all Pilot Wave models, by invoking the notion of configuration space, are non-local by default, the one at hand is a level more non-local. In particular, other Pilot Wave models are non-local from the perspective of ordinary space $\mathbb{R}^3$, while they are local from the perspective of $\mathbb{R}^{3N}$. On the other hand, this model is non-local from the points of view of both spaces.
Let’s, for example, take ordinary Bohm’s Pilot Wave model. In that model, at any given point $\vec{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{3N}$ the velocity field $\vec{v} (\vec{x})$ is a function only of $\psi$ and $\partial \psi$ *at* $\vec{x}$. The non-locality comes in the picture only if we “translate” $\vec{x}$ from $\mathbb{R}^{3N}$ to $\mathbb{R}^3$. In the latter case, different components of *the same* point $\vec{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{3N}$ are interpreted as coordinates of *different* points in $\mathbb{R}^3$, that exist “simultaneously”, which leads to non-locality. This, however, does not change the fact that, as far as $\mathbb{R}^{3N}$ is concerned, everything is local.
On the other hand, in our case, things are non-local in $\mathbb{R}^{3N}$ itself, since that is the space in which we have used “Coulumb’s Law”, and, unlike electrodynamics, Coulumb’s Law is non-local. The difference in locality in $\mathbb{R}^{3N}$ is reflected in $\mathbb{R}^3$ as well. In particular, if we have two non-interacting systems then, in Bohm’s case, the behavior of the particles of one is completely independent of the other one. In our case this is no longer true.
First consider Bohm’s case. If we denote the components of $\vec{x} \in \mathbb{R}^{3N}$ corresponding to two non-entangled systems, then the wave function can be expressed as $\psi (\vec{x}) = \psi_1 (\vec{x}_1) \psi_2 (\vec{x}_2)$. Since logarithm is additive, this means that ln () = ln \_1 (\_1) + ln \_2 (\_2) This implies that \_1 = \_1 Im ln () = \_1 Im ln \_1 (\_1) is completely independent of $\vec{x}_2$. Likewise, $\vec{v}_2$ is completely independent of $\vec{v}_1$. Thus, each non-interacting subsystem can be treated as if it is all there is in the universe, and we will still obtain the correct result.
Unfortunately, this is no longer true in our case. Consider, for example, one dimensional case in which there are only two particles. Furthermore, to make it even simpler, suppose there is no visibility coordinate. Thus, both particles have visibility $1$ at all times. Suppose the wave function corresponding to these particles are non-interacting wave packets, $\psi_1 (t, x- a - u_1 t)$ and $\psi_2 (t, x - b - u_2 t)$. In this case the configuration space looks like a plane and, as usual, there is only *one* particle living in that space. The wave function that guides that particle is a wave packet (t, x, y) = \_1 (t, x- a - u\_1 t) \_2 (t, y- b - u\_2 t). At any given $t$, this wave packet is centered around $(a + u_1 t, b + u_2 t)$. The “charge density” associated with this wave packet is = \_2 (t, y- b - u\_2 t)+ \_1 (t, y- b - u\_2 t) Thus, the electric field associated with this is given by
Thus, the “electric field” produced by that wave packet is proportional to the projections on the direction pointing at the nearby locations of this point. It is easy to see that a projection is a non-linear function of $x$ and $y$. Since velocity is proportional to the electric field, $v_x$ depends on $x$ *and* $y$ in non-linear fashion. But from the point of view of ordinary space, $x$ signifies first particle and $y$ signifies the second one. Thus, the velocity of the first particle depends on the positions of *both* of them, despite the fact that wave packets are not interacting with each other!
This, of course, raises a question. In the previous section we have shown that we have specifically designed our equation in such a way that the predictions of standard quantum field theory are reproduced. Yet, standard QFT does *not* predict the above-described interaction of non-entangled systems. In order to answer this question, we have to consider a situation where a system has been measured *twice*. First time we measured the location of the *first* particle, and the second time we have measured the location of the *second* one. We will observe non-local interaction between these particles if and only if there is a relation between outcomes of these two measurements.
As we have previously explained, there is no such thing as actual “measurement”. Instead, the interaction with sufficiently complex system causes the wave function in configuration space to split into several branches. Thus, we need to introduce other particles, whose coordinates are $z_1, . . . , z_{N-2}$ which interact with our two particle system at two instances. After the first interaction, which occurs at $t=t_1$, the wave function splits into $M$ branches: (t; x, y, z\_1, . . . , z\_[N-2]{}) \_[k=1]{}\^M \_k (t; x, y, z\_1, . . . , z\_[N-2]{}) , t>t\_1 and then after the second interaction, which occurs at $t=t_2$, the branch number $k$ breaks into $L_k$ sub-branches: \_k (x, y, z\_1, . . . , z\_[N-2]{}) \_[l=1]{}\^[L\_k]{} \_[kl]{} (x, y, z\_1, . . . , z\_[N-2]{}). Each of these times, our particle is found in only one of the sub-branches. Now, let $\delta x$, $\delta y$ and $\delta z_k$ be the displacements of the particle *from the center of the branch that it occupies* when $t<t_1$. Let $(\delta x)'$, $(\delta y)'$ and $(\delta z_k)'$ be the displacements of the particle from the branch it occupies at $t_1 <t < t_2$. And, finally, let $(\delta x)''$, $(\delta y)''$ and $(\delta z_k)''$ be the displacement of a particle from its sub-branch at $t>t_2$.
In other words, before the first split, the coordinates of the particle are $x_p$ and $y_p$, while the coordinates of the center of the branch that it occupies are $x_b$ and $y_b$. We let $\delta x = x_p - x_b$ and $\delta y = y_p - y_b$. After the first split, the coordinates of the particle are $x_p'$ and $y_p'$, while the coordinates of the center of a *sub-branch* it occupies are $x_b'$ and $y_b'$. Then $(\delta x)' = x_p' - x_b'$ and $(\delta y)' = y_p'-y_b'$. Finally, after the second split the coordinates of the particle are $x_p''$ and $y_p''$ and the coordinate of a center of sub-sub-branch that it occupies are $x_b''$ and $y_b''$. And we define $(\delta x)'' = x_p'' - x_b''$ and $(\delta y)'' = y_p''-y_b''$.
Now, suppose the times that these two splits occurred are $t_1$ and $t_2$. Since each split takes very little time, the position of a particle doesn’t have time to change much during each of these splits. Thus, $x_p' (t_1 + \epsilon) \approx x_p (t_1 - \epsilon)$, and $x_p'' (t_2 + \epsilon) \approx x_p' (t_2 - \epsilon)$ (the same is true for $y$). However, the position of the center of wave packet does change a lot. After all, we are not even talking about the same wave packet: we are comparing the center of a wave packet before the split to the center of *one of the branches* after the split. Thus, $\vert x_b' (t_1 + \epsilon) - x_b ( t_1 - \epsilon) \vert >>0$ and $\vert x_b'' (t_2 + \epsilon) - x_b' ( t_2 - \epsilon) \vert >>0$ (same is true for $y$). This means that $\vert (\delta x)' (t_1 + \epsilon) - \delta x ( t_1 - \epsilon) \vert >> 0$ and $\vert (\delta x)'' (t_2 + \epsilon) - (\delta x)' ( t_2 - \epsilon) \vert >> 0$
What we want to find out is the relationship between the locations of the particle in a configuration space after the first and second measurements. This depends *only* on $(\delta x)'$, $(\delta y)'$ and $(\delta z_k)'$. From the point of view of determinism, we can say that we only need to know these three values at $t=t_1+ \epsilon$. Now, since the first measurement was performed over $x$ and *not* over $y$, this means that the projection of the support of $\psi_k$ onto $y$ axis at $t = t_1+ \epsilon$ is approximately the same as the projection of the support of $\psi$ at $t = t_1 - \epsilon$. Therefore, $(\delta y)' \approx \delta y$.
Now, since we don’t see the actual wave (we only see a particle) we don’t have means of knowing the exact values of $\delta x$ and $\delta y$. At the same time, however, we are able to make a good guess. After all, based on some set of measurements that were performed before the so-called “first measurement” (that is, the ones not discussed here) we had some idea of what we expected the outcome of the first measurement to be. Thus, the displacement of its result from the expected outcome would give us $\delta x$ and $\delta y$.
In our particular case, since the first measurement was performed over $x$ and *not* over $y$, we *only* know $\delta x$. At the same time, the very fact that measurement was performed over $x$ means that the width of the support of $\psi_k$ in the projection to $x$ axis is much smaller than the width of original $\psi$. Thus, $(\delta x)'$ has nothing to do with $\delta x$. Since the outcome of the second measurement is based on $(\delta x)'$, our knowledge of $\delta x$ is not useful. On the other hand, since the measurement of $y$ was *not* performed, as we said before, $(\delta y)' \approx \delta y$. Thus, the value of $\delta y$ *would* be useful *if only* we knew it. But, unfortunately, we don’t know it, since we didn’t perform measurement of $y$.
To sum it up, the non-locality that we are worried about comes in a form of non-linear dependence of the second experiment on $(\delta x)'$ and $(\delta y)'$. In order for that non-locality to be detected, we need to gather some information about either of these two quantities from the result of the first experiment. As we have explained, we failed to do that. As a result, the non-locality can not be observed. This, of course, is not surprising. After all, from the setup, we expect our theory to be consistent with the predictions of ordinary QFT; the latter does not predict non-locality.
5.2 Does non-locality allow us to reproduce effective collapse {#does-non-locality-allow-us-to-reproduce-effective-collapse .unnumbered}
--------------------------------------------------------------
So far we have shown that, despite the fact that the theory is highly non-local, the “local” predictions of QFT are successfully reproduced. There is, however, a different concern. In light of non-local “Coulumb” interaction, a particle can “jump” from one branch to another. Since the probability density between the branches is nearly zero, the “charge density” (which is defined as time derivative of probability density) is nearly zero as well. Therefore, nothing keeps a particle away from that region! The only reason the probability of finding it there is nearly zero is that its velocity is inversely proportional to $\rho$. Thus, whenever the particle is in that region it moves very fast, and thus spends very little time there. But, during that little time that it does spend in that region, it might as well fly from one branch to another, if it does so quickly enough.
Again we need to ask ourselves the same question as we asked before: our theory is designed in such a way that the predictions of standard quantum field theory are reproduced. Is this still the case? Surprisingly, even if the particles did make the jumps from one branch to the other, the answer would have been yes! Strictly speaking, we can not use our experience to claim that the above scenario never happened. After all, our memory is encoded in a configuration of the particles of our brain. The latter, of course, is a part of configuration space. Therefore, if a particle made a jump from the universe $k$ to the universe $l$, our subsequent memory will be consistent with universe $l$. Thus, we will forget everything that happened in universe $k$ and, at the same time, falsely remember the things that happened at the universe $l$.
However, I find the above to be very unsatisfactory. After all, the main agenda of Pilot Wave model is to recover the notion of determinism. Now, the latter would be meaningless if the notion of time was just an illusion (i.e. our memory). True: the above picture is still deterministic, since it includes real time *on top* of our memory. But, in some respect, this amounts to philosophical inconsistency. Besides, it leaves us without any reason behind our choice of Bohm over Everett (the latter being equally deterministic). After all, if our particle can appear in *any* of the branches, it makes these branches equivalent to each other, which is the case in Everett’s model.
Thankfully, there is at least one way of arguing that the above jumps are very unlikely. Since the branches of the wave function do not interact, the integral of probability density over each branch is conserved, up to very good approximation. Since the charge density is *time derivative* of the probability density, the *total* charge of each branch is $0$. Thus, the only possible reason for a jump is *fluctuation* of charge within each branch. Thus, we would like to argue that the fluctuation of charge is not detectable due to the fact that branches are “far away” from each other.
As was explained in introduction, the decoherence is a consequence of microscopic changes of complex system. Thus, there are good news and bad news: the bad news is that, in terms of *each* of the coordinates, the two branches might, in fact, be close to each other. The good news, on the other hand, is that *so many* coordinates are different between the branches, that their overall distance might be large. Suppose, for example, there are $N$ coordinates, and two points are exactly distance $\epsilon$ apart in projection to each of them, and each then their overall distance is d = = . In this case, if $N >> 1/\epsilon^2$, then the two points will be “far away”, as desired.
There is one more issue to address. Even if branches are far away from each other, if the width of each branch is comparable with the distance between them, they will still not look like a point to the particle situated in the other branch. Now, the width of each branch, in projection to any given coordinate, is the uncertainty of the position of a particle in $\mathbb{R}^3$ represented by that particular coordinate of $\mathbb{R}^{3N}$. From physical intuition we know that the particles that are entangled in some macroscopic system typically have very small uncertainty in their position (except, of course, for examples such as electrons in a conductor). On the other hand, free particles typically have very large position uncertainty.
This tells us that each branch of a wave function is similar to a large one-dimensional object in three dimensional space: it is narrow in some dimensions and wide in others. If we have very long one dimensional charge distribution, its field is inversely proportional to the distance. This remains true even if its length is infinite! Thus, if we have two of them (each represents one of the branches), then a particle interacts far more strongly with its own branch than the other one. Thus, even if from time to time it will be pulled by the charge fluctuations of the other branch, the charge fluctuations in its own branch will quickly pull the particle back.
We have to now be a little bit careful. As we mentioned previously, the fact that the total charge of each branch is $0$ should be instrumental in our argument. *If* such was not the case, then the fact that charge is a derivative of probability demands that particles *should* be flowing into the “positively charged” branch. So if our argument does not imply that, there is something wrong with it. As expected, our argument *does* in fact imply this. Since the sum of the integrals of probabilities over *all* branches is $1$, the derivative of that sum is $0$. Thus, the total charge of *all* branches is $0$. If one of the branches is positive, it forces at least one of the other ones to be negative. This tell us that some of the electric field likes will flow from one of the branches into the other one. A particle, following these lines, will make a transition.
Now lets go back to our case. As we have previously stated, due to decoherence the branches do not interact. This makes total probability within *each* of the branches constant, and, therefore, implies that total charge of *each* branch is $0$. This implies that the electric field lines that go from any given branch will return to that branch. Thus, a particle will stay in that branch *unless* one of these field lines “run into” another branch on its way back to the original one. In order for the latter *not* to occur, the typical length of charge variations within each branch has to be a lot smaller than the distance between branches.
Now, as we said earlier, each branch has vastly different size in projection to different coordinates. We only need to worry about the ones in projection to which the branch is “long”. As previously said, the latter represents the behavior of free particles. Thus, in order for electric field lines to be reasonably short, every free particle needs to be confined to some isolated system in $\mathbb{R}^3$. This is consistent with our everyday experience: a particle is either confined to our lab, or earth’s atmosphere, or galaxy, etc. Thus, even if the distance between branches is much smaller than the size of each branch, the electric lines will *not* be running into neighboring branch as long as their distance (that is $\epsilon \sqrt{N}$) is much larger than the typical size of a lab. This, of course is easy to accomplish.
Now, of course, a lot of what was said in this section is just words. These “words” only imply that the jump is highly unlikely; but its probability is still non-zero. So one might still argue that if we “wait long enough” may be one day the jump will occur. However, the same objection can be raised against the standard, local, Bohm’s theory as well. Since the value of wave function between branches is small but non-zero, it is possible that, one day, by some miracle the “local” guidance equation will carry a particle from one branch to another. So, in the defense of my work, I can say that it is not “worse” than the standard Bohm’s theory. But, of course, both of these issues need to be investigated in a more quantitative manner. Unfortunately, it seems that due to the complexities of systems involved, the only means that are open to us are numeric; and, of course, numeric programs might require some few-particle simplifications which might distort what happens in the real world. These questions are subject of further work.
5.3 Is non-locality necessary {#is-non-locality-necessary .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
In the previous two sections we have shown that nonlocality still allows us to reproduce our “local” everyday experience. Even if this is true, one still can’t help but feel that the local theory is aesthetically better. In fact, the technique of introducing Coulumb’s law is generic, and it could have been used for non-relativistic quantum mechanics as well. Nevertheless, in non-relativistic case Bohm had instead chosen a “local” alternative. So this leads to a question: perhaps there is a way to come up with quasi-local flows that represent creation and annihilation of particles? If the answer is yes, we will have to justify why we haven’t done it in this paper. We will make our argument by attempting to do what we are “not doing” and then shooting ourselves in a foot as we try.
One thing that comes to mind is a paper by Dürr et el ([@jumps]) where they have shown that a Pilot Wave model can be represented as a continuous evolution of fixed number of particles, interrupted by random “jumps” (which represent creation and annihilation of particles). The probability that a jump between state $\vert e >$ and $\vert e' >$ occurs within time interval $dt$ is $\sigma (e, e') dt$, where (e, e’) = . This means that in this paper we *could* have used the concept of visibility (or something similar) to introduce a “continuous” version of that jump, and then turn that stochastic equation into deterministic one. While this is certainly a good thing to explore for a next project, there is a reason why we haven’t done it here. Namely, in our work the particles are distinguishable while in the work of Dürr et el they are not. Thus, we can’t simply talk about jumps between two “states”. We have to ask ourselves why would any individual particle “cooperate” with that jump. In light of the fact that particles have $0$ size, the probability of them running into each other is $0$. This means that the event of creation and annihilation has to occur over a short distance. Thus, the above “cooperation” is non-local.
So far it is not so bad. The idea that particles have size is quite intuitive, and the above quasi-locality is consistent with that. But there is another problem: if we have more than just two particles, it is ambiguous which particle belongs to which pair. For example, if we have two electrons and one positron, *which* of the electrons should annihilate a positron (once again, this question does not arise in the theory of Dürr et el since in that work the particles are assumed to be indistinguishable)? Thus, we will have electron-electron interaction: if electron number $1$ has become invisible, it forces electron number $2$ to stay visible, and visa versa. Obviously, electron-electron interaction is not part of the paper by Dürr et el, nor is there any vertex in quantum field theory to tell us what it is. So, we already have to do something more than trivial.
Still, however, we are not in such a big trouble yet, since the above electron-electron interaction is a quasi-local one; and, as we said before, quasi-local interactions are consistent with our intuition that particles have size. However, things become even more interesting if there is a chain of these interactions. For example, suppose there are $n$ electrons and $n$ positrons, positioned in such a way that electron number $k$ is supposed to annihilate positron number $k$. Now suppose we put a new electron (we will call it electron number $0$) right next to positron number $1$. Then, since positron number $1$ was annihilated by electron number $0$, the electron number $1$ has no choice but annihilate positron number $2$. Thus, electron $2$ will annihilate positron $3$, etc. Finally, electron number $n-1$ will annihilate positron $n$, while electron number $n$ will *not* be annihilated – we ran out of positrons! In other words, the presence of electron number $0$ *caused* electron number $n$ to continue to stay visible. But, if $n$ is large enough, electron number $n$ might be several kilometers away from the electron number $0$. Thus, we have a real non-locality.
There is still a way of dealing with it so far. In particular, we can simply allow the non-conservation of number of electron beables, which would remove a need of the above non-local interaction. After all, we never observed the electrons anyway (we only saw dots on the screen that were hit by electrons), so we have no direct evidence that their number is conserved. True, one evidence of their conservation is the fact that standard quantum field theory, which is based on that assumption, predicts correct results. This, however, is only an evidence of conservation in Hilbert space $Q$, but *not* in beable space $B$. Suppose we have two states: one has extra electron and the other doesn’t. *Each* of these two states has been produced by *its own* quantum mechanical process that, of course, preserves the number of particles. While these two quantum processes are different, they are similar enough to stay within the same branch of a wave function in a configuration space. So we can freely move from one state, which is the outcome of the first process, to the second state, which is the outcome of the other one, without any detectable inconsistencies.
In order to truly get ourselves into trouble, we have to come up with a scenario where we have *a lot of* electrons at stake; not just one. Suppose we have a very large number of electrons and positrons saturated within a lab, with a very large density. Furthermore, suppose we have measured their energy. Thus, by uncertainty principle, we have no information about their position. Quantum field theory predicts that if we will measure their position, it will be consistent with Poisson distribution. This will be true both before and after the annihilation events (up to the fact that the density will change). On the other hand, in our case we will *not* expect Poisson distribution after the annihilation. After all, the particles that are closer to each other are more likely to annihilate. So, the ones that will be left will be further apart. Of course, in Poisson case we will also expect them to be further apart due to the smaller density. But in our case that effect will be even larger, since it will be combination of smaller density *and* the “natural selection”.
At first one might think that this is not a big deal since the typical size between particles is so small that we will not detect their distance. But if our lab is large enough then the Poisson distribution will predict density fluctuations on large scales. That difference will be detectable. Furthermore, if the average distance between particles will be larger than the one predicted by lowering the density of Poisson process, this means that their rate of annihilation will be slowing down *more* than expected from quantum field theory. Both of these phenomena can produce considerable inconsistencies with observations.
Now, in order for the prediction of quantum field theory to be reproduced, we have to “make up” for it: whenever the annihilation process occurs, we have to “move” the particles that are left in such a way that mimics Poisson distribution. If, however, the velocities of the particles are completely determined by “local” guidance equation, we will not be able to do that. After all, we have to “move” them based on non-local considerations. This is where “Coulumb’s law” becomes very helpful! The latter, naturally, preserves divergence of the so-called “electric field”. Thus, if the annihilation process “prefers” outcome $\vec{p} \in B$ over outcome $\vec{q} \in B$, then, in the “visibility” direction, the flow into $\vec{p}$ is larger than the one into $\vec{q}$. So, in order to the *total* flows to be the same, there has to be a flow from $\vec{p}$ to $\vec{q}$ in some other direction. The only direction that is left is regular space direction. Thus, the latter flow does the moving around of particles for us. This can not be accomplished so easily without resorting to Coulumb’s law.
One can still argue that high saturation of particles might be excluded through ultraviolet cutoff. But, in order for the annihilation of particles to occur often enough, the scale of the annihilation interaction has to have a lower bound. If we insist on using ultraviolet cutoff argument, this will introduce an upper bound on the latter. That might be the ultimate reason why we decided to use Coulumb’s law in this paper. However, since our attempts to do other things were not completely unproductive, it might still be useful to explore these other approaches in future work. But, at the same time, we still have a good excuse for sticking with Coulumb’s law at least temporarily.
6. Comparison of my work to the one of Nikolić {#comparison-of-my-work-to-the-one-of-nikolić .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------
As I have mentioned in the last paragraph of Introduction, Nikolić has proposed similar idea to mine (see [@nikolicb] and [@nikolicf]) reviewing his work and discussing similarities and differences between the concepts that we have proposed.
The starting point of his work is the idea of *field beables*, which was also used by others, including W. Struyve and H. Westman ([@minimalist]). Consider, for example, spin $0$ field. We can view second quantization of the latter as a *first* quantization of oscillating lattice. Since the number of lattice points is conserved, we no longer have to worry about particle creation and annihilation. This should be obvious from the intution we have by observing water waves: while the latter can be created and destroyed, water molecules are *not*. Thus, since a dynamics of water molecules is continuous and deterministic, the same applies to water waves, by default.
What distinguishes the work of Nikolić from others, however, is that he drew a link *back* from field to particles; by doing this he has shown that the concept of field beables dictates the concept of “effectivity” of the particles. Consider again the example of water waves. This time, however, let us *insist* on writing the dynamics in terms of the waves and not water molecules (after all, Fourier analysis demands that this should be possible). Since we know that the water molecules are subject to differentiable laws, we also know that the Fourier transform of their dynamics is differentiable as well. In other words, the amplitudes of the waves can not go from their generic value to $0$ instantaneously; rather, there has to be a small transition period. That is precisely what I called “visibility” and what Nikolić called “effectivity”. In my case, visibility was simply postulated. In his case, effectivity was a *prediction* made based on above argument.
Let us now go back to quantum mechanical view to show more precisely what is going on. If we have a single field $\phi$, then a quantum state is a probablity amplitude distribution $\psi (\phi)$. If $\tilde{\phi}$ is a Fourier transformation of $\phi$ into a momentum space, we can define $\tilde{\psi}$ through () = (). It is easy to show that the lattice can be represented as multi-dimensional harmonic oscillator, where each dimension corresponds to a given momentum. In case of lack of perturbation, it decomposes by simple equation () = \_ A\_[\_ ]{} ( ()) e\^[i \_ (t - t\_)]{} where $A_{\omega}$ represents the *position* variable of *one* of the harmonic oscillators with natural frequency $\omega$, $t_{\vec{k}}$ is an “innitial time” for any given oscillator, and \_ = Now, any particular behavior of $\phi$ is in one to one correspondence with (’) = (’ - ) Furthermore, from the completeness of the set of solutions of Harmonic oscillator, we know that the latter can be *uniquely* defined as a linear combination of *all* of the solutions: (’ () - () ) = \_[n, w\_]{} (’ ()) (a\_)\^n 0 > Now, the complete description of $\tilde{\psi}$ is given by \_ (’ () - () ) = \_ ( \_[n, w\_]{} (’ ()) (a\_)\^n 0 > e\^[i (t - t\_)]{}) The above correspondence is one to one but *not* onto. In other words, to each $\phi$ corresponds a unique quantum state (which is only unique to that specific $\phi$), *but* some quantum states do not correspond to any $\phi$ at all. In other words, by imposing field beables we are defining “mixed state” and *also* imposing a relationship between any two coefficients of that state.
However, we are already used to reducing the number of degrees of freedom in case of particle beables. In the latter case, we again impose a relation between coefficients of different states: namely, one of the coefficients has to be $1$ and the rest should be $0$. By replacing particle beables with field ones, we are simply substitutting the latter for some other, more complicated, relatinoship. The presence of mixed states, however, leads to a concept of *effectivity* of particles. In particular, the effectivity of *pure* state $\vert s_k >$ is given by e(s\_k >) = which, clearly, is a number between $0$ and $1$, similar to visibility. When particles are viewed as beables, effectivity is forced to be either $0$ or $1$. When field beables are introduced, that is not the case; but still there is no freedom left in defining effectivity; it is defined for us through the well known solutions of Harmonic oscillator. This is one of the key characteristics that distinguishes Nikolić proposal from mine. A lot of other differnces might be viewed as a logical consequences of this one. Let us therefore list all the differences between our proposals more formally:
1\. With a risk of being redundant, we will repeat for formality’s sake the difference I have just mentioned: According to Nikolić the field should be treated as a beable, and then the behavior of the field is ’translated“ into the effectivity of particle states. This leaves no freedom in terms of making sure that effectivity is close to $0$ and $1$ most of the time (or imposing any other conditions, for that matter). According to Nikolić the latter should be a natural consequence of decoherence. On the other hand, in terms of my proposal, the above criteria on visibility is *forced* by means of differentiable approximation to step function (which I call $f$). While ”forcing“ something puts us on a ”safer side“ it also makes a theory a lot less natural. Thus, the ultimate answer to the question of whether mine theory is ”better“ or his lies in a validity of a conjecture that decoherence leads to a ”split" along the lines characterized by particle numbers. While Nikolić quotes some work that proves something to that effect, I haven’t had time, yet, to study it.
2\. In light of the fact that in Nikolić case the effectivity arizes naturally from standard quantum field theory, he does *not* introduce any extra compactified coordinates to accomplish this goal.
3\. According to Nikolić, the particles are indistinguisheable, while according to my proposal they are, in fact, dustinguisheable. The reason for the indistinguisheability of the particles in Nikolić’s case is that the latter can be argued for on a basis of harmonic oscillator: the number of particles is simply the excitation level of the latter. Thus, when harmonic oscillator is excited to a level $2=1+1$, it doesn’t make sense to ask what is the difference between one $1$ and the other $1$. In my case, however, both particles, as well as their creation and annihilation was put by hand. That is what allowed them to be distinguisheable.
4\. As a natural consequence of the fact that particles are indistinguisheable in Nikolić’s case, he was forced to impose the notion of the effectivity on the *entire* state, rather than any particular particle. This made the latter non-local. In my case, however, non-locality is still very much present in the *dynamics* of particles (as discussed in detail in Chapter 5). Thus, the only difference is that the *definition* of visibility, *apart from all dynamics*, is local. The importance of the latter is questionable.
5\. In his work he did not have to resort to bluntly non-local tricks, like Coulumb’s law. I believe what helped him to avoid this is the fact that his theory reduces to field beables, and the latter can be equated with *first* quantization of the lattice, with fixed number of points. Finally, we know from Bohm that the pilot wave models of *first* quantization can be done without sacrifice of the locality in configuration space. But, Nikolić has shown that the *first* quantization of the lattice is in one to one correspondence with a *second* quantization of a theory with varying “effectivity” degrees. Thus, logic implies that his “effectivity” theory also meets the desired property. This is something I was not able to do since in my case particles were postulated by hand, and thus were *not* viewed in terms of quantum states, which ruined the above analogy.
6\. In light of the fact that Fermionic field is Grassmann- valued, he was not able to use directly field beables for fermions, Instead, he “bosonified” the fermionic field by replacing anti-commutting creation and annihilation operators with the commutting ones. In my case, however, i was able to treat fermions and bosons on the same grounds, since I did not use field beables to begin with. However, the importance of this is questionable in light of the fact that, on a grand scheme of things, I had to use a lot more unnatural tricks.
7\. As with any other two different Pilot Wave models, it might be of interest to see whether changing the choice of beables would lead to different predictions. Roughtly speaking, in my case the particle position is being “continuously measured” while in his case the field is. The fact that one is a “transformation” of the other does not imply that the predictions of the theories should be identical. After all, momentum is a “transformation” of position; yet we know that measuring one of the two would produce very different phenomenology from measuring the other one. For the same reason, both my theory and Nikolić’s should be further investigated and any differences in predicted phenomenologies should be explored.
7. Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
--------------
In this paper we have found how Bohm’s Pilot Wave model can be supplemented with creation and annihilation of beables. By claiming that particles never get annihilated but instead “become invisible", we were able to introduce the notion of non-instantaneous creation or annihilation by allowing the “visibility" to vary between 0 and 1. This continuity allowed the creation and annihilation to be incorporated into the Pilot Wave model.
In light of the fact that particles are neither created nor destroyed but simply change their visibilities, the total number of “visible" particles is bounded above. Thus, our definition of amplitudes of extreme states (before the weighted averages were taken) is dependent on the effective field theory that predicts that probability having more than $N$ particles is very small. This can be accomplished by imposing a UV cutoff on a theory and taking that cutoff seriously as a real physical constant.
One thing that is worth exploring is whether or not the continuously changing “visibility” of the particles can be replaced with something more physical, for example, a continuous “rotation” of electron into neutrino. The reason it was not done in this paper is that there are some processes that can not be depicted as rotations, such as for example a decay of photon into electron and positron pair.
It should also be pointed out that this approach is not the only one that allows us to incorporate quantum field theory. For example, Struyve and Westman have developed a minimalist theory [@minimalist] where only bosonic beables were postulated. After all, one can argue that we didn’t really see an electron; we only saw its electromagnetic field that told us where that “electron" was supposedly located. Since bosons can be described through field beables (which is much harder to do for fermions due to their Grassmannian nature), this completely avoids the need to create or destroy particles.
Even more importantly, Nikolić’ took the theory of field beables one step further and actually drew a connection from that concept to the concept of *effectivity* of particle states (see [@nikolicb] and [@nikolicf]). The latter is very similar with the “visibility” proposed in my work (one key difference is that the former applies to multiparticle states, where particles are indistinguishable, while the latter applies to a *single* particle, which *is* distinguisheable). The similarities and differences between my proposal and his were discussed in Chapter 6.
Finally, there is yet another alternative, proposed by Colin [@collin], in which he retained the presence of fermions, but got rid of the concept of creation and annihilation in favor of taking the concept of Dirac sea seriously. Of course, this raises some conceptual questions, such as just how deep the Dirac sea is, and what are its implications in terms of vacuum energy. I, personally, believe that all such models should be explored in parallel.
[77]{} D. Dürr, S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka and N. Zanghì “Trajectories and particle creation and annihilation in quantum field theory” [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**36**]{} (2003) 4143-4149, and [arXiv:quant-ph/0208072]{}.
W. Struyve and H. Westman 2007: “A minimalist pilot-wave model for quantum electrodynamics" [*Proc. R. Soc.*]{} A [**463**]{} (2007) 3115-3129, and [arXiv:0707.3487v2]{}
S. Colin and W. Struyve “A Dirac sea pilot-wave model for quantum field theory" (2007) 7309-7342, and [arXiv:quant-ph/0701085]{}
H. Nikolic “Bohmian particle trajectories in relativistic bosonic quantum field theory"
H. Nikolic “ Bohmian particle trajectories in relativistic fermionic quantum field theory"
Bohm, David (1952). “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ”Hidden Variables“ I”. Physical Review 85: 166–179. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.166
Bohm, David (1952). “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ”Hidden Variables“, II”. Physical Review 85: 180–193. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.85.180
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Direct searches for electroweak pair production of new particles at the LHC are a difficult proposition, due to the large background and low signal cross sections. We demonstrate how these searches can be improved by a combination of new razor variables and shape analysis of signal and background kinematics. We assume that the pair-produced particles decay to charged leptons and missing energy, either directly or through a $W$ boson. In both cases the final state is a pair of opposite sign leptons plus missing transverse energy. We estimate exclusion reach in terms of sleptons and charginos as realized in minimal supersymmetry. We compare this super-razor approach in detail to analyses based on other kinematic variables, showing how the super-razor uses more of the relevant kinematic information while achieving higher selection efficiency on signals, including cases with compressed spectra.'
author:
- 'Matthew R. Buckley$^{1,2}$, Joseph D. Lykken$^3$, Christopher Rogan$^{4,5}$, and Maria Spiropulu$^4$'
bibliography:
- 'superrazor.bib'
title: 'Super-Razor and Searches for Sleptons and Charginos at the LHC'
---
We acknowledge helpful discussions with Paul Jackson, Maurizio Pierini, Chiu-Tien Yu, Javier Duarte and Avi Yagil. JL acknowledges the hospitality and support of the Theoretical Physics Group at SLAC. Fermilab is operated by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC, under contract DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the United States Department of Energy. MS and CR are funded by the United States Department of Energy under Grant DE-FG02-92-ER40701 and acknowledge the support of the Weston Havens Foundation.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
Malik Magdon-Ismail\
[email protected]\
Computer Science Department\
Rensselaer Ploytechnic Institute\
110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180, USA
bibliography:
- 'mypapers.bib'
- 'masterbib.bib'
- 'covid.bib'
title: 'Machine Learning the Phenomenology of COVID-19 From Early Infection Dynamics'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider a hydrodynamic description of the spherically symmetric outward flow of nuclear matter, using a nuclear model that introduces a weakly dispersive effect in the flow. About the resulting stationary conditions of the flow, we apply an Eulerian scheme to derive a fully nonlinear equation of a time-dependent radial perturbation. In its linearized limit, with no dispersion, this equation implies the static acoustic horizon of an analogue gravity model. This horizon also defines the minimum radius of the steady flow. We model the perturbation as a high-frequency travelling wave, in which the weak dispersion is taken iteratively. A [*WKB*]{} analysis shows that even arbitrarily small values of dispersion make the horizon fully opaque to any acoustic disturbance propagating against the bulk flow, with the amplitude and the energy flux of the radial perturbation decaying exponentially just outside the horizon. Nonlinear effects shift the horizon from its steady position.'
author:
- Niladri Sarkar
- Abhik Basu
- 'Jayanta K. Bhattacharjee'
- 'Arnab K. Ray'
bibliography:
- 'prc\_sbbr2013r2.bib'
title: Acoustic horizons in steady spherically symmetric nuclear fluid flows
---
Introduction {#sec1}
============
A wide variety of hydrodynamic flows, ranging from astrophysical flows to flows in kitchen sinks, shows the existence of an “acoustic horizon" [@wgu81; @vis98; @su02; @tkd04; @vol05; @dbd06; @rr07; @rb07; @blv11; @rob12]. Such a horizon is attained when the speed of the bulk flow matches the speed with which a relevant wave carries information through the medium (for example, sound waves or gravity waves). Passage of information is uni-directional across the horizon, as it happens analogously in the case of black holes or white holes. This point of view, also known as analogue gravity, leads to many interesting consequences in fluid flows. For instance, in a low-dimensional flow, with viscosity lending an additional effect, there is an abrupt increase in the depth of the fluid at the horizon — a phenomenon that is popularly known as the hydraulic jump [@wat64; @bdp93; @sbr05; @rb07].
In the distinctly different context of nuclear physics, in an energetic heavy-ion collision, a hot and expanding nuclear gas is formed [@bgz78]. Hydrodynamic features are known to be collectively important in such cases, and appropriate hydrodynamic descriptions were furnished both for the expansion stage of the fluid [@bgz78], and its compression [@cjtw73]. In the former case, an analytical treatment was presented for the nonlinear hydrodynamic equations, describing a free isentropic expansion [@bgz78]. The hydrodynamic equations invoked in this approach were the familiar ones used in studies of radially outward flows in spherical symmetry, and later studies were also to pursue the same line [@ccl98]. One of the early investigations at low energies looked into the aftermath of nuclear collisions near the speed of sound [@frsw82], in which the possibility of soliton formation was considered, and so in due course dispersive terms were also required to be introduced in the hydrodynamic equations. The subject of solitons in nuclear reactions was more formally addressed in later works [@rw83; @hrw85]. Likewise, the question of shock fronts was also accorded its rightful importance [@gr80].
In nuclear fluids, hydrodynamic models with dispersion and viscous effects have been a regular topic of study over the last decade. A significant amount of work including dispersive effects in particular, has been carried out by now, all of which required careful studies of suitable equations of state and setting up of hydrodynamic equations, leading to solitonic solutions in some cases [@fona06; @fona07; @foffna10; @fonaff11]. And alongside dispersion, the importance of viscous hydrodynamics in the description of nuclear matter at extreme energy densities has not been overlooked either [@roro07; @dt08; @luro08; @luro09; @degv11].
Given this overall background on hydrodynamics, in the present work we study the hydrodynamic aspects of nuclear matter from the perspective of analogue gravity and acoustic horizons. For a radial outflow in spherical symmetry, we make use of standard hydrodynamic model equations, accommodating a weakly dispersive effect that, nevertheless, has a strong influence on the flow. It is interesting to note that the same influence may also be exerted by viscosity, which is a more natural attribute of a fluid (discussed at the end of Section \[sec5\]). We apply an Eulerian perturbation scheme on a steady extended flow and, including nonlinearity to any arbitrary order, we obtain the proper form of the metric of an acoustic horizon. We find that the acoustic horizon defines the minimum radius of the stationary flow. We also proceed to argue that nonlinearity has an adverse impact on the analogy of a static acoustic horizon. In the linear limit, we fashion the perturbation as a high-frequency travelling wave, and see how small effects of dispersion influence the steady conditions. Working iteratively by having recourse to the [*WKB*]{} method, we show that dispersion reduces the amplitude and the energy flux of the radially propagating wave completely to zero.
To summarize the principal results of our work, we have demonstrated the existence of an acoustic horizon, specifically that of a white hole, in our chosen model of nuclear hydrodynamics (Section \[sec3\]), with no physical flow solution admitted within the horizon (Section \[sec4\]). Linearized perturbations do not destabilize either the stationary flow or the horizon, and at the horizon of the white hole, all acoustic signals are fully extinguished due to the dispersive effect in the linear regime (Section \[sec5\] and Appendix \[app2\]). Nonlinearity, however, disturbs the precise condition of a stationary horizon (Section \[sec3\] and Appendix \[app1\]).
The hydrodynamic equations {#sec2}
==========================
The hydrodynamic description that we have adopted here is relevant to high-energy impacts or collisions, whose result is an outflow of the nuclear fluid [@bgz78]. The outward flow is described by a velocity field, $v$, and a baryonic density field, $n$. The latter is related to the mass density, $\rho$, by $\rho = Mn$, where $M$ is the nucleon mass. The two fields, $v$ and $n$, are coupled through two equations, one given by the condition of momentum balance, and the other by the continuity equation. These conditions are further supplemented by an equation of state connecting $n$ to the local pressure, $P$. For a perfect nuclear fluid, $P$ is related to the enthalpy per nucleon, $h$, under isentropic conditions, by [@fona06] $$\label{enthalpy}
{\boldsymbol \nabla P}=n {\boldsymbol \nabla} h,$$ so that the condition for momentum balance can be set as $$\label{euler}
\frac{\partial {\mathbf v}}{\partial t} +
\left({\mathbf v}\cdot \boldsymbol \nabla\right)
{\mathbf v} =-\frac{1}{M}{\boldsymbol \nabla} h.$$ We now use a form of $h$, given as [@fona06] $$\label{enthal}
h=E\left(n_{\mathrm e}\right) +
\frac{Mc_{\mathrm s}^2}{2n_{\mathrm e}^2}
\left(3n^2 + n_{\mathrm e}^2-4nn_{\mathrm e}\right),$$ in which, $c_{\mathrm s}$ is the speed of sound in the nuclear fluid and $n_{\mathrm e}$ is the equilibrium density, about which the energy per nucleon, $E(n)$, is expanded in a Taylor series [@fona06]. At this stage the hydrodynamics is both inviscid and non-dispersive. We can bring in a viscous term from the usual expressions of the stress tensor. To introduce a dispersive term, a specific model is required. Such a model [@fona06] provides a dispersive term through the zeroth order of the Taylor expansion, augmenting $E(n_{\mathrm e})$ in Eq. (\[enthal\]) by a non-local term, something that can be done only in terms of $n$, since $n_{\mathrm e}$ is spatially constant. This effectively amounts to crafting a small non-local effect about the usual baryon-vector meson local coupling, and this contribution is considered at the mean-field level. So with this understanding, we can write $$\label{eee}
E\left(n_{\mathrm e}\right)=
\left(\frac{g_V^2}{2m_V^2}\right)n_{\mathrm e}
+ \frac{\chi \left(n_{\mathrm e}\right)}{n_{\mathrm e}}
+ \left(\frac{g_V^2}{m_V^4}\right)
\nabla^2 n.$$ Here $\chi (n_{\mathrm e})$ has a known form [@fona06] and $g_V$ is the coupling constant of the baryon-vector meson interaction, with $m_V$ being the mass of the vector meson field.
Now with the help of Eqs. (\[enthal\]) and (\[eee\]), we can substitute $h$ in Eq. (\[euler\]), to obtain
$$\label{mombal}
\frac{\partial {\mathbf v}}{\partial t}
+({\mathbf v}\cdot \boldsymbol \nabla){\mathbf v}
= -\frac{c_{\mathrm s}^2}{2n_{\mathrm e}^2}
\left(6n \boldsymbol \nabla n
-4n_{\mathrm e} \boldsymbol \nabla n \right)
- \frac{g_V^2}{Mm_V^4} \boldsymbol \nabla \left(\nabla^2 n\right),$$
which has the standard inertial and advective terms in the left hand side. The first term in the right hand side involves the gradient of the baryonic density, and is analogous to the pressure term in standard hydrodynamics. The last term in Eq. (\[mombal\]) is the interaction term that describes the non-local coupling between the baryons and the vector meson field. This term acts in the manner of a dispersion, and is of principal interest in our study. It was introduced in nuclear hydrodynamics to investigate the formation and propagation of solitons in nuclear matter [@fona06]. We are interested not so much in propagating solitonic solutions, as we are in knowing how this dispersion term affects, in a perturbative sense, the stationary solution that is yielded by the rest of the terms in Eq. (\[mombal\]). So we consider the dispersion term only in the regime of extremely weak baryon-vector meson interactions.
While Eq. (\[mombal\]) gives one condition for the dynamics of $v$ and $n$, another condition is also required. This is provided by the continuity equation, going as $$\label{cont}
\frac{\partial n}{\partial t}+ \boldsymbol \nabla \cdot
\left(n{\bf v}\right)=0,$$ from whose stationary limit, we obtain the condition of baryon conservation.
Considering now a spherically symmetric outward flow, Eq. (\[mombal\]) is recast as
$$\label{momrad}
\frac{\partial v}{\partial t}+ \frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left[\frac{v^2}{2} + \frac{c_{\mathrm s}^2}{2n_{\mathrm e}^2}
\left(3n^2 - 4n_{\mathrm e}n \right)\right]
= - \zeta \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left[\frac{1}{r^2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(r^2\frac{\partial n}{\partial r}
\right)\right],$$
in which, we have set $\zeta = g_V^2/Mm_V^4$ for notational convenience, with $\zeta \longrightarrow 0$, when the baryon-vector meson interaction is treated as just a very small perturbative effect. Likewise, in spherically symmetric geometry, Eq. (\[cont\]) is rendered as $$\label{contrad}
\frac{\partial n}{\partial t}+ \frac{1}{r^2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left(nvr^2 \right) = 0.$$ Taken together, Eqs. (\[momrad\]) and (\[contrad\]) form a closed set to describe the coupled dynamics of the fields, $v(r,t)$ and $n(r,t)$. Our subsequent analysis will be based on these two equations only.
The perturbation and the acoustic horizon {#sec3}
=========================================
Under steady conditions and with $\zeta \longrightarrow 0$, Eqs. (\[momrad\]) and (\[contrad\]) give the stationary fields, $v_0(r)$ and $n_0(r)$. About these stationary values, the perturbation schemes which we prescribe for both $v$ and $n$, respectively, are $v(r,t) = v_0(r) + v^\prime (r,t)$ and $n(r,t) = n_0(r) + n^\prime (r,t)$, with the primed quantities representing time-dependent perturbations. Next, following an Eulerian perturbation treatment, adopted from the field of astrophysical accretion [@pso80], we define a new variable, $f=nvr^2$, whose steady value, $f_0$, is a constant, governed by the condition, $$\label{effnot}
n_0 v_0 r^2 = f_0.$$ This fact can be verified easily from the stationary form of Eq. (\[contrad\]), from which we can, therefore, extract $$\label{npert}
\frac{\partial n^\prime}{\partial t}=
-\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial f^\prime}{\partial r}.$$ From the definition of $f$ itself, we further derive, $$\label{fpert}
\frac{f^\prime}{f_0} = \frac{n^\prime}{n_0} +
\frac{v^\prime}{v_0}
+ \frac{n^\prime}{n_0}\frac{v^\prime}{v_0},$$ in which we have maintained all admissible orders of nonlinearity.
Now, making use of Eq. (\[npert\]) in Eq. (\[fpert\]), we get $$\label{vpert}
\frac{\partial v^\prime}{\partial t}=
\frac{v}{f}\frac{\partial f^\prime}{\partial t}
+ \frac{v^2}{f}\frac{\partial f^\prime}{\partial r}.$$ It is worth stressing here that Eq. (\[vpert\]), which is fully nonlinear, and Eq. (\[npert\]), together give a closed set of conditions by which we can represent $n^\prime$ and $v^\prime$ exclusively in terms of $f^\prime$. We now need an independent condition, on which we can apply Eqs. (\[npert\]) and (\[vpert\]), and just such a condition is afforded by Eq. (\[momrad\]). We take the second-order time derivative of Eq. (\[momrad\]), and then on it we apply the results implied by Eqs. (\[npert\]) and (\[vpert\]), as well as the second-order time derivative of Eq. (\[vpert\]). Consequently we obtain
$$\label{perteq}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\left(h^{tt}\frac{\partial f^\prime}{\partial t}\right) +
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}
\left(h^{tr}\frac{\partial f^\prime}{\partial r}\right) +
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left(h^{rt}\frac{\partial f^\prime}{\partial t}\right) +
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left(h^{rr}\frac{\partial f^\prime}{\partial r}\right) =
\zeta \frac{\partial}{\partial r}\left\{\frac{1}{r^2}
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left[r^2\frac{\partial}{\partial r}
\left(\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial f^\prime}{\partial r}\right)
\right]\right\},$$
in which $$\label{aitch}
h^{tt}=\frac{v}{f},\,\,\,h^{tr}=h^{rt}=\frac{v^2}{f},\,\,\,
h^{rr}=\frac{v}{f}\left(v^2 - a^2\right),$$ with $$\label{acous}
a^2= 3 c_{\mathrm s}^2 \frac{n}{n_{\mathrm e}}
\left(\frac{n}{n_{\mathrm e}}-\frac{2}{3}\right).$$ This last expression further suggests that there shall be no acoustic propagation in the fluid if $n \leq 2n_{\mathrm e}/3$. This limit on the steady value of the particle density defines a low point, below which the flow loses the character of a fluid continuum, with an acoustic propagation no longer possible. The factor of $2/3$ is simply due to the choice of the equation of state in Eq. (\[momrad\]).
It is particularly interesting to study Eq. (\[perteq\]) in the limit of $\zeta=0$, i.e. when there is no non-local baryon-vector meson interaction. In this special case, not only do we get proper background stationary solutions out of Eqs. (\[momrad\]) and (\[contrad\]), but also, going by the symmetry of Eq. (\[perteq\]), we can recast it in a compact form as $$\label{compact}
\partial_\mu \left(h^{\mu \nu}\partial_\nu
f^\prime \right) =0,$$ with the Greek indices running from $0$ to $1$, under the equivalence that $0$ stands for $t$ and $1$ stands for $r$. We see that Eq. (\[compact\]), or equivalently, Eq. (\[perteq\]), is a nonlinear equation containing arbitrary orders of nonlinearity in the perturbative expansion. If, however, we work with a linearized equation, then $h^{\mu \nu}$, containing only the zeroth-order terms, can be read from the matrix, $$\label{matrix}
h^{\mu \nu }=\frac{v_0}{f_0}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 \hfill & v_0 \\
v_0 & v_0^2 - a_0^2 \hfill
\end{pmatrix},$$ in which, $a_0 \equiv a_0(r)$, is the steady value of $a$. A significant implication of the foregoing matrix is that under steady conditions, an acoustic disturbance in the fluid propagates with the speed, $a_0$, and its value is determined when $n=n_0$ in Eq. (\[acous\]).
Now, in Lorentzian geometry the d’Alembertian of a scalar field in curved space is obtained from the metric, $g_{\mu \nu}$, as $$\label{alem}
\Delta \varphi \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{-g}}
\partial_\mu \left({\sqrt{-g}}\, g^{\mu \nu}
\partial_\nu \varphi \right),$$ where $g^{\mu \nu}$ is the inverse of the matrix, $g_{\mu \nu}$ [@vis98; @blv11]. We look for an equivalence between $h^{\mu \nu }$ and $\sqrt{-g}\, g^{\mu \nu}$ by comparing Eqs. (\[compact\]) and (\[alem\]) with each other, and we see that Eq. (\[compact\]) gives an expression of $f^{\prime}$ that is of the type given by Eq. (\[alem\]). In the linear order, the metrical part of Eq. (\[compact\]), as Eq. (\[matrix\]) shows it, may then be extracted, and its inverse will indicate the existence of an acoustic horizon, when $v_0^2 = a_0^2$. In the case of a radially outflowing nuclear fluid, this horizon is due to an acoustic white hole. The radius of the horizon is the critical radius, $r_{\mathrm c}$, that cannot be breached by any acoustic disturbance (carrying any kind of information) propagating against the bulk outflow, after having originated in the subcritical region, where $v_0^2 < a_0^2$ and $r > r_{\mathrm c}$. Effectively, then, we can say that the flow of information across the acoustic horizon is uni-directional.
However, this discussion is valid only as far as the linear ordering goes. When nonlinearity is to be accounted for, then instead of Eq. (\[matrix\]), it is Eq. (\[aitch\]) that defines the elements, $h^{\mu \nu}$, depending on the order of nonlinearity that one wishes to retain (in principle one could go up to any arbitrary order). The first serious consequence of including nonlinearity is that the static description of $h^{\mu \nu}$, as stated in Eq. (\[matrix\]), will not suffice any longer. This view is in conformity with a numerical study [@macmal08], in which, for the case of spherically symmetric astrophysical accretion, it was shown that if the perturbations were to become strong, then acoustic horizons would suffer a radial shift about their previous static position, and the analogy between an acoustic horizon and the event horizon of a black hole (or a white hole) would appear limited. We have presented an analytical perspective of this argument in Appendix \[app1\].
The stationary background solutions {#sec4}
===================================
Carrying forward the understanding that with $\zeta =0$, an acoustic horizon may be expected when $v_0^2 =a_0^2$, we now look for the stationary profile of the dispersion-free flow. To this end, apart from the steady continuity condition, as given by Eq. (\[effnot\]), we also need the Bernoulli equation, obtained from the stationary limit of Eq. (\[momrad\]). This gives $$\label{bernou}
\frac{v_0^2}{2} + \frac{c_{\mathrm s}^2}{2n_{\mathrm e}^2}
\left(3n_0^2 - 4n_{\mathrm e}n_0\right) = E,$$ with $E$ being the Bernoulli constant. It is expedient to work with dimensionless variables, under the scaling prescription, $x=n_0/n_{\mathrm e}$, $y=v_0/c_{\mathrm s}$, $u=a_0/c_{\mathrm s}$ and $R=r/\sqrt{f_0(c_{\mathrm s}n_{\mathrm e})^{-1}}$. In that case, Eqs. (\[effnot\]) and (\[bernou\]) can, respectively, be recast as $$\label{scalef0}
xyR^2 =1$$ and $$\label{scalebern}
y^2 + 3x^2 - 4x = B,$$ where, $B = 2E/c_{\mathrm s}^2$, is the scaled Bernoulli constant. The two foregoing equations provide a one-parameter family of solutions, upon either retaining $y$ and eliminating $x$, or vice versa. We choose the former approach, because the condition of the acoustic horizon, which we already know to be $v_0^2 = a_0^2$, is better understood in terms of the velocity of the flow. So making use of the stationary function of $a_0^2$, as given by Eq. (\[acous\]), which we scale as $u^2 = x(3x-2)$, we obtain $$\label{scalehor}
y_{\mathrm c}^2 = u_{\mathrm c}^2 =
x_{\mathrm c}\left(3x_{\mathrm c}-2\right),$$ where we have used the subscript “$\mathrm c$" to label all values at the horizon. The radius of the horizon, in the scaled set of variables, is given by the condition $R_{\mathrm c}^2=(x_{\mathrm c}y_{\mathrm c})^{-1}$. With the help of Eq. (\[scalehor\]), we can, therefore, write, $$\label{critrad}
R_{\mathrm c}^4=
\frac{1}{x_{\mathrm c}^3 \left(3x_{\mathrm c}-2\right)}.$$ Our next task would be to show that $R_{\mathrm c}$ has a fixed value. This can only happen when $x_{\mathrm c}$ has a fixed value, a condition that can be obtained by combining Eqs. (\[scalebern\]) and (\[scalehor\]), to yield $$\label{xquad}
x_{\mathrm c}^2-x_{\mathrm c}-\left(B/6\right) = 0.$$ With $x_{\mathrm c}$ having been fixed thus, $R_{\mathrm c}$ also becomes a fixed quantity. Keeping only the physically meaningful positive root of the discriminant of Eq. (\[xquad\]), we get $x_{\mathrm c}=[1+\sqrt{1+(2B/3)}]/2$. We note that at the horizon, $x_{\mathrm c}>1$, i.e. $n_0 >n_{\mathrm e}$.
Now we would like to find the stationary velocity profile, $y \equiv y(R)$, which we obtain from Eqs. (\[scalef0\]) and (\[scalebern\]) as $$\label{velprof}
y^4 - By^2 - \frac{4y}{R^2} + \frac{3}{R^4} =0.$$ What we have got is the equation of a quartic polynomial, a mathematical condition that would have remained qualitatively unaltered if we had chosen the density profile, $x(R)$, for our study. Before we solve for $y(R)$, it would be instructive to look at the first derivative of $y$. This is given by $$\label{yderi1}
\frac{{\mathrm d}y}{{\mathrm d}R} =
\frac{2\left(3-2yR^2\right)}{R^3\left(2y^3R^2 -ByR^2 -2\right)}.$$ The turning point in the velocity profile occurs when the numerator in the right hand side of the first derivative vanishes. Making use of Eq. (\[scalef0\]), we find that the turning point corresponds to $x =2/3$, which, we recall to be the limiting value of $x$, below which the flow loses its continuum character. The singular point in the flow, when the denominator in the right hand side of the derivative vanishes, offers a more interesting insight. In this case, going by Eqs. (\[scalef0\]) and (\[scalebern\]), we actually arrive at the condition, $x^2-x-(B/6)=0$, which is precisely the condition that prevails at the horizon, as given by Eq. (\[xquad\]). The simple conclusion to draw here is that the velocity profile becomes singular at the horizon. Further, taking the reciprocal of Eq. (\[yderi1\]) at the singular point, we get ${\mathrm d}R/{\mathrm d}y=0$, which means that the horizon is also the minimum radial position that flow solutions may reach. No solution is admitted within the horizon.
Now, to know what the stationary velocity profile looks like, we first have to view Eq. (\[velprof\]) in the standard form of a quartic equation, $y^4 + 2A_3y^3 + A_2y^2 + 2A_1y +A_0 =0$, noting the equivalence, $A_3 =0$, $A_2 =-B$, $A_1 =-2/R^2$ and $A_0=3/R^4$. Evidently, Eq. (\[velprof\]) will yield four roots. These roots can be found analytically by using Ferrari’s method of solving quartic equations. In order to do so, a term going like $(\Upsilon_1 y +\Upsilon_2)^2$ is to be added to both sides of Eq. (\[velprof\]), and then the resulting left hand side is required to be a perfect square in the form $(y^2 +\kappa)^2$, so that the full equation will be rendered as $(y^2 +\kappa)^2=(\Upsilon_1 y +\Upsilon_2)^2$. This will deliver three conditions going as $\kappa^2 =A_0 +\Upsilon_2^2$, $\Upsilon_1 \Upsilon_2 = -A_1$ and $2\kappa =A_2 +\Upsilon_1^2$. Eliminating $\Upsilon_1$ and $\Upsilon_2$ from these three conditions, will deliver an auxiliary cubic equation in $\kappa$ going as $2\kappa^3 -A_2\kappa^2 -2A_0\kappa +(A_2A_0 -A_1^2)=0$, which, under the transformation, $\kappa = \Psi +(A_2/6)$, can be reduced to the canonical form of the cubic equation, $\Psi^3 +P\Psi +Q=0$, with $P= -(A_2^2/12) - A_0$ and $Q= -(A_2^3/108) + (A_2A_0/3)-(A_1^2/2)$. Analytical solutions of the roots of the cubic equation in $\Psi$ can be obtained by the application of the Cardano-Tartaglia-del Ferro method of solving cubic equations. This will lead to the solution $$\label{cardan}
\Psi = \left(-\frac{Q}{2} + \sqrt{\mathcal D} \right)^{1/3}
+ \left(-\frac{Q}{2} - \sqrt{\mathcal D} \right)^{1/3},$$ with the discriminant, $\mathcal D$, having been defined by ${\mathcal D}=(Q^2/4)+(P^3/27)$. The sign of $\mathcal D$ is crucial here. If ${\mathcal D} >0$, then there will be only one real root of $\Psi$, given directly by Eq. (\[cardan\]). On the other hand, if ${\mathcal D} <0$, then there will be three real roots of $\Psi$, all of which, under a new definition, $\vartheta =\arccos [-Q/\sqrt{-4(P/3)^3}]$, can be expressed in a slightly modified form as $$\label{gamtheta}
\Psi_j = 2 \sqrt{\frac{-P}{3}} \cos \left[\frac{\vartheta + 2 \pi
\left(j -1 \right)}{3} \right],$$ with the label, $j$, taking the values, $j=1,2,3$, for the three distinct roots. Of these three roots, the one corresponding to $j=1$ continues smoothly over to the root given by Eq. (\[cardan\]). So this root, $\Psi_1$, is the one of our choice. Once $\Psi$ is known thus, it is a simple task thereafter to find $\kappa$, $\Upsilon_1$ and $\Upsilon_2$, all of which depend on $R$ and $B$. With this having been accomplished, all the four roots of $y$ in Eq. (\[velprof\]) can be obtained by solving the two distinct quadratic equations, $y^2 +\kappa = \pm (\Upsilon_1 y + \Upsilon_2)$. Since we are concerned with a physical outflow with positive values of the velocity profile, we choose the upper sign, and in consequence, the two roots we get are $$\label{velsol}
y = \frac{1}{2}\left[\Upsilon_1 \pm
\sqrt{\Upsilon_1^2 -4\left(\kappa -\Upsilon_2\right)}\right].$$ As soon as $y$ is obtained for a value of $R$, we can get $x(R)$ from Eq. (\[scalef0\]). Thereafter, $u(R)$ also becomes known.
![\[f1\]](sbbrf1.eps)
The overall behaviour of the stationary background flow is best comprehended from Fig. \[f1\], in which, both $y(R)$ and $u(R)$ have been plotted. Either function has got two branches, corresponding to the two signs of the discriminant in Eq. (\[velsol\]). That there are two solutions of $y$ for every value of $R$, is actually a consequence of the invariance of Eqs. (\[scalef0\]) and (\[scalebern\]) under the transformation, $y \longrightarrow -y$. A similar symmetry exists in the mathematical problem of stationary accretion/wind [@arc99]. Both the branches of $y$ and $u$ meet at $y=u \simeq 1.5$, where the flow becomes singular, and where the discriminant of Eq. (\[velsol\]) vanishes. The radial coordinate of this point is the minimum radius of the flow, and also, as we are already aware, the radius of the acoustic horizon. This effectively means that the flow starts from the acoustic horizon itself, with no physical flow (solution of $y$) being able to penetrate the horizon. While this may seem like a surprising result, precedence of it exists in the two-dimensional ideal shallow-water flow [@bdp93]. To understand this condition mathematically, we need to realize that in Eq. (\[scalebern\]), there is no strong attractor term, dependent on the radial coordinate, that will enable the flow to originate as deep as possible. In contrast, in stationary astrophysical accretion, gravity furnishes just such a term and makes the flow attain as small values of the radial coordinate as would be feasible under a given inner boundary condition [@bon52; @pso80; @rb02]. One can also test that when gravity is “switched off" in the momentum balance equation of the stationary accretion/wind problem, then the global flow features become qualitatively similar to what has been shown in Fig. \[f1\], with velocity solutions of either the accretion branch or the wind branch surviving only outside the acoustic horizon. Apropos of our present problem on nuclear fluid flows, we conjecture that nuclear forces, which are strongly attractive on small length scales, could be a candidate mechanism for a stationary flow solution to physically breach the acoustic horizon.
Travelling waves and dispersion {#sec5}
===============================
So far our discussion has been restricted to the case of $\zeta =0$. However, if the coupling term governing the non-local baryon-vector meson interaction is revived even to a very small extent, i.e. when weak dispersion is accounted for in Eq. (\[perteq\]), then the symmetric structure implicit in Eq. (\[compact\]) will be disrupted. Consequently, the precise condition of an acoustic horizon will be lost. We note that this disruptive effect is analogous to that caused by viscosity (dissipation) in the flow for the case of the hydraulic jump [@sbr05; @rb07], or that due to the coupling of the flow with the geometry of spacetime in general relativistic spherical accretion [@ncbr07]. Nevertheless, the most important feature to emerge from the analogy of a white hole horizon shall remain qualitatively unchanged, namely, an acoustic disturbance propagating upstream from the sub-critical flow region, where $v_0^2 < a_0^2$, encounters an insurmountable obstacle when $v_0^2 = a_0^2$.
We take up Eq. (\[perteq\]) in its linearized limit, which means that all $h^{\mu \nu}$ are to be read from Eq. (\[matrix\]). However, now we also account for dispersion in Eq. (\[perteq\]), with $\zeta \neq 0$. We then treat the perturbation as a high-frequency travelling wave, whose wavelength, $\lambda$, is much less than the natural length scale in the fluid system, $r_{\mathrm c}$, the radius of the acoustic horizon, i.e. $\lambda \ll r_{\mathrm c}$. Usually linear perturbations do not destabilize the stationary background, especially when there are no source-like terms in the right hand side of Eq. (\[perteq\]). However, the merest presence of such terms gives rise to varying physical behaviour of the linear perturbation. For instance, in the case of the shallow-water circular hydraulic jump, a viscosity-dependent source term causes a large divergence in the amplitude of the perturbation in the vicinity of the horizon [@rb07]. In contrast, the curvature of spacetime in general relativistic spherical accretion has a strongly stabilizing effect on the perturbation [@ncbr07]. Along these lines, we now ask how the stationary background flow is affected by the dispersive source-like term in the right hand side of Eq. (\[perteq\]). The background flow of interest for us is represented by the lower branch of the stationary velocity function in Fig. \[f1\]. Hydrodynamic features are globally preserved along this branch, starting from the horizon to arbitrarily large outer radii of the flow. Under these specifications, we use a solution of $f^\prime$, in which we separate spatial and temporal dependence by $$\label{effsep}
f^\prime \left(r,t \right)
= \exp \left[i s\left(r\right)-i\omega t\right],$$ with the understanding that $\omega$ is much greater than any characteristic frequency of the system. Applying the foregoing solution to Eq. (\[perteq\]), and on multiplying the resulting expression throughout by $(f_0/f^\prime )v_0^{-1}$, we arrive at
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{sepsol}
& &-\omega^2 + 2 v_0 \omega \frac{{\mathrm d}s}{{\mathrm d}r}
+ \left(v_0^2 - a_0^2 \right)
\left[i\frac{{\mathrm d}^2 s}{{\mathrm d}r^2}
- \left(\frac{{\mathrm d}s}{{\mathrm d}r}\right)^2 \right]
- 2i\omega \frac{{\mathrm d}v_0}{{\mathrm d}r}
+ \frac{i}{v_0}
\frac{{\mathrm d}}{{\mathrm d}r}
\left[ v_0 \left(v_0^2 - a_0^2\right) \right]
\frac{{\mathrm d}s}{{\mathrm d}r} \nonumber \\
& &=\zeta n_0 \Bigg{\{}\left[i\frac{{\mathrm d}^4s}{{{\mathrm d}r^4}}
- 4 \frac{{\mathrm d}s}{{\mathrm d}r}
\frac{{\mathrm d}^3 s}{{\mathrm d}r^3}
-6i\left(\frac{{\mathrm d}s}{{\mathrm d}r}\right)^2
\frac{{\mathrm d}^2s}{{{\mathrm d}r^2}} -3
\left(\frac{{\mathrm d}^2s}{{{\mathrm d}r^2}}\right)^2
+ \left(\frac{{\mathrm d}s}{{{\mathrm d}r}}\right)^4\right] \nonumber \\
& & \qquad -\frac{4}{r}\left[i\frac{{\mathrm d}^3s}{{{\mathrm d}r^3}}
-3\frac{{\mathrm d}s}{{{\mathrm d}r}}
\frac{{\mathrm d}^2s}{{{\mathrm d}r^2}}
-i\left(\frac{{\mathrm d}s}{{{\mathrm d}r}}\right)^3 \right]
+\frac{8}{r^2}\left[i\frac{{\mathrm d}^2s}{{{\mathrm d}r^2}}
- \left(\frac{{\mathrm d}s}{{{\mathrm d}r}}\right)^2\right]
-i\frac{8}{r^3}\frac{{\mathrm d}s}{{{\mathrm d}r}}
\Bigg{\}}.\end{aligned}$$
It is clear from Eqs. (\[effsep\]) and (\[sepsol\]) that $s$ should have both real and imaginary components. Therefore, we write $s(r)=\alpha (r)+i\beta (r)$, and viewing this solution along with Eq. (\[effsep\]), we can see that while $\alpha$ contributes to the phase of the perturbation, $\beta$ contributes to its amplitude.
Our approach to obtaining solutions of both $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is by the [*WKB*]{} analysis of Eq. (\[sepsol\]) for high-frequency travelling waves. However, a look at Eq. (\[sepsol\]) also reveals that the highest orders in it are quartic. The saving grace is that all orders higher than the second order, are dependent on $\zeta$, whose involvement has been designed in our analysis to be very feeble anyway. We exploit this fact by first setting $\zeta =0$ in the right hand side of Eq. (\[sepsol\]), and then we solve the second-order differential equation implied by the $\zeta$-independent left hand side of this equation. To stress this special case, we also modify our solution as, $s_0(r)= \alpha_0 (r)+i\beta_0 (r)$. Using this in Eq. (\[sepsol\]), in which now $\zeta =0$, we first separate the real and the imaginary parts, which are then individually set equal to zero. The [*WKB*]{} prescription stipulates that $\alpha_0 \gg \beta_0$. Going by this requirement, we, therefore, collect only the real terms which do not contain $\beta_0$, and solve a resulting quadratic equation in ${\mathrm d}\alpha_0/{\mathrm d}r$ to obtain $$\label{alphanot}
\alpha_0 = \int \frac{\omega}{{v_0 \mp a_0}}\,{\mathrm d}r.$$ Likewise, from the imaginary part, in which we need to use the solution of $\alpha_0$, we obtain $$\label{betanot}
\beta_0 = \frac{1}{2} \ln \left( v_0 a_0 \right) + C,$$ with $C$ being a constant of integration.
It should be pertinent now to perform a self-consistency check on $\alpha_0$ and $\beta_0$, according to the condition of the [*WKB*]{} analysis that $\alpha_0 \gg \beta_0$. First, we note that with regard to the frequency, $\omega$, of the high-frequency travelling waves, $\alpha_0$ (containing $\omega$) is of a leading order over $\beta_0$ (containing $\omega^0$). Next, on very large scales of length, i.e. $r \longrightarrow \infty$, the background velocity goes asymptotically as $v_0 \longrightarrow 0$, and the corresponding speed of acoustic propagation, $a_0$, approaches a constant asymptotic value. In that case $\alpha_0 \sim \omega r$, from Eq. (\[alphanot\]). Moreover, on similar scales of length, going by Eqs. (\[effnot\]) and (\[betanot\]), we see that $\beta_0 \sim \ln r$. Further, near the acoustic horizon, where $v_0 \simeq a_0$, for the wave that goes against the bulk flow with the speed, $v_0 - a_0$, we obtain large values of $\alpha_0$. All of these facts taken together, we see that our solution scheme is very much in conformity with the [*WKB*]{} prescription.
Thus far we have worked with $\zeta =0$ (absence of dispersion). To know how dispersion affects the travelling wave, we now need to find a solution of $s$ from Eq. (\[sepsol\]), with $\zeta \neq 0$. To this end we adopt an iterative approach, with an imposition of the condition that $\zeta$ has a very small value. To put this in a properly quantified perspective, we first find a scale of $\zeta$. A simple dimensional analysis enables us to set this scale as $\zeta_{\mathrm s}=c_{\mathrm s}^2 r_{\mathrm c}^2/n_{\mathrm e}$. We then write $\zeta = \eta \zeta_{\mathrm s}$, where $\eta$ is a dimensionless parameter that tunes the numerical value of $\zeta$. In observance of the condition of our iterative method, we require that $\eta \ll 1$.
Our next step is to take up Eq. (\[sepsol\]) in its full form (with $\zeta \neq 0$ now), and propose a solution for it as $s=s_0 + \delta s_1$, with $\delta$ being another dimensionless parameter like $\eta$, obeying the same requirement, i.e. $\delta \ll 1$. Therefore, in the right hand side of Eq. (\[sepsol\]) all terms which carry the product, $\eta \delta$, can be safely neglected as being very small. This, in keeping with the principle of our iterative treatment, will effectively mean that all the surviving dispersion-related terms in the right hand side of Eq. (\[sepsol\]) will go as $\eta s_0$. Further, by the [*WKB*]{} analysis, we have also assured ourselves that $\alpha_0 \gg \beta_0$. So we can afford to ignore all the $\beta_0$-dependent terms as well, in the right hand side of Eq. (\[sepsol\]), when we compare them with all the terms containing $\alpha_0$. And finally, the most dominant $\alpha_0$-dependent real term to stand out in the right hand side of Eq. (\[sepsol\]) is of the fourth-degree, $({\mathrm d}\alpha_0/{\mathrm d}r)^4$. Preserving only this term in the right hand side of Eq. (\[sepsol\]) and extracting only the $\beta$-independent real terms from the left hand side, we are left with a simple quadratic equation,
$$\label{alphaiter}
\left(v_0^2 -a_0^2 \right)
\left(\frac{{{\mathrm d}\alpha}}{{{\mathrm d}r}}\right)^2
- 2 v_0 \omega
\frac{{{\mathrm d}\alpha}}{{{\mathrm d}r}}
+ \left[\omega^2 + \eta \zeta_{\mathrm s} n_0
\left(\frac{{{\mathrm d}\alpha_0}}{{{\mathrm d}r}}\right)^4
\right] =0,$$
to solve for $\alpha$. Under the provision of $\eta \ll (\lambda/r_{\mathrm c})^2$, which is well in accordance with our requirement that $\eta$ may be arbitrarily small, we obtain a solution of $\alpha$, going as $$\label{alphacor}
\alpha \simeq \alpha_0 \mp \frac{1}{2} \eta \zeta_{\mathrm s}
\omega^3 \int \frac{n_0}{{a_0 \left(v_0 \mp a_0\right)^4}}\,
{\mathrm d}r.$$
Similarly, to solve for $\beta$, we extract all the imaginary terms from the left hand side of Eq. (\[sepsol\]), and noting that the most dominant contribution to the imaginary terms in the right hand side comes from the cubic-order terms involving $\alpha_0$, we are required to solve the equation,
$$\label{betaiter}
2 \left[v_0 \omega -\left(v_0^2 -a_0^2\right)
\frac{{\mathrm d}\alpha}{{\mathrm d}r}\right]
\frac{{\mathrm d}\beta}{{\mathrm d}r} -2\omega
\frac{{\mathrm d}v_0}{{\mathrm d}r} + \frac{1}{v_0}
\frac{\mathrm d}{{\mathrm d}r}
\left[v_0 \left(v_0^2 -a_0^2\right)
\frac{{\mathrm d}\alpha}{{\mathrm d}r} \right]
= 4 \eta \zeta_{\mathrm s}\frac{n_0}{r}
\left(\frac{{\mathrm d}\alpha_0}{{\mathrm d}r}\right)^3
\left\{1-\frac{3}{2}
\frac{{\mathrm d} \left[\ln \left({\mathrm d}\alpha_0/
{\mathrm d}r\right) \right]}
{{\mathrm d}\left(\ln r\right)}
\right\},$$
from which, on using Eq. (\[alphacor\]), once again under the condition that $\eta \ll (\lambda/r_{\mathrm c})^2$, we obtain $$\label{betacor} \beta \simeq \beta_0 - \eta \zeta_{\mathrm s}
\omega^2 {\mathcal H}\left(r\right),$$ with $\mathcal H$ to be expressed fully as
$$\label{hdisper}
{\mathcal H}\left(r\right) = \frac{1}{4}\frac{n_0}{a_0^2}
\left[\frac{v_0^2 -a_0^2}{\left(v_0 \mp a_0\right)^4}\right]
\mp 2 \int
\frac{n_0}{ra_0 \left(v_0 \mp a_0\right)^3}
\left\{1+\frac{3}{2}
\frac{{\mathrm d} \left[\ln \left(v_0 \mp a_0\right)\right]}
{{\mathrm d}\left(\ln r\right)}
\right\}\, {\mathrm d}r.$$
The significant aspects of both Eqs. (\[alphacor\]) and (\[betacor\]) are that in the former, the correction to the zero-dispersion condition is of the order of $\omega^3$ (an odd order contributing to the phase), and in the latter a similar correction is of the order of $\omega^2$ (an even order contributing to the amplitude). Now, noting that $\alpha_0$ is of the order of $\omega$ and $\beta_0$ is of the order of $\omega^0$, the corrections to the zero-dispersion terms in both Eqs. (\[alphacor\]) and (\[betacor\]) appear, in the high-frequency regime, to be dominant over their respective zeroth orders. This, however, is not really the case, as we shall argue. We have obtained the results given by Eqs. (\[alphacor\]) and (\[betacor\]) under the restriction that $\eta \ll (\lambda/r_{\mathrm c})^2$. Once we view the wavelength, $\lambda$, as $\lambda (r) = 2 \pi (v_0
\mp a_0)/\omega$, we immediately see that the combination of $\eta \omega^2$ in Eqs. (\[alphacor\]) and (\[betacor\]), reduces both the correction terms on $\alpha_0$ and $\beta_0$ to be sub-leading to their respective zero-order terms. While this appears to be true over most of the spatial range of the flow, an exception is to be made in the close neighbourhood of the acoustic horizon, where $v_0=a_0$. In this region, looking at Eq. (\[betacor\]) in particular, we see that the correction on $\beta_0$ diverges, while $\beta_0$ itself remains finite. Hereafter, we are interested primarily in the correction on $\beta_0$.
Going back to Eq. (\[effsep\]), we are able to write, $f^\prime (r,t) = e^{-\beta}
\exp (i\alpha -i\omega t)$, from which, by extracting the amplitude part only, and also making use of Eqs. (\[betanot\]) and (\[betacor\]), we get $$\label{ampli}
\vert f^\prime \left(r,t\right) \vert
\simeq \frac{\tilde{C}}{\sqrt{v_0 a_0}}
\exp \left[\eta \zeta_{\mathrm s} \omega^2 {\mathcal H}\left(r\right)
\right],$$ where $\tilde{C}$ is a constant. The influence of dispersion on the amplitude can be seen from Eq. (\[hdisper\]), which, for a wave moving upstream against the bulk outward flow, indicates a divergence at the acoustic horizon, where $v_0 = a_0$. However, a careful examination shows that if the wave moves towards the acoustic horizon from the sub-critical region, where $v_0 < a_0$, then the divergence in $\mathcal{H}$ carries a negative sign. Raised to an exponent, as indicated by Eq. (\[ampli\]), this will mean that the amplitude of the wave will decay to zero at the acoustic horizon, which behaves like an impervious wall to any signal approaching it from the sub-critical region. The energy flux of the perturbation also behaves in a manner similar to its amplitude, as we have shown in Appendix \[app2\]. Contrary to the wave travelling inwards, the solution of the perturbation travelling outwards with the bulk flow, must originate at or just outside the horizon itself, since no steady background solutions are admitted within the horizon. So, taking all these facts together, we say that the passage of information at the horizon is uni-directional, and the horizon may be viewed analogously as a white hole. This point of view is, however, different from the analogue of the Hawking radiation in the problem of an acoustic metric, in which, without the kind of dispersive correction that we have used here, an acoustic signal is allowed to cross the acoustic horizon with a finite and non-zero (but spatially decreasing) amplitude [@wgu81; @tkd04; @rob12]. At the horizon of a general relativistic black hole, a similar feature is seen on carrying out a [*WKB*]{}-type analysis of incoming and outgoing probability amplitudes [@pm07]. In contrast, in our study, not only does the amplitude of the perturbation drop sharply to zero at the horizon, making the horizon fully opaque to acoustic signals, but also physical flow solutions meet a dead end at an infinitely rigid horizon surface. Going by the former observation, our system is more akin to a classical black hole without any analogue of the Hawking radiation.
In passing we also examine the possibilities presented by viscosity, although it has a very feeble presence in the type of nuclear fluid that we are studying. Nevertheless, if we had included viscous effects in our study, then the right hand side of Eq. (\[mombal\]) would have contained terms like $\eta^\star \nabla^2 {\mathbf v}$ and $[(\eta^\star/3)+\zeta^\star] \boldsymbol \nabla (\boldsymbol \nabla
\cdot {\mathbf v})$, where $\eta^\star$ and $\zeta^\star$ are the first and second coefficients of viscosity, respectively [@ll87]. For the case of a compressible, irrotational and spherically symmetric flow, the differential operators in the two viscosity terms assume identical forms, bearing only the radial variation of the velocity field, $v(r,t)$ [@ray03]. Taking the time derivative of these terms, and then making use of Eq. (\[vpert\]) in the context of our perturbation scheme, will involve viscosity in the field equation of $f^\prime (r,t)$, with the stationary coefficients of the viscosity terms containing second-order spatial derivatives of $v_0(r)$. Noting that near the horizon, ${\mathrm d}v_0/{\mathrm d}r$ approaches very high values, the viscosity-dependent terms, making dominant contributions to the perturbation, shall emerge with ${\mathrm d}^2 v_0/{\mathrm d}r^2$ and $({\mathrm d}v_0/{\mathrm d}r)^2$. This will be similar to the dispersion-related term in the right hand side of Eq. (\[betaiter\]), and so we can say that viscosity will enter the amplitude of the perturbation at the same order as dispersion.
Concluding Remarks {#sec6}
==================
In this work we have studied nuclear fluids from a hydrodynamic perspective, with baryon-vector meson interactions bringing dispersion as a novelty to the standard hydrodynamics. Not accounting for dispersion, the hydrodynamic flow yields an analogue metric, in the likeness of what is seen for a scalar field in curved spacetime. Extending this point of view, we have found a critical horizon in the flow of a nuclear fluid, a feature that is reminiscent of a white hole. So, for a nuclear fluid flowing radially outwards, the horizon will be an opaque barrier to a wave propagating radially inwards through the fluid. This effect becomes particularly pronounced, when dispersion forces the amplitude of an acoustic signal to suffer a much stronger decay than what the simple hydrodynamics might admit, and this is in stark contrast to the Hawking radiation in an analogue black hole, where the horizon is not entirely opaque to an outgoing signal originating within the horizon.
With dispersion incorporated, however, the symmetric form of an analogue metric is lost. This is similar to the way in which the coupling of the flow and the geometry of Schwarzschild spacetime adversely affects the clear-cut horizon condition obtained otherwise in the Newtonian construct of space and time [@ncbr07]. Qualitatively speaking, the same behaviour is also exhibited by viscous dissipation [@rb07]. The influence of dispersive effects on the amplitude of high-frequency travelling waves can also be compared to the way viscous dissipation can act under similar circumstances. In the low-dimensional problem of the shallow-water hydraulic jump, viscosity is known to enhance the amplitude of a high-frequency travelling wave, as it moves against a radially outward bulk flow and approaches the acoustic horizon of an analogue white hole from the sub-critical flow region [@rb07]. This is completely contrary to the way in which dispersion decays the amplitude of a wave that arrives at the acoustic horizon from the sub-critical region. One way or the other, we realize now that dissipation [@rb07], the geometry of curved spacetime [@ncbr07], nonlinearity [@macmal08] and dispersion, all appear to disturb the symmetric structure of an acoustic metric.
An integral aspect of hydrodynamics is the equation of state, by which the pressure term in the momentum balance condition is closed. Depending on the nature of physical problems, the equation of state is prescribed variously. For instance, in astrophysical fluids, the standard formula is polytropic [@bon52], while in the shallow-water hydraulic jump, a linear equation of state is applied [@bdp93]. The equation of state that we have used, specialized for our study of a nuclear fluid flow [@fona06], is given by a composite function, bearing a linear term and a second-order term of the baryonic density. Hydrodynamic features hold true when the latter term is effective, and break down under the dominance of the linear term. This is an unusual physical aspect designed into this problem only, and is not to be seen when the equation of state is set by a single power-law term, as is usually the case. In a more general sense, however, as long as the equation of state, regardless of its particular form, provides a condition for an acoustic propagation, the mathematical procedure leading to an analogue metric and an acoustic horizon remains universal.
AB gratefully acknowledges partial financial support in the form of the Max-Planck Partner Group at the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, Calcutta, India, funded jointly by the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Germany) and the Department of Science and Technology (India) through the Partner Group programme (2009). Comments from an anonymous referee have helped in improving this work.
Nonlinearity and the acoustic horizon {#app1}
=====================================
At the end of Section \[sec3\] we indicated that the acoustic horizon would get displaced under nonlinear effects. We can now verify this contention analytically by confining our mathematical treatment to the second order of nonlinearity. All of the nonlinearity in Eq. (\[compact\]) is contained in the metric elements, $h^{\mu \nu}$, involving the exact field variables, $v$, $a$ and $f$, as opposed to containing only their stationary background counterparts [@vis98; @su02]. This is indeed going into the realm of nonlinearity, because $v$ and $a$ depend on $f$, while $f$ is related to $f^\prime$ as $f=f_0+f^\prime$.
If we restrict ourselves to the second order of nonlinearity, we see that $h^{\mu \nu}$ in Eq. (\[aitch\]) will bear primed quantities in their first power only. Taken together with Eq. (\[perteq\]), this will, in effect, preserve all the terms which are nonlinear in the second order. So we carry out the necessary expansion of $v=v_0+v^\prime$, $n = n_0 +n^\prime$ and $f=f_0+f^\prime$ in Eq. (\[aitch\]) up to the first order only. The next process to perform is to substitute both $n^\prime$ and $v^\prime$ with $f^\prime$. To make this substitution possible, first we make use of Eq. (\[fpert\]) to represent $v^\prime$ in terms of $n^\prime$ and $f^\prime$. While doing so, the product term of $n^\prime$ and $v^\prime$ in Eq. (\[fpert\]) is to be ignored, because including it will bring in the third order of nonlinearity. Once $v^\prime$ has been substituted in this manner, we have to write $n^\prime$ in terms of $f^\prime$. This can be done by invoking the linear relationship suggested by Eq. (\[npert\]), with the reasoning that if $n^\prime$ and $f^\prime$ are both separable functions of space and time, with the time part being exponential (all of which are standard mathematical prescriptions in perturbative analysis), then $$\label{nflin}
\frac{n^\prime}{n_0} = \sigma \left(r \right)
\frac{f^\prime}{f_0},$$ with $\sigma$ being a function of $r$ only. We shall self-consistently support this mathematical argument in Appendix \[app2\]. The exact functional form of $\sigma$ will be determined by the way the spatial part of $f^\prime$ is set up, but when $n^\prime$, $v^\prime$ and $f^\prime$ are all real fluctuations, $\sigma$ should likewise be real.
Following all of these tedious but straightforward algebraic details, the non-stationary features of the elements, $h^{\mu \nu}$, in Eq. (\[compact\]), can finally be expressed entirely in terms of $f^\prime$ as
$$\label{aitch2}
h^{tt} \simeq \frac{v_0}{f_0} \left(1 +\epsilon \xi^{tt}
\frac{f^\prime}{f_0}\right),\,\,\,
h^{tr} \simeq \frac{v_0^2}{f_0} \left(1 +\epsilon \xi^{tr}
\frac{f^\prime}{f_0}\right),\,\,\,
h^{rt} \simeq \frac{v_0^2}{f_0} \left(1 +\epsilon \xi^{rt}
\frac{f^\prime}{f_0}\right),\,\,\,
h^{rr} \simeq \frac{v_0}{f_0} \left(v_0^2-a_0^2\right)+\epsilon
\frac{v_0^3}{f_0} \xi^{rr} \frac{f^\prime}{f_0},$$
in all of which, $\epsilon$ has been introduced as a nonlinear “switch" parameter to keep track of all the nonlinear terms. When $\epsilon =0$, only linearity remains. In this limit we return to the familiar linear result implied by Eq. (\[matrix\]). In the opposite extreme, when $\epsilon =1$, in addition to the linear effects, the second order of nonlinearity becomes activated in Eq. (\[compact\]), and the stationary position of an acoustic horizon gets disturbed due to the nonlinear $\epsilon$-dependent terms. A look at $h^{rr}$ in Eq. (\[aitch2\]) makes this fact evident. We also note that Eq. (\[aitch2\]) contains the factors, $\xi^{\mu \nu}$, which are to be read as
$$\label{zyees}
\xi^{tt}= -\sigma,\,\,\,
\xi^{tr}=\xi^{rt}=1-2\sigma,\,\,\,
\xi^{rr}= 2 - 3 \sigma \left[1+
\left(\frac{n_0}{n_{\mathrm e}}\right)^2
\left(\frac{c_{\mathrm s}}{v_0}\right)^2\right],$$
and all of which are just stationary quantities.
Energy flux of the travelling wave {#app2}
==================================
What we have seen as regards the amplitude of the travelling wave in Section \[sec5\], can also be seen in the energy flux associated with the travelling perturbation. We note first that the kinetic energy per unit volume of the flow is $$\label{ekin}
{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathrm{kin}}=
\frac{1}{2} M \left(n_0 + n^\prime \right)
\left(v_0 + v^\prime \right)^2,$$ and the internal energy per unit volume is $$\label{eint}
{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathrm{int}}=
M \left[n_0 \varepsilon + n^\prime \frac{\partial}{\partial n_0}
\left(n_0 \varepsilon \right) + \frac{{n^\prime}^2}{2}
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial n_0^2}\left(n_0 \varepsilon \right)\right],$$ where $\varepsilon$ is the internal energy per unit mass [@ll87]. In both of the foregoing expressions of energy, the zeroth-order terms refer to the background flow, and the first-order terms can be made to disappear upon performing a time averaging. Thereafter, the time-averaged total energy in the perturbation, per unit volume of fluid, is to be obtained by summing the second-order terms in ${\mathcal{E}}_{\mathrm{kin}}$ and ${\mathcal{E}}_{\mathrm{int}}$. All of these terms will go either as ${n^\prime}^2$ or ${v^\prime}^2$, or a product of $n^\prime$ and $v^\prime$. Our next task would be to represent both $n^\prime$ and $v^\prime$ in terms of $f^\prime$, and then use Eq. (\[ampli\]) to substitute $f^\prime$. For this purpose, making use of Eqs. (\[npert\]), (\[effsep\]) and (\[alphanot\]), we get $$\label{eneff}
\frac{n^\prime}{n_0} \simeq \frac{v_0}{v_0 \mp a_0}
\frac{f^\prime}{f_0}.$$ We can see now that this result is precisely what Eq. (\[nflin\]) implies. Going further, we make use of Eq. (\[eneff\]) in Eq. (\[fpert\]), ignoring the product of $n^\prime$ and $v^\prime$ in the latter, to obtain $$\label{veff}
\frac{v^\prime}{v_0} \simeq \mp \frac{a_0}{v_0 \mp a_0}
\frac{f^\prime}{f_0}.$$ Once we have two relations explicitly connecting $n^\prime$ and $v^\prime$ with $f^\prime$, as implied by Eqs. (\[eneff\]) and (\[veff\]), we can derive the time-averaged total energy per unit volume as $$\label{etot}
{\mathcal{E}}_{\mathrm{tot}} =
\frac{M n_0 v_0^2 a_0^2}{2\left(v_0 \mp a_0\right)^2}
\left[1 \mp 2 \frac{v_0}{a_0}
+ \frac{n_0}{a_0^2}
\frac{\partial^2 \left(n_0 \varepsilon\right)}{\partial n_0^2}
\right] \frac{\langle {f^\prime}^2 \rangle}{f_0^2}.$$ The energy flux, $\mathcal F$, associated with the spherical wavefront, travelling with the speed, $(v_0 \mp a_0)$, is ${\mathcal F} = 4 \pi r^2 {\mathcal E}_{\mathrm{tot}}
(v_0 \mp a_0)$. Accounting for a factor of $1/2$ due to the time-averaging of the phase part of ${f^\prime}^2$, the flux can be written as
$$\label{flux}
{\mathcal F} = \frac{2 \pi {\tilde C}^2 M}{f_0}
\left\{ \mp 1 - \frac{a_0}{2\left(v_0 \mp a_0\right)}
\left[1 - \frac{n_0}{a_0^2}
\frac{\partial^2 \left(n_0 \varepsilon\right)}{\partial n_0^2}
\right] \right\}
\exp \left[2 \eta \zeta_{\mathrm s}\omega^2
{\mathcal H}\left(r\right) \right].$$
We realize immediately that near the acoustic horizon, the dispersion-dependent exponential factor in Eq. (\[flux\]) will have very much the same effect on the energy flux of the perturbation, as it has on its amplitude, $\vert f^\prime \vert$, given by Eq. (\[ampli\]).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'G. Eigen,'
- 'and G. R. Lee'
title: Light Yield and Uniformity Measurements of Different Scintillator Tiles with Silicon Photomultipliers
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
We present herein light yield measurements of scintillator tiles read out by silicon photomultipliers (SiPM)[^1] in the context with hadron calorimeter work for experiments at the ILC [@adloff] and at hadron colliders [@fcc], These include uniformity measurements of hexagonal tiles with different SiPMs and different photodetector couplings as well as ATLAS Tile Calorimeter (TileCal) tiles. The idea of looking at the performance of hexagonal scintillator tiles arose by the SiD plans to use hexagonal silicon pads in the electromagnetic calorimeter instead of square pads because the manufacturer obtains higher pad yields from a silicon wafer [@sid]. Using similar geometry cells in both the EM and hadron calorimeters improves the reconstruction of showers that start in the EM calorimeter and extend into the hadron calorimeter. Since a hexagon is a better approximation to a circle than a square we typically need to sum up less tiles in the shower reconstruction yielding a better signal-to-noise ratio. This also improves the separability of two close-by showers. The study of the ATLAS TileCal tiles with SiPM readout is of interest for a possible upgrade of the TileCal in phase 3 and for hadron calorimeters at future hadron colliders.
-0.1cm ![Left: Schematic view of the measurement setup. Right: Photograph of an ATLAS tile on the measurement table. []{data-label="fig:setup"}](setup.pdf "fig:"){width="95mm"} ![Left: Schematic view of the measurement setup. Right: Photograph of an ATLAS tile on the measurement table. []{data-label="fig:setup"}](setup2.pdf "fig:"){width="55mm"}
Test of hexagonal and square scintillator tiles with three different readout schemes {#sec:tile}
====================================================================================
Figure \[fig:setup\] (left) shows a schematic view of the measurement setup. We perform all measurements inside a black box determining the light yield from the minimum-ionizing (MIP) peak of electrons from a $\rm ^{90}Sr$ source [@eigen]. The tile under test is placed on a table with holes into which the $\rm ^{90}Sr$ source is inserted. The tile is read out with an MPPC, which is connected to a charge-sensitive preamplifier. Above the tile we place a second small trigger counter. Whenever the trigger fires we record a waveform of the tile under test with a 12-bit digital oscilloscope. In each run we record 50 000 waveforms from which photoelectron spectra are extracted offline. Figure \[fig:setup\] (right) shows a photograph of an ATLAS tile on the measurement table.
-0.1cm ![Gain (arbitrary units) versus bias voltage for the S14160-1310 (left) and S14160-1315 (right). []{data-label="fig:gain"}](S14160-1310_volt_scan.pdf "fig:"){width="60mm"} ![Gain (arbitrary units) versus bias voltage for the S14160-1310 (left) and S14160-1315 (right). []{data-label="fig:gain"}](S14160-1315_volt_scan.pdf "fig:"){width="60mm"}
-0.1cm ![Top left: Uniformity measurement of a hexagonal tile read out with a wavelength-shifting fiber. Top right: Source positions (red dots) and fiber position (green line). Bottom left: Relative light yield in the $x$ direction. Bottom right: Relative light yield in the $y$ direction. []{data-label="fig:T1"}](hex-fib-unif.pdf "fig:"){width="107mm"}
We have tested 3 mm thick hexagonal and square tiles that have an area of $\rm 9~cm^2$. The scintillator material is BC404 from St. Gobain, which has an attenuation length of 140 cm and a wavelength of maximum emission at 408 nm. We use three different schemes to read out the tile: i) via a green Y11 wavelength-shifting fiber from Kuraray that is inserted into a groove in the tile with one fiber end attached to the MPPC and the other covered by a mirror; ii) placing the MPPC above a dimple in the center of the tile top face; iii) placing the MPPC on a tile side. Top and bottom faces of the tiles are covered with two layers of Tyvec paper, while all sides are wrapped with two layers of Teflon tape. A 1 mm readout hole is punched into the wrapping. Outside the hole we placed a $3 \times 3 ~\rm mm^2$ MPPC (S13360-3025) or one of the new fourth-generation MPPCs (model S14160) that have $10~\rm \mu m$ or $15~\rm \mu m$ pixels. Figure \[fig:gain\] shows the gain versus reverse bias voltage dependence for the $1.3 \times 1.3~\rm mm^2$ MPPCs. The gain is linear over a range of 40-50 V.
-0.1cm ![Top left: Uniformity measurement of a hexagonal tile read out with SiPM at the top face center (black square). Top right: Source positions (red dots). Bottom left: Relative light yield in the $x$ direction. Bottom right: Relative light yield in the $y$ direction. []{data-label="fig:T2"}](hex-center-unif.pdf "fig:"){width="100mm"}
Figures \[fig:T1\], \[fig:T2\] and \[fig:T3\] respectively show our relative light yield measurements of hexagonal tiles read out with a fiber, with an MPPC placed on the center of the tile top face and an MPPC placed on the tile side. We have normalized the light yields to the value measured at the center position of the tile. For the fiber readout the measurements are rather uniform except for positions near the fiber end at the MPPC (right-hand side), where the light yield is a factor of 1.2 higher than that at the tile center. For the readout at the tile center and the tile side we observe a rather uniform response except for positions near the MPPC where light yields increased by factors of 1.2 and 1.48, respectively. We obtain similar results fro the uniformity measurements of the square tiles. To improve uniformity near the MPPC we will redo the measurements with a small MPPC encompassed in a sufficiently large dimple. Table \[tab:ly\] summarizes light yield measurements at the tile center, relative light yields across tiles and range of uniformity for hexagonal and square tiles for the three different readout schemes. The low light yield of the square tile with readout at the tile top face center may be due to imperfect wrapping. To reduce the light yield spread across the tile we will redo the measurements with tiles wrapped in 3M reflector foil.
-0.1cm ![ Top left: Uniformity measurement of a hexagonal tile read out with SiPM at the tile side (black square). Top right: Source positions (red dots). Bottom left: Relative light yield in the $x$ direction. Bottom right: Relative light yield in the $y$ direction. []{data-label="fig:T3"}](hex-side-unif.pdf "fig:"){width="100mm"}
--------- ------------- -------------------- -------------- ------------- -------------------- -------------
readout light yield rel. light yield uniformity light yield rel. light yield uniformity
hexagonal hexagonal hexagonal square square square
fiber 14.9 pe $(102.2\pm1.0)\% $ $\pm 5\%$ 19.4 pe $(85.4\pm 1.9)\% $ $\pm 10\%$
center 11.8 pe $(85.9 \pm 2.2)\%$ $\pm 12\%$ 4.0 pe $(77.4\pm 3.9)\%$ $ \pm 9\% $
side 9.5 pe $(93.9\pm 1.8)\%$ $ \pm 7.5\%$ 7.9 pe $ (86.8\pm 3.2)\%$ $\pm 13\%$
--------- ------------- -------------------- -------------- ------------- -------------------- -------------
: \[tab:ly\] Light yield of the center tile and average relative light yield of hexagonal tiles and square tiles for three different readout schemes, via wavelength-shifting fiber, with MPPC on the tile side and with MPPC at the center of the top face. The uniformity range is defined such that 90% of the measurements fall inside. Note that we always exclude the measurement near the MPPC.
Readout of ATLAS tiles with MPPCs
=================================
The ATLAS TileCal is a sandwich of scintillating tiles read out by wavelength-shifting fibers and PMTs and steel absorber plates [@atlas]. Figure \[fig:tilecal\] left shows a schematic view of a calorimeter module. ATLAS uses three tile sizes, $12 \times 26~\rm cm^2$, $14.5 \times 30~\rm cm^2$ and $18.5 \times 35~\rm cm^2$. The tiles are slightly tapered and are read out via two Y11 wavelength-shifting fiber that are placed along the two tapered tile sides. As shown in Fig. \[fig:tilecal\] (top right) the fibers are collected into a bundle that is pushed into a cylinder that in turn is coupled to a photomultiplier tube via an air gap. Some of the tiles have holes through which a $^{137}\rm Cs$ source is shot for calibrating the tiles. To measure the uniformity of the tiles, we built a table with a grid of holes into which a $\rm ^{90}Sr$ source can be placed. Using only one fiber that was coupled to an MPPC, we measured the light yield of each tile at 15 positions (5 in $x$ direction that is perpendicular to the fiber and for 3 in $y$ direction that is parallel to the fiber) and normalized it to that at the center position.
-0.1cm ![Left: Schematic layout of the ATLAS TileCal module. Top right: Fibers bundled to couple to a photomultiplier. Bottom right: Fiber collection for the photomultiplier and path for the source calibration. []{data-label="fig:tilecal"}](atlas-tilecal.pdf "fig:"){width="115mm"}
After subtracting the pedestal, we fit the photoelectron spectra with Landau distributions to determine the MIP position. Figure \[fig:tilecal-unif\] (top) shows a two-dimensional distribution of the relative light yield for a small-size ATLAS tile. Figures \[fig:tilecal-unif\] (bottom) show the projections in the direction perpendicular ($x$ projection) and parallel ($y$ direction) to the fiber, respectively. We observe a slight increase in light yield in the $x$-direction, which is seen for all other tiles as well. Uniformity is at a level of 15%. The MIP peak lies around 3-4 photoelectrons, which is sufficiently large to read out all TileCal tiles with MPPC arrays, ensuring a large dynamic range. For tiles with calibration holes, the relative light yield near a hole is reduced to $\sim 40\%$.
-0.1cm ![Top: Uniformity measurement of a small ATLAS tile in the $x-y$ direction. The fiber is located on the right-hand side. Bottom: Uniformity measurement of a small ATLAS tile in the $x$ projection (left) and $y$ projection (right). []{data-label="fig:tilecal-unif"}](s3_PV.pdf "fig:"){width="90mm"} ![Top: Uniformity measurement of a small ATLAS tile in the $x-y$ direction. The fiber is located on the right-hand side. Bottom: Uniformity measurement of a small ATLAS tile in the $x$ projection (left) and $y$ projection (right). []{data-label="fig:tilecal-unif"}](s3_sigmaX.pdf "fig:"){width="70mm"} ![Top: Uniformity measurement of a small ATLAS tile in the $x-y$ direction. The fiber is located on the right-hand side. Bottom: Uniformity measurement of a small ATLAS tile in the $x$ projection (left) and $y$ projection (right). []{data-label="fig:tilecal-unif"}](s3_sigmaY.pdf "fig:"){width="70mm"}
Conclusions and outlook
=======================
The performance of hexagonal tiles looks very promising. We will continue with these studies using enlarged dimples, different wrappings and readout with the fourth-generation MPPCs. Furthermore, we need to measure more properties of the fourth-generation MPPCs including afterpulsing and dark current as a function of the bias voltage, the temperature dependence of the gain and the dependence of impinging photons to fired pixels (non-linearity). We have shown that ATLAS TileCal tiles can be read out with MPPCs. We will look at the readout with two fibers before reading out a fiber bundle with an MPPC array.
This work was supported by the Norwegian Research Council. We would like to thank Hamamatsu for supplying fourth-generation MPPCs.
[99]{} C. Adloff $et~al.$, *Construction and Commissioning of the CALICE Analog Hadron Calorimeter Prototype*, *JINST* [**5**]{}, P04003 (2010). FCC webpage, http://cern.ch/fcc. T. Behnke $et~al.$, *The International Linear Collider Technical Design Report- Volume 4: Detectors*, arxiv:1306.6329 (2013). G. Eigen $et~al.$, *Gain Stabilization of SiPMs with an Adaptive Power Supply*, *JINST* [**14**]{}, P05006 (2019). G. Aad $et~al.$ (ATLAS Collaboration, *The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider*, *JINST* [**3**]{}, S08003 (2008).
[^1]: SiPMs are called Multi-Pixel photon Counters (MPPCs) by Hamamatsu
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider the motion of a rigid body immersed in a two-dimensional irrotational perfect incompressible fluid. The fluid is governed by the Euler equation, while the trajectory of the solid is given by Newton’s equation, the force term corresponding to the fluid pressure on the body’s boundary only. The system is assumed to be confined in a bounded domain with an impermeable condition on a part of the external boundary. The issue considered here is the following: is there an appropriate boundary condition on the remaining part of the external boundary (allowing some fluid going in and out the domain) such that the immersed rigid body is driven from some given initial position and velocity to some final position (in the same connected component of the set of possible positions as the initial position) and velocity in a given positive time, without touching the external boundary ? In this paper we provide a positive answer to this question thanks to an impulsive control strategy. To that purpose we make use of a reformulation of the solid equation into an ODE of geodesic form, with some force terms due to the circulation around the body (as in [@GMS]) and some extra terms here due to the external boundary control.'
author:
- 'Olivier Glass[^1], József J. Kolumbán [^2], Franck Sueur[^3]'
title: 'External boundary control of the motion of a rigid body immersed in a perfect two-dimensional fluid'
---
Introduction and main result {#INTRO}
============================
The model without control {#INTRO-WC}
-------------------------
A simple model of fluid-solid evolution is that of a single rigid body surrounded by a perfect incompressible fluid. Let us describe this system. We consider a two-dimensional bounded, open, smooth and simply connected[^4] domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^{2}$. The domain $\Omega$ is composed of two disjoint parts: the open part ${\mathcal F}(t)$ filled with fluid and the closed part ${\mathcal S}(t)$ representing the solid. These parts depend on time $t$. Furthermore, we assume that ${\mathcal S}(t)$ is also smooth and simply connected. On the fluid part ${\mathcal F}(t)$, the velocity field ${u}:\left\{(t,x):\ t\in[0,T],\ x\in\overline{\mathcal{F}(t)} \right\}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^2$ and the pressure field ${\pi}:\left\{(t,x):\ t\in[0,T],\ x\in\overline{\mathcal{F}(t)} \right\} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfy the incompressible Euler equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eu}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial u}{\partial t}+(u\cdot\nabla)u + \nabla \pi =0 \ \text{ and } \ {\operatorname{div\,}}u = 0
\ \text{ for } \ t\in[0,T] \text{ and } x \in \mathcal{F}(t) .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ We consider impermeability boundary conditions, namely, on the solid boundary, the normal velocity coincides with the solid normal velocity $$\label{bc1}
u \cdot n = u_{S}\cdot n\ \text{on}\ \partial \mathcal{S}(t),$$ where $u_{S}$ denotes the solid velocity described below, while on the outer part of the boundary we have $$\label{bc2}
u \cdot n =0\ \text{on}\ \partial \Omega,$$ where ${n}$ is the unit outward normal vector on $\partial\mathcal{F}(t)$. The solid ${\mathcal S}(t)$ is obtained by a rigid movement from ${\mathcal S}(0)$, and one can describe its position by the center of mass, ${h}(t)$, and the angle variable with respect to the initial position, ${\vartheta}(t)$. Consequently, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{S}(t)=h(t)+R(\vartheta(t)) (\mathcal{S}_0-h_0),\end{aligned}$$ where $h_0$ is the center of mass at initial time, and $${R}(\vartheta)= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
\cos \vartheta & -\sin \vartheta\\
\sin \vartheta & \cos \vartheta\end{array} \right) .$$ Moreover the solid velocity is hence given by $$\begin{aligned}
u_S (t,x)={h}'(t)+\vartheta'(t) (x-h(t))^{\perp},\end{aligned}$$ where for $x=(x_1,x_2)$ we denote $x^\perp = (-x_2,x_1).$
The solid evolves according to Newton’s law, and is influenced by the fluid’s pressure on the boundary: $$\label{newt}
m h'' (t) = \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (t)} \pi \, n \, \, d\sigma \ \text{ and } \
\mathcal{J} \vartheta'' (t) = \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (t)} \pi \, (x- h (t) )^\perp \cdot n \, d \sigma.$$ Here the constants $m>0$ and $\mathcal{J}>0$ denote respectively the mass and the moment of inertia of the body, where the fluid is supposed to be homogeneous of density 1, without loss of generality. Furthermore, the circulation around the body is constant in time, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kelv}
\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(t)} u(t) \cdot \tau \, d\sigma = \int_{\partial\mathcal{S}_0} u_0 \cdot \tau \, d\sigma = \gamma \in \mathbb{R},\ \forall t\geq 0,\end{aligned}$$ due to Kelvin’s theorem, where ${\tau}$ denotes the unit counterclockwise tangent vector.
The Cauchy problem for this system with initial data $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ic}
\begin{split}
u|_{t=0}=u_{0}\text{ for } x\in\mathcal{F}(0),\\
h(0)=h_{0},\ h'(0)=h'_0,\ \vartheta(0)=0,\ \vartheta'(0)=\vartheta'_0,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ is now well-understood, see e.g. [@GLS-Mass; @GS-Uniq; @ht; @ort1; @ort2]. Furthermore, the 3D case has also been studied in [@GST; @ros]. Note in passing that it is our convention used throughout the paper that $\vartheta(0)=0$.
In this paper, we will furthermore assume that the fluid is irrotational at the initial time, that is $\text{curl } u_0 = 0$ in $\mathcal{F}(0)$, which implies that it stays irrotational at all times, due to Helmholtz’s third theorem, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{helm}
\text{curl } u = 0\text{ for } x\in\mathcal{F}(t),\ \forall t\geq 0.\end{aligned}$$
The control problem and the main result {#INTRO-C}
---------------------------------------
We are now in position to state our main result.
Our goal is to investigate the possibility of controlling the solid by means of a boundary control acting on the fluid. Consider $\Sigma$ a nonempty, open part of the outer boundary $\partial \Omega$. Suppose that one can choose some non-homogeneous boundary conditions on $\Sigma$. One natural possibility is due to Yudovich (see [@Yud]), which consists in prescribing on the one hand the normal velocity on $\Sigma$, i.e. choosing some function ${g}\in C_{0}^{\infty}([0,T]\times\Sigma)$ with $\int_\Sigma g = 0$ and imposing that $$\label{yud1}
u(t,x)\cdot n(x)=g(t,x)\ \text{on}\ [0,T]\times\Sigma,$$ while on the rest of the boundary we have the usual impermeability condition $$\label{yud3}
u \cdot n =0\ \text{on}\ [0,T] \times (\partial \Omega \setminus \Sigma),$$ and on the other hand the vorticity on the set $\Sigma^-$ of points of $[0,T] \times \Sigma$ where the velocity field points inside $\Omega$. Note that $\Sigma^-$ is deduced immediately from $g$.
Since we are interested in the vorticity-free case, we will actually consider here a null control in vorticity, that is $$\label{yud2}
{\operatorname{curl}}u(t,x)=0\ \text{on}\ \Sigma^{-} =\{(t,x)\in [0,T]\times\Sigma \ \text{ such that } \ u(t,x)\cdot n(x)<0\}.$$ Condition enforces the validity of as in the uncontrolled setting despite the fact that some fluid is entering the domain.
The general question of this paper is how to control the solid’s movement by using the above boundary control (that is, the function $g$). In particular we raise the question of driving the solid from a given position and a given velocity to some other prescribed position and velocity. Remark that we cannot expect to control the fluid velocity in the situation described above: for instance, Kelvin’s theorem gives an invariant of the dynamics, regardless of the control.
Throughout this paper we will only consider solid trajectories which stay away from the boundary. Therefore we introduce $$\mathcal{Q}=\{ q := (h,\vartheta)\in\Omega\times\mathbb{R}:\ d(h+R(\vartheta)(\mathcal{S}_0-h_0),\partial\Omega)>0\}.$$ Furthermore, let us from here on set $$\mathcal{D}_T:=\left\{(t,x):\ t\in[0,T],\ x\in\overline{\mathcal{F}(t)} \right\},$$ where we have omitted from the notation the dependence on $\mathcal{F}(\cdot)$, and therefore on the unknown $(h,\vartheta)(\cdot)$.
The main result of this paper is the following statement.
\[main\] Let $T>0$. Consider $\mathcal{S}_0\subset\Omega$ bounded, closed, simply connected with smooth boundary, which is not a disk, and $u_{0}\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\mathcal{F}(0)};\mathbb{R}^{2})$, $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$, $q_0=(h_{0},0), q_1 =(h_{1},\vartheta_1) \in \mathcal{Q}$, $h'_0,h'_1\in\mathbb{R}^2,\vartheta'_0,\vartheta'_1\in\mathbb{R}$, such that $(h_0,0)$ and $(h_1,\vartheta_1)$ belong to the same connected component of $\mathcal{Q}$ and $$\begin{gathered}
{\operatorname{div\,}}u_0={\operatorname{curl}}u_0=0 \text{ in }\mathcal{F}(0), \
u_0 \cdot n =0 \text{ on } \partial \Omega, \\
u_0 \cdot n = (h'_0+\vartheta'_0 (x-h_0)^{\perp}) \cdot n \text{ on } \partial \mathcal{S}_0, \
\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}_0} u_0 \cdot \tau \, d\sigma =\gamma.\end{gathered}$$ Then there exists a control $g\in C_{0}^{\infty}((0,T)\times\Sigma)$ and a solution $(h,\vartheta,u)\in C^{\infty}([0,T];\mathcal{Q})\times C^{\infty}(\mathcal{D}_T;\mathbb{R}^{2})$ to , , , , , , , , which satisfies $(h,h',\vartheta,\vartheta')(T)=(h_1,h'_1,\vartheta_1,\vartheta'_1)$.
\[smallflux\] In Theorem \[main\] the control $g$ can be chosen with an arbitrary small total flux through $\Sigma^{-}$, that is for any $T>0$, for any $\nu > 0$, there exists a control $g$ and a solution $(h,\vartheta,u)$ satisfying the properties of Theorem \[main\] and such that moreover $$\left\vert \int_0^T \int_{\Sigma^{-}} \, u \cdot n \, \, d\sigma dt \right\vert < \nu .$$ See Section \[REM-smallflux\] for more explanations. Let us mention that such a small flux condition cannot be guaranteed in the results [@Coron:EC; @OG-Addendum; @OG:E3] regarding the controllability of the Euler equations.
When $\mathcal{S}_0$ is a disk, the second equation in (\[newt\]) becomes degenerate, so it needs to be treated separately. For instance, in the case of a homogeneous disk, i.e. when the center of mass coincides with the center of the disk and we have $(x-h(t))^\perp \cdot n =0$, for any $x\in \partial\mathcal{S}(t),\ t\geq 0$, hence we cannot control $\vartheta$. However, we have a similar result for controlling the center of mass $h$.
\[dmain\] Let $T>0$. Given a homogeneous disk $\mathcal{S}_0\subset\Omega$, $u_{0}\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\mathcal{F}(0)};\mathbb{R}^{2})$, $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$, $h_{0},h_{1}\in\Omega,\ h'_0,h'_1\in\mathbb{R}^2,$ such that $(h_0,0)$ and $(h_1,0)$ are in the same connected component of $\mathcal{Q}$, and ${\operatorname{div\,}}u_0={\operatorname{curl}}u_0=0\ \text{in}\ \mathcal{F}(0)$, $u_0 \cdot n =0$ on $ \partial \Omega$, $u_0 \cdot n = h'_0\cdot n$ on $ \partial \mathcal{S}_0$, $\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}_0} u_0 \cdot \tau \, d\sigma =\gamma$, there exists $g\in C_{0}^{\infty}((0,T) \times\Sigma)$ and a solution $(h,u)$ in $C^{\infty}([0,T];\Omega)\times C^{\infty}(\mathcal{D}_T;\mathbb{R}^{2})$ of (\[eu\]), (\[bc1\]), (\[newt\]), (\[kelv\]), (\[helm\]), (\[yud1\]), (\[yud3\]), (\[yud2\]) with initial data $(h_0,h'_0,u_0)$, which satisfies $(h,h')(T)=(h_1,h'_1)$.
The proof is similar to that of Theorem \[main\], with the added consideration that $(x-h(t))^\perp \cdot n =0$, for any $x\in \partial\mathcal{S}(t),\ t\geq 0$. We therefore omit the proof. In the case where the disk is non-homogeneous the analysis is technically more intricate already in the uncontrolled setting, see [@GMS], and we will let aside this case in this paper.
[**References.**]{} Let us mention a few results of boundary controllability of a fluid alone, that is without any moving body. The problem is then finding a boundary control which steers the fluid velocity from $u_0$ to some prescribed state $u_1$. For the incompressible Euler equations small-time global exact boundary controllability has been obtained in [@Coron:EC; @OG:E3] in the 2D, respectively 3D case. This result has been recently extended to the case of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation with Navier slip-with-friction boundary conditions in [@CMS], see also [@CMS2] for a gentle exposition. Note that the proof there relies on the previous results for the Euler equations by means of a rapid and strong control which drives the system in a high Reynolds regime. This strategy was initiated in [@Coron:NS], where an interior controllability result was already established. For “viscous fluid + rigid body” control systems (with Dirichlet boundary conditions), local controllability results have already been obtained in both 2D and 3D, see e.g. [@BG; @BO; @IT]. These results rely on Carleman estimates on the linearized equation, and consequently on the parabolic character of the fluid equation.
A different type of fluid-solid control result can be found in [@G-R], where the fluid is governed by the two-dimensional Euler equation. However in this paper the control is located on the solid’s boundary which makes the situation quite different.
Actually, the results of Theorem \[main\] and Theorem \[dmain\] can rather be seen as some extensions to the case of an immersed body of the results [@OGTH; @OGTH2; @OGTH3] concerning Lagrangian controllability of the incompressible Euler and Stokes equations, where the control takes the same form as here.
Generalizations and open problems
---------------------------------
First, as we mentioned before, using the techniques of this paper, the result could be straightforwardly generalized for non simply connected domains. One could also manage in the same way the control of several solids (the reader may in particular see that the argument using Runge’s theorem in Section \[S4\] is local around the solid).
We would also like to underline that the absence of vorticity is not central here. This may surprise the reader acquainted with the Euler equation, but actually following the arguments of Coron [@Coron:EC; @Coron:NS], one knows how to control the full model when one can control the irrotational one. This is by the way the technique that we use to take care of the circulation $\gamma$ (see in particular Section \[RELO\]). But the presence of vorticity makes a lot of complications from the point of view of the initial boundary problem, in particular for what concerns the uniqueness issue, see Yudovich [@Yud]. To avoid these unnecessary technical complications, we restrain ourselves to the irrotational problem. But the full problem could undoubtedly be treated in the same way.
Furthermore, one might ask the question whether or not it is possible to control with a reduced number of controls, i.e. to only look for controls $g$ which take the form of a linear combination of some a priori given controls $\{g_i\}_{i=1,\ldots,I}$, which may depend on the geometry, but not the initial or final data of the control problem. We consider that our methods can be adapted to prove such a result, in particular since in Section \[RELO\] we prove that Theorem \[main\] follows from a simpler result, Theorem \[lmain\], where the solid displacement, the solid velocities and the circulation are small. It then suffices to discretize the control with respect to the parameters $(h_0,h'_0,\vartheta_0,\vartheta'_0)$, $(h_1,h'_1,\vartheta_1,\vartheta'_1)$ and $\gamma$. This does not pose a problem since our control is actually constructed continuously with respect to these parameters, so one may apply a compactness argument. However, the set of controls $\{g_i\}_{i=1,\ldots,I}$ will depend on the parameter $\delta>0$ from Theorem \[lmain\], used to restrict the set of admissible positions $\mathcal{Q}$ to the set $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ defined in . This subtlety is due to the fact that the closure of $\mathcal{Q}$ also contains points where the solid touches the outer boundary, while this is no longer the case with $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ for a given fixed $\delta>0$, and we use this for the compactness argument mentioned above.
There remain also many open problems.
Considering the recent progresses on the controllability in the viscous case, a natural question is whether or not the results in this paper could be adapted to the case where a rigid body is moving in a fluid driven by the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation. In [@NSs] we extend the analysis performed here to prove the small-time global controllability of the motion of a rigid body in a viscous incompressible fluid, driven by the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation, in the case where Navier slip-with-friction boundary conditions are prescribed at the interface between the fluid and the solid. However, the case of Dirichlet boundary conditions remains completely open.
Let us mention the following open problem regarding the motion planning of a rigid body immersed in an inviscid incompressible irrotational flow.
\[motionplanning\] Let $T>0$, $(h_{0},0)$ in $\mathcal{Q}$, $\xi$ in $C^{2}([0,T]; \mathcal{Q})$, with $\xi(0)= (h_0,0)$. Let us decompose $\xi'(0)$ into $\xi'(0)= (h'_0 , \vartheta'_0)$. Consider $\mathcal{S}_0\subset\Omega$ bounded, closed, simply connected with smooth boundary, which is not a disk, $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$, and $u_{0}\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\mathcal{F}(0)};\mathbb{R}^{2})$ such that ${\operatorname{div\,}}u_0={\operatorname{curl}}u_0=0 $ in $\mathcal{F}(0)$, $u_0 \cdot n =0$ on $ \partial \Omega$, $u_0 \cdot n = (h'_0+\vartheta'_0 (x-h_0)^{\perp})\cdot n$ on $\partial \mathcal{S}_0$ and $\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}_0} u_0 \cdot \tau \, d\sigma =\gamma$. Do there exist $g\in C_{0}([0,T]\times\Sigma)$ and a solution $(h,\vartheta,u)\in C^{2}([0,T];\mathcal{Q})\times C^{1}(\mathcal{D}_T;\mathbb{R}^{2})$ to (\[eu\]), (\[bc1\]), (\[newt\]), (\[kelv\]), (\[ic\]), (\[helm\]), (\[yud1\]), (\[yud3\]), which satisfies $ \xi = (h,\vartheta) $?
Even the approximate motion planning in $C^2$, i.e. the same statement as above but with $ \| \xi - (h,\vartheta) \|_{C^{2}([0,T])} \leq {\varepsilon}$ (with $\varepsilon>0$ arbitrary) instead of $\xi = (h,\vartheta)$, is an open problem.
Furthermore, in this paper we have ignored any possible thermodynamic effect in the model, however, it would be a natural question to ask how our results could be generalized to the case when the fluid is heat-conductive.
Plan of the paper and main ideas behind the proof of Theorem \[main\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The paper is organized as follows.
In Section \[NODE\] we first recall from [@GMS] a reformulation of the Newton equations as an ODE in the uncontrolled case and then extend it to the case with control.
To be more precise, denoting $q:=(h,\vartheta)$ and considering a manifold of admissible positions $\mathcal{Q}$ (to be defined later), the authors proved in [@GMS] that there exist a field $\mathcal{M}:\mathcal{Q}\to S^{++}(\mathbb{R}^3)$ of symmetric positive-definite matrices and smooth fields $E,B:\mathcal{Q}\to\mathbb{R}^3$, such that the fluid-solid system is equivalent to the following ODE in $q$: $$\mathcal{M}(q)q''+\langle \Gamma(q),q',q'\rangle=\gamma^2 E(q)+\gamma q' \times B(q),$$ where $\Gamma(q)$ is a bilinear symmetric mapping, given by the so-called Christoffel symbols of the first kind: $$\Gamma^k_{i,j} =\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{\partial (\mathcal{M})_{k,j} }{\partial q_i} + \frac{\partial (\mathcal{M})_{k,i} }{\partial q_j} -\frac{\partial (\mathcal{M})_{i,j} }{\partial q_k} \right) .$$ In particular, the case with zero circulation represents the fact that the particle $q$ is moving along the geodesics associated with the Riemannian metric induced on $\mathcal{Q}$ by the so-called total inertia matrix $\mathcal{M}$.
We extend the above result to the case with control $g\in C_{0}^{\infty}([0,T]\times\Sigma)$, to find that $q$ satisfies the following ODE: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{renform00}
\mathcal{M}(q)q''+\langle \Gamma(q),q',q'\rangle=\gamma^2 E(q)+\gamma q' \times B(q)+ F_1 (q,q', \gamma) [ \alpha] + F_2 (q) [\partial_t\alpha],\end{aligned}$$ where $F_1$ and $F_2$ are regular, respectively $\alpha$ is defined as the unique smooth solution of the Neumann problem $$\begin{aligned}
\label{pot00}
\Delta \alpha =0\ \text{in}\ \mathcal{F}(t) \quad \text{ and } \quad
\partial_{n} \, \alpha=g\mathbbm{1}_{\Sigma}\ \text{on}\ \partial\mathcal{F}(t) ,\end{aligned}$$ with zero mean.
Note that in both cases above, the fluid velocity $u$ can be recovered by solving some simple elliptic PDEs.
In Section \[RELO\] we prove that Theorem \[main\] can be deduced from a simpler result, namely Theorem \[lmain\], where the solid displacement, the initial and final solid velocities and the circulation are assumed to be small.
This is achieved on one hand by using the usual time-rescale properties of the Euler equation in order to pass from arbitrary solid velocities and circulation to small ones. More precisely, if $u(t,\cdot)$ is a solution to the Euler equation on $[0,T]$, then for any $\lambda>0$, $u^\lambda(t,\cdot):=\frac{1}{\lambda}u\left( \frac{t}{\lambda},\cdot\right)$ is a solution to the Euler equation on the time interval $[0,\lambda T]$. The corresponding scaling for the initial and final solid velocities and the circulation associated with $u^\lambda$ becomes $\frac{q'_0}{\lambda}$, $\frac{q'_1}{\lambda}$ and $ \frac{\gamma}{\lambda}$. Hence, if one can find a solution with small initial and final velocities and small circulation on $[0,T]$, one can pass to the arbitrary (or large) case on $[0,\lambda T]$ with $\lambda \in (0,1)$ small enough, thus obtaining the controllability result in smaller time. There are multiple possibilities for using up the remaining time from $\lambda T$ to $T$, and we give one in Section \[RELO\], relying on the time-reversal properties of the Euler equation.
On the other hand, one may use a compact covering argument to pass from the case when $q_0$ and $q_1$ are remote to the case when their distance is small.
In Section \[REAP\] we prove that another reduction is possible, as we prove that an approximate controllability result (rather than an exact one), namely Theorem \[approx\], allows to deduce Theorem \[lmain\].
Indeed, if instead of $(q,q')(T)=(q_1,q'_1)$ one only has $\|(q,q')(T)-(q_1,q'_1)\|\leq \eta$, for $\eta>0$ small enough, then it is possible to pass to exact controllability by using a Brouwer-type topological argument. However, for such a result to be applied, one has to make sure that the map $(q_1,q'_1)\mapsto (q,q')(T)$ is well-defined and continuous for $(q_1,q'_1)$ in some small enough ball, which we will indeed achieve during our construction.
Section \[proof-approx\] is devoted to the proof of Theorem \[approx\] and is the core of the paper. In order to achieve the aforementioned approximate controllability, we rely on the following strategy.
Suppose we have $\gamma=0$ (if this is not the case, one can at least expect to be close in some sense to the case without circulation when $\gamma$ is small enough), and suppose that we can find some appropriate control $g\in C^{\infty}_0 ([0,T]; \mathcal C)$ such that the term $F_1 (q,q', 0) [ \alpha] + F_2 (q) [\partial_t\alpha]$ in behaves approximately like $v_0 \delta_0(t) + v_1 \delta_T(t)$, for any given $v_0,v_1\in\mathbb{R}^3$, where $\delta_0$ and $\delta_T$ denote the Dirac distributions at time $t=0^+$, respectively $t=T^-$.
Then, is going to be close (in an appropriate sense) to the following formal toy model: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{toy00}
\mathcal{M}(\tilde{q}) \tilde{q}''+\langle \Gamma(\tilde{q}),\tilde{q}',\tilde{q}'\rangle = v_0 \delta_0 + v_1 \delta_T,\end{aligned}$$ and controlling (at least approximately) reduces to controlling by using the vectors $v_0,v_1\in\mathbb{R}^3$ as our control. In fact, we consider a control of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ctrl00}
g(t,x)=\beta_0(t)\bar{g}_0(x)+\beta_1(t)\bar{g}_1(x),\end{aligned}$$ where the functions $\beta_0,\beta_1$ are chosen as square roots of sufficiently close smooth approximations of $\delta_0,\delta_T$ (since it turns out that $F_1$ depends quadratically on $\alpha$, and by consequence also on $g$, see ), and with some appropriate functions $\bar{g}_0,\bar{g}_1$.
Let us quickly explain how the controllability of the toy model can be established. Given $q_0,q_1\in\mathcal{Q}$, there exists (at least in the case when $q_0$ and $q_1$ are sufficiently close, hence the arguments of Section \[RELO\]) a geodesic associated with the Riemannian metric induced on $\mathcal{Q}$ by $ \mathcal{M}$, which connects $q_0$ with $q_1$. More precisely, there exists a unique smooth function $\bar{q}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\label{geod00}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{M}(\bar{q})\bar{q}''+\langle\Gamma (\bar{q}),\bar{q}',\bar{q}'\rangle=0 \text{ on } [0,T],
\text{ with } \bar{q}(0)= q_0,\ \bar{q}(T)={q}_1.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ So, one can arrive at the desired final position $q_1$, but a priori the final velocity $\bar{q}'(T)$ differs from $q'_1$, furthermore even the initial velocity $\bar{q}'(0)$ differs from $q'_0$.
Then, controlling the solution $\tilde{q}$ of from $(q_0,q'_0)$ to $(q_1,q'_1)$ just amounts to setting $v_0 :=\mathcal{M}(q_0) (\bar{q}'(0) - q'_0 )$ and $v_1 := - \mathcal{M}(q_1) (\bar{q}'(T) - q'_1 )$, which transforms the initial and final velocities $\tilde{q}'(0)$ and $\tilde{q}'(T)$ exactly to the desired velocities in order to achieve controllability.
In Section \[S3\] we prove a Proposition that is important for Theorem \[approx\], namely that the whole system will behave like the toy model above, in a certain regime (and in particular for small $\gamma$). This relies on some appropriate estimations of the terms $F_1$, $F_2$ and some Gronwall-type arguments.
Section \[S4\] explains how one can construct the control by means of complex analysis: it can be considered as the cornerstone of our control strategy. It is here that we construct the spacial parts $\bar{g}_0,\bar{g}_1$ of our control $g$ from , in function of $v_0, v_1$.
Reformulation of the solid’s equation into an ODE {#NODE}
=================================================
In this section we establish a reformulation of the Newton equations (\[newt\]) as an ODE for the three degrees of freedom of the rigid body with coefficients obtained by solving some elliptic-type problems on a domain depending on the solid position. Indeed the fluid velocity can be recovered from the solid position and velocity by an elliptic-type problem, so that the fluid state may be seen as solving an auxiliary steady problem, where time only appears as a parameter, instead of the evolution equation (\[eu\]). The Newton equations can therefore be rephrased as a second-order differential equation on the solid position whose coefficients are determined by the auxiliary fluid problem.
Such a reformulation in the case without boundary control was already achieved in [@GMS] and we will start by recalling this case in Section \[NODEA\], cf. Proposition \[reformC\] below. A crucial fact in the analysis is that in the ODE reformulation the pre-factor of the body’s accelerations is the sum of the inertia of the solid and of the so-called “added inertia” which is a symmetric positive-semidefinite matrix depending only on the body’s shape and position, and which encodes the amount of incompressible fluid that the rigid body has also to accelerate around itself. Remarkably enough in the case without control and where the circulation is $0$ it turns out that the solid equations can be recast as a geodesic equation associated with the metric given by the total inertia.
Then we will extend this analysis to the case where there is a control on a part of the external boundary in Section \[NODEB\], cf. Theorem \[reform\]. In particular we will establish that the remote influence of the external boundary control translates into two additional force terms in the second-order ODE for the solid position; indeed we will distinguish one force term associated with the control velocity and another one associated with its time derivative.
To simplify notations, we denote the positions and velocities ${q}=(h,\vartheta)$, $q'=(h',\vartheta')$, and $$\mathcal{S}(q)=h+R(\vartheta)(\mathcal{S}_0-h_0) \text{ and }
\mathcal{F} (q)=\Omega\setminus\mathcal{S}(q),$$ since the dependence in time of the domain occupied by the solid comes only from the position $q$. Furthermore, we denote $q(t)=(h(t),\vartheta (t))$.
A reminder of the uncontrolled case {#NODEA}
-----------------------------------
We first recall that in the case without any control the fluid velocity satisfies (\[bc1\]), (\[bc2\]), (\[kelv\]) and (\[helm\]). Therefore at each time $t$ the fluid velocity $u$ satisfies the following div/curl system: $$\label{zozo}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&{\operatorname{div\,}}u = {\operatorname{curl}}u= 0 \ \text{ in } \mathcal{F}(q) ,\\
&u \cdot n =0 \ \text{on}\ \partial \Omega
\ \text{ and } \ u \cdot n = \left( h'+\vartheta' (x-h)^\perp \right)\cdot n\ \text{on}\ \partial \mathcal{S}(q),\\
&\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} u \cdot \tau \, d\sigma =\gamma ,
\end{aligned} \right.$$ where the dependence in time is only due to the one of $q$ and $q'$. Given the solid position $q$ and the right hand sides, the system uniquely determines the fluid velocity $u$ in the space of $C^\infty$ vector fields on the closure of $ \mathcal{F}(q)$. Moreover thanks to the linearity of the system with respect to its right hand sides, its unique solution $u$ can be uniquely decomposed with respect to the following functions which depend only on the solid position $q=(h,\vartheta)$ in $\mathcal{Q}$ and encode the contributions of elementary right hand sides.
- The Kirchhoff potentials $$\label{phi}
\mathbf{\Phi} =(\Phi_1,\Phi_2,\Phi_3)(q,\cdot)$$ are defined as the solution of the Neumann problems $$\begin{aligned}
\label{kir}
\begin{split}
&\Delta\Phi_i(q,x)=0\ \text{in}\ \mathcal{F}(q), \ \ \partial_{n}\Phi_i(q,x)=0\ \text{on}\ \partial\Omega,\text{ for } i\in\{1,2,3\},\\
&\partial_{n}\Phi_i(q,x)=
\left\{ \begin{array}{l}
n_i\ \text{on}\ \partial\mathcal{S}(q),\text{ for }i\in\{1,2\},\\
(x-h)^\perp \cdot n\ \text{on}\ \partial\mathcal{S}(q),\text{ for }i=3,
\end{array} \right.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where all differential operators are with respect to the variable $x$.
- The stream function ${\psi}$ for the circulation term is defined in the following way. First we consider the solution $\tilde{\psi}(q,\cdot)$ of the Dirichlet problem $\Delta\tilde{\psi}(q,x)=0$ in $ \mathcal{F}(q)$, $\tilde{\psi}(q,x)=0$ on $ \partial\Omega$, $\tilde{\psi}(q,x)=1$ on $ \partial\mathcal{S}(q).$ Then we set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{str}
\psi(q,\cdot)=-\left(\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \partial_n \tilde{\psi}(q,x) \, d\sigma \right)^{-1}\tilde{\psi}(q,\cdot),\end{aligned}$$ such that we have $$\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \partial_n \psi(q,x) \, d\sigma = -1,$$ noting that the strong maximum principle gives us $\partial_n \tilde{\psi}(q,x)<0$ on $\partial\mathcal{S}(q)$.
\[RemReg\] The Kirchhoff potentials $\mathbf{\Phi}$ and the stream function ${\psi}$ are $C^\infty$ as functions of $q$ on $\mathcal{Q}$. We will use several times some properties of regularity with respect to the domain of solutions to linear elliptic problems, included for another potential $\mathcal A[q,g]$ associated with the control, see Definition \[defA\] below. We will mention along the proof the properties which will be used and we refer to [@ChambrionMunnier; @hp; @LM] for more on this material which is now standard in fluid-structure interaction.
The following statement is an immediate consequence of the definitions above.
\[ldecomp0\] For any $q=(h,\vartheta)$ in $\mathcal{Q}$, for any $p=(\ell,\omega)$ in $\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R$ and for any $\gamma$, the unique solution $u$ in $C^\infty ( \overline{\mathcal{F}(q)})$ to the following system: $$\label{zozoFormal}
\left\{
\begin{aligned}
&{\operatorname{div\,}}u = {\operatorname{curl}}u= 0 \ \text{ in } \in \mathcal{F}(q) ,\\
&u \cdot n =0 \ \text{on}\ \partial \Omega
\text{ and } u \cdot n = \left( \ell+ \omega (x-h)^\perp \right)\cdot n\ \text{on}\ \partial \mathcal{S}(q),\\
&\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} u \cdot \tau \, d\sigma =\gamma.
\end{aligned} \right.$$ is given by the following formula, for $x$ in $\overline{\mathcal{F}(q)}$, $$\label{praud}
u(x)=\nabla (p \cdot \Phi (q,x))+\gamma \nabla^{\perp}\psi(q,x).$$
Above $p \cdot \Phi (q,x)$ denotes the inner product $p \cdot \Phi (q,x) = \sum_{i=1}^3 \, p_i \Phi_i (q,x)$. Let us now address the solid dynamics. The solid motion is driven by the Newton equations (\[newt\]) where the influence of the fluid on the solid appears through the fluid pressure. The pressure can in turn be related to the fluid velocity thanks to the Euler equations (\[eu\]). The contributions to the solid dynamics of the two terms in the right hand side of the fluid velocity decomposition formula are very different. On the one hand the potential part, i.e. the first term in the right hand side of , contributes as an added inertia matrix, together with a connection term which ensures a geodesic structure (see [@Munnier]), whereas on the other hand the contribution of the term due to the circulation, i.e. the second term in the right hand side of , turns out to be a force which reminds us of the Lorentz force in electromagnetism by its structure (see [@GMS]). We therefore introduce the following notations.
- We respectively define the genuine and added mass $3 \times 3$ matrices by $$\mathcal{M}_{g}= \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
m & 0 & 0\\
0 & m & 0\\
0 & 0 & \mathcal{J}
\end{array} \right) ,$$ and, for $q\in\mathcal{Q}$, $$\mathcal{M}_{a} (q) =\left( \int_{ \mathcal{F} (q)} \nabla\Phi_i (q,x) \cdot \nabla\Phi_j (q,x) \, dx \right)_{1 \leqslant i,j \leqslant 3} .$$ Note that $\mathcal{M}_a$ is a symmetric Gram matrix and is $C^\infty$ on $\mathcal{Q}$.
- We define the symmetric bilinear map $\Gamma (q) $ given by $$\langle \Gamma(q), p,p \rangle=\left( \sum_{1\leq i,j \leq 3} \Gamma^k_{i,j} (q) \, p_i \, p_j \, \right)_{1\leq k \leq 3} \in \mathbb{R}^3,\ \forall p \in \mathbb{R}^3,$$ where, for each $i,j,k\in\{1,2,3\}$, $\Gamma^k_{i,j} $ denotes the Christoffel symbols of the first kind defined on $\mathcal{Q}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{chrs}
\Gamma^k_{i,j} =\frac{1}{2}\left( \frac{\partial (\mathcal{M}_a)_{k,j} }{\partial q_i} + \frac{\partial (\mathcal{M}_a)_{k,i} }{\partial q_j} -\frac{\partial (\mathcal{M}_a)_{i,j} }{\partial q_k} \right) .\end{aligned}$$ It can be checked that $\Gamma$ is of class $C^\infty$ on $\mathcal{Q}$.
- We introduce the following $C^\infty$ vector fields on $\mathcal{Q}$ with values in $\mathbb R^3$ by $$\begin{aligned}
{E} &=-\frac{1}{2}\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)}|\partial_n \psi(q,\cdot)|^2 \partial_n \Phi(q,\cdot) \, d\sigma ,
\\ {B} &=\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \partial_n \psi(q,\cdot) \left( \partial_n \Phi(q,\cdot) \times \partial_\tau \Phi(q,\cdot) \right)\, d\sigma .\end{aligned}$$
We recall that the notation $\Phi$ was given in .
The reformulation of the model as an ODE is given in the following result, which was first established in [@Munnier] in the case $\gamma=0$ and in [@GMS] in the case $\gamma \in {\mathbb R}$.
\[reform\] Given $q=(h,\vartheta) \in C^{\infty}([0,T];\mathcal{Q})$, $u\in C^{\infty}(\mathcal{D}_T;\mathbb{R}^{2})$ we have that $(q,u)$ is a solution to (\[eu\]), (\[bc1\]), (\[bc2\]), (\[newt\]), (\[kelv\]) and (\[helm\]) if and only if $q$ satisfies the following ODE on $[0,T]$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{tout}
\Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q)\Big)q''+\langle \Gamma(q),q',q'\rangle = \gamma^2 E(q) + \gamma q'\times B(q) ,\end{aligned}$$ and $u$ is the unique solution to the system (\[zozo\]). Moreover the total kinetic energy $\frac12 \Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q)\Big) q' \cdot q'$ is conserved in time for smooth solutions of (\[tout\]), at least as long as there is no collision.
Note that in the case where $\gamma=0$, the ODE (\[tout\]) means that the particle $q$ is moving along the geodesics associated with the Riemannian metric induced on $\mathcal{Q}$ by the matrix field $ \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q)$. Note that, since $\mathcal{Q}$ is a manifold with boundary and the metric $ \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q)$ may become singular at the boundary of $\mathcal{Q}$, the Hopf-Rinow theorem does not apply and geodesics may not be global. However we will make use only of local geodesics.
Let us also mention that the whole “inviscid fluid + rigid body” system can be reinterpreted as a geodesic flow on an infinite dimensional manifold, cf. [@GS-Geod]. However the reformulation established by Theorem \[reform\] relies on the finite dimensional manifold $\mathcal{Q}$ and sheds more light on the dynamics of the rigid body.
Below we provide a sketch of the proof of Theorem \[reform\]; this will be useful in Section \[NODEB\] when extending the analysis to the controlled case.
Let us focus on the direct part of the proof for sake of clarity but all the subsequent arguments can be arranged in order to insure the converse part of the statement as well. Using Green’s first identity and the properties of the Kirchhoff functions, the Newton equations (\[newt\]) can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{renew}
\mathcal{M}_g \, q'' =\int_{ \mathcal{F} (q)} \nabla \pi \cdot \nabla \Phi (q,x) \, dx.\end{aligned}$$ Moreover when $u$ is irrotational, Equation (\[eu\]) can be rephrased as $$\label{Bernou}
\nabla \pi = -\partial_{t}u-\frac12 \nabla_{x} |u|^{2} , \quad \text{ for } x \text{ in } \mathcal{F} (q(t)),$$ and Lemma \[ldecomp0\] shows that for any $t$ in $[0,T]$, $$\label{baba}
u(t,\cdot)=\nabla (q'(t) \cdot \Phi (q(t),\cdot))+\gamma \nabla^{\perp}\psi(q(t),\cdot) .$$ Substituting into and then the resulting decomposition of $\nabla \pi$ into we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{devdev}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{M}_g\, q''=
- \int_{ \mathcal{F} (q)} \left( \partial_{t} \nabla (q'\cdot \Phi(q,x)) + \frac{\nabla|\nabla (q'\cdot \Phi(q,x))|^{2}}{2} \right) \cdot \nabla \Phi (q,x) \, dx \\
- \gamma \int_{\mathcal{F} (q)}\left( \partial_{t} \nabla^\perp \psi(q,x) + \nabla\left( \nabla(q'\cdot\Phi (q,x))\cdot \nabla^\perp\psi(q,x)\right) \right)\, \cdot \nabla \Phi (q,x) \, dx\\ -\gamma^2\int_{ \mathcal{F} (q)} \frac{\nabla|\nabla\psi(q,x)|^{2}}{2} \, \cdot \nabla \Phi (q,x) \, dx .
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ According to Lemmas 32, 33 and 34 in [@GMS], the terms in the three lines of the right-hand side above are respectively equal to $-\mathcal{M}_a (q) q''-\langle \Gamma(q),q',q'\rangle$, $ \gamma q'\times B(q)$ and $\gamma^2 E(q)$, so that we easily deduce the ODE (\[tout\]) from .
The conservation of the kinetic energy $\frac12 \Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q)\Big) q' \cdot q'$ is then simply obtained by multiplying the ODE (\[tout\]) by $q'$ and observing that $$\label{identityNRJ}
\Big(\Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q)\Big)q'' +\langle \Gamma(q),q',q'\rangle \Big)\cdot q' =
\Big(\frac12 \Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q)\Big) q' \cdot q' \Big)' .$$
Extension to the controlled case {#NODEB}
--------------------------------
We now tackle the case where a control is imposed on the part $\Sigma$ of the external boundary $\partial \Omega$. At any time this control has to be compatible with the incompressibility of the fluid meaning that the flux through $\Sigma$ has to be zero. We therefore introduce the set $$\mathcal C := \left\{ g \in C_{0}^{\infty}( \Sigma ;\mathbb{R}) \ \text{ such that } \, \int_\Sigma g \, d \sigma=0 \right\} .$$
The decomposition of the fluid velocity $u$ then involves a new potential term involving the following function.
\[defA\] With any $q\in\mathcal{Q}$ and $g \in \mathcal C$ we associate the unique solution $\overline{\alpha} := \mathcal A[q,g] \in C^\infty (\overline{\mathcal{F}(q)};\mathbb{R})$ to the following Neumann problem: $$\label{pot}
\Delta \overline{\alpha} =0\ \text{in}\ \mathcal{F}(q) \quad \text{ and } \quad
\partial_{n} \, \overline{\alpha}=g\mathbbm{1}_{\Sigma}\ \text{on}\ \partial\mathcal{F}(q) ,$$ with zero mean on $\mathcal{F}(q) $.
Let us mention that the zero mean condition above allows to determine a unique solution to the Neumann problem but plays no role in the sequel.
Now Lemma \[ldecomp0\] can be modified as follows.
\[ldecomp0C\] For any $q=(h,\vartheta)$ in $\mathcal{Q}$, for any $p=(\ell,\omega)$ in $\mathbb R^2 \times \mathbb R$, for any $\overline{g}$ in $ \mathcal C$, the unique solution $u$ in $C^\infty ( \overline{\mathcal{F}(q)})$ to $$\begin{aligned}
&{\operatorname{div\,}}u = {\operatorname{curl}}u= 0 \ \text{ in } \mathcal{F}(q) ,\\
&u \cdot n = \mathbbm{1}_\Sigma \, \overline{g}\ \text{on}\ \partial \Omega
\text{ and } u \cdot n = \left(\ell +\omega (x-h)^\perp \right)\cdot n\ \text{on}\ \partial \mathcal{S}(q),\\
&\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} u \cdot \tau \, d\sigma =\gamma , \end{aligned}$$ is given by $$\label{decomp2}
u =\nabla (p \cdot \Phi(q,\cdot))+\gamma \nabla^{\perp}\psi(q,\cdot) + \nabla \mathcal A[q,\overline{g}] .$$
Let us avoid a possible confusion by mentioning that the $\nabla$ operator above has to be considered with respect to the space variable $x$. The function $ \mathcal A[q,\overline{g}]$ and its time derivative will respectively be involved into the arguments of the following force terms.
\[def-forces\] We define, for any $q$ in $\mathcal{Q}$, $p$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$, $\alpha $ in $C^{\infty}(\overline{\mathcal{F}(q)}; \mathbb R)$ and $\gamma$ in $\mathbb R$, $F_1 (q,p, \gamma) [ \alpha] $ and $F_2 (q) [\alpha] $ in $\mathbb R^3$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ef2}
F_1 (q,p, \gamma) [ \alpha] &:= - \frac12 \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q)} |\nabla\alpha|^{2} \, \partial_n \Phi (q,\cdot) \, d \sigma
\\ \nonumber & \quad \quad-\int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q)} \nabla\alpha \cdot \Big(\nabla (p\cdot \Phi(q,\cdot))+\gamma \nabla^{\perp}\psi(q,\cdot)\Big)\, \partial_n \Phi(q,\cdot) \, d \sigma,
\\ F_2 (q) [\alpha] \label{ef3}
&:= - \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q)} \alpha \, \partial_n \Phi (q,\cdot) \, d \sigma .\end{aligned}$$
Observe that Formulas and only require $\alpha $ and $\nabla \alpha $ to be defined on $\partial \mathcal{S} (q)$. Moreover when these formulas are applied to $\alpha = \mathcal A[q,g] $ for some $g $ in $\mathcal C$, then only the trace of $\alpha$ and the tangential derivative $\partial_\tau \alpha$ on $\partial \mathcal{S} (q)$ are involved, since the normal derivative of $\alpha$ vanishes on $\partial \mathcal{S} (q)$ by definition, cf. .
We define our notion of controlled solution of the “fluid+solid” system as follows.
\[CS\] We say that $(q,g)$ in $C^{\infty} ([0,T];\mathcal{Q}) \times C^{\infty}_0 ([0,T]; \mathcal C)$ is a controlled solution if the following ODE holds true on $[0,T]$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{renform}
\begin{split}
\big( \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q) \big) q''+\langle \Gamma(q),q',q'\rangle &= \gamma^2 E(q) + \gamma q'\times B(q)
\\ &\quad + F_1 (q,q', \gamma) [ \alpha] + F_2 (q) [\partial_t\alpha] ,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha(t,\cdot) := \mathcal A[q(t),g(t,\cdot)] $.
We have the following result for reformulating the model as an ODE.
\[reformC\] Given $$q\in C^{\infty}([0,T];\mathcal{Q}) ,\quad u\in C^{\infty}(\mathcal{D}_T;\mathbb{R}^{2}) \quad \text{ and } \quad g\in C^{\infty}_0 ([0,T]; \mathcal C) ,$$ we have that $(q,u)$ is a solution to (\[eu\]), (\[bc1\]), (\[newt\]), (\[kelv\]), (\[ic\]), (\[helm\]), (\[yud1\]), (\[yud3\]), (\[yud2\]) if and only if $(q,g)$ is a controlled solution and $u$ is the unique solution to the unique div/curl type problem: $$\begin{aligned}
&{\operatorname{div\,}}u = {\operatorname{curl}}u= 0 \ \text{ in } \mathcal{F}(q) ,\\
&u \cdot n = \mathbbm{1}_\Sigma \, g\ \text{on}\ \partial \Omega
\text{ and } u \cdot n = \left( h'+\vartheta' (x-h)^\perp \right)\cdot n\ \text{on}\ \partial \mathcal{S} (q) ,\\
&\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} u \cdot \tau \, d\sigma =\gamma , \end{aligned}$$ with $q=(h,\vartheta)$.
Proposition \[reformC\] therefore extends Theorem \[reform\] to the case with an external boundary control (in particular one recovers Theorem \[reform\] in the case where $g$ is identically vanishing).
We proceed as in the proof of Theorem \[reform\] recalled above, with some modifications due to the extra term involved in the decomposition of the fluid velocity, compare and . In particular some extra terms appear in the right hand side of after substituting the right hand side of for $u$ in . Using some integration by parts and the properties of the Kirchhoff functions we obtain integrals on $\partial\mathcal{S}(q)$ whose sum precisely gives $F_1( q,q' ,\gamma) [\alpha(t,\cdot)] + F_2 (q) [\partial_t\alpha(t,\cdot)]$. This allows to conclude.
Reduction to the case where the displacement, the velocities and the circulation are small {#RELO}
==========================================================================================
For $\delta>0$, we introduce the set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qd}
Q_\delta =\{q\in\Omega\times\mathbb{R}:\ d(\mathcal{S}(q),\partial\Omega) > \delta\}.\end{aligned}$$
The goal of this section is to prove that Theorem \[main\] can be deduced from the following result. The balls have to be understood for the Euclidean norm (rather than for the metric $\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q)$).
\[lmain\] Given $\delta>0$, $\mathcal{S}_0\subset\Omega$ bounded, closed, simply connected with smooth boundary, which is not a disk, $q_0 $ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ and $T>0$, there exists $r>0$ such that for any $q_1 $ in ${B}(q_0,r)$, for any $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ with $|\gamma|\leq r$ and for any $q'_0 , q'_1\in {B}(0,r)$, there is a controlled solution $(q,g) $ in $C^\infty ([0,T];\mathcal{Q}_\delta) \times C_0^{\infty}([0,T]\times\Sigma)$ such that $(q,q')(0)=(q_0,q'_0)$ and $(q,q')(T)=(q_1,q'_1)$.
Remark in particular that for $r>0$ small enough, $B(q_{0},r)$ is included in the connected component of $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ containing $q_0$.
We proceed in two steps: first we use a time-rescaling argument in order to deduce from Theorem \[lmain\] a more general result covering the case where the initial and final velocities $q'_0 $ and $ q'_1$ and the circulation $\gamma$ are large. This argument is reminiscent of a time-rescaling argument used by J.-M. Coron for the Euler equation [@Coron:EC], which has been also used in [@G-R] in order to pass from the potential case to the case with vorticity. Then we use a compactness argument in order to deal with the case where $q_0 $ and $q_1$ are remote (but of course in the same connected component of $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$).
The time-rescaling argument relies on the following observation: it follows from that $(q,g)$ is a controlled solution on $[0,T]$ with circulation $\gamma$ if and only if $(q^\lambda,g^\lambda)$ is a controlled solution on $[0, \lambda T ]$ with circulation $\frac{\gamma}{\lambda}$, where $(q^\lambda,g^\lambda)$ is defined by $$\label{sca-lambda}
q^{\lambda}(t) :={q}\left(\frac{t}{\lambda}\right) \text{ and } g^{\lambda}(t,x) :=\frac{1}{\lambda}{g}\left(\frac{t}{\lambda},x \right) .$$ Of course the initial and final conditions $$(q,q')(0)= (q_0 ,q'_0 ) \text{ and } (q,q' )(T)= (q_1 , q'_1)$$ translate respectively into $$\label{RR}
(q^{\lambda}, (q^{\lambda})')(0) = \left(q_0, \frac{q'_0}{\lambda} \right)
\text{ and } (q^{\lambda} , (q^\lambda)')(\lambda T) = \left(q_1, \frac{q'_1}{\lambda}\right) .$$ Now consider $q_0 $ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ and $q_1 $ in $\overline{B}(q_0,r)$ in the same connected component of $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ as $q_0$, with $r>0$ as in Theorem \[lmain\], and $q'_0 $, $ q'_1$ and $\gamma$ without size constraint. For $\lambda$ small enough, $\left(q_0, \lambda q'_0\right)$, $\left(q_1, \lambda q'_1\right)$ and $\lambda \gamma$ satisfy the assumptions of Theorem \[lmain\]. Hence there exists a controlled solution $(q,g)$ on $[0, T ]$, achieving $(q,q')(0)=(q_0,\lambda q'_0)$ and $(q,q')( T)=(q_1, \lambda q'_1)$. On the other hand, the corresponding trajectory $q^\lambda$ constructed above will satisfy the conclusions of Theorem \[main\] on $[0,\lambda T]$, in particular that $(q^{\lambda}, (q^{\lambda})')(0) = \left(q_0, q'_0 \right)
\text{ and } (q^{\lambda} , (q^\lambda)')(\lambda T) = \left(q_1, q'_1\right) .$ Moreover we can assume that it is the case without loss of generality that $\lambda$ is small, and in particular that $\lambda \leq 1$. Thus the result is obtained but in a shorter time interval.
To get to the desired time interval, using that Equation enjoys some invariance properties by translation and time-reversal (up to the change of the sign of $\gamma$) it is sufficient to glue together an odd number, say $2N+1$ with $N$ in $\mathbb N^*$, of appropriate controlled solutions each defined on a time interval of length $\lambda T$ with $\lambda =\frac{ 1 }{ 2N+1} $, going back and forth between $(q_0,q'_0)$ and $(q_1,q'_1)$ until time $T=(2N+1)\lambda T$. Moreover one can see that the gluings are not only $C^2$ but even $C^\infty$.
We have therefore already proven that Theorem \[main\] is true in the case where $q_1 $ is close to $q_0$, or more precisely for any $q_0 $ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ and $q_1 $ in $\overline{B}(q_0,r_{q_0} )$. For the general case where $q_0$ and $q_1 $ are in the same connected component of $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ for some $\delta>0$, without the closeness condition, we use again a gluing process. Consider indeed a smooth curve from $q_0$ to $q_1$. For each point $q$ on this curve, there is a $r_q>0$ such that for any $\tilde{q}$ in $B(q,r_q)$, any $q'_0$, $q'_1$ and any $\gamma$, one can connect $(q,q_0')$ to $(\tilde{q},q_1')$ by a solution of the system, for any time $T>0$. Extract a finite subcover of the curve by the balls $B(q,r_q)$. Therefore we find $N \geq 2$ and $(q_{\frac{i}{N} })_{i=1,\ldots,N-1}$ in the same connected component of $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ as $q_0$ such that for any $i=1,\ldots,N$, $q_{\frac{i}{N}}$ is in $\overline{B}(q_{\frac{i-1}{N}} ,r_{q_\frac{i-1}{N}} )$ (note that this includes $q_0$ and $q_1$). Therefore, using again the local result obtained above, there exist some controlled solutions from $( q_{\frac{i-1}{N}} , 0 )$ to $(q_{\frac{i}{N}} , 0 )$ (for $i=1$ and $i=N$ we use $(q_0,\frac{q'_0}{N})$ and $(q_1,\frac{q'_1}{N})$ rather than $(q_0,0)$ and $(q_1,0)$), each on a time interval of length $T$ associated with circulation $\frac{\gamma}{N} $. One deduces by time-rescaling some controlled solutions associated with circulation $\gamma$ on a time interval of length $\frac{ T }{ N}$. Gluing them together leads to the desired controlled solution.
Reduction to an approximate controllability result {#REAP}
==================================================
The goal of this section is to prove that Theorem \[lmain\] can be deduced from the following approximate controllability result thanks to a topological argument already used in [@G-R], see Lemma \[top\] below. Let us mention that a similar argument has also been used for control purposes but in other contexts, see e.g. [@Aronsson; @BL; @Grasse1; @Grasse2].
\[approx\] Given $\delta>0$, $\mathcal{S}_0\subset\Omega$ bounded, closed, simply connected with smooth boundary, which is not a disk, $q_0$ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ and $T>0$, there is $\tilde{r}>0$ such that $B(q_0 , \tilde{r}) $ is included in the same connected component of $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ as $q_0$, and furthermore, for any $\eta >0$, there exists $r'=r'(\eta)>0$ such that for any $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ with $|\gamma|\leq r'$ and for any $q'_0 $ in $\overline{B}(0,\tilde{r})$, there is a mapping $$\mathcal{T}: \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), \tilde{r} \big) \rightarrow C^\infty ([0,T]; \mathcal{Q}_\delta)$$ which with $ ({q}_1 , {q}'_1) $ associates $q$ where $(q,g) $ is a controlled solution associated with the initial data $(q_0 , q'_0)$, such that the mapping $$({q}_1 , {q}'_1) \in \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), \tilde{r} \big) \mapsto \big(\mathcal{T}({q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) , \mathcal{T}({q}_1 , {q}'_1 )' \big) (T) \in \mathcal{Q}_\delta \times {\mathbb R}^3$$ is continuous and such that for any $ ({q}_1 , {q}'_1) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), \tilde{r} \big)$, $$\| \big(\mathcal{T}({q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) , \mathcal{T}({q}_1 , {q}'_1 )' \big) (T) -( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) \| \leqslant \eta .$$
The proof of Theorem \[approx\] will be given in Section \[proof-approx\]. Here we prove that Theorem \[lmain\] follows from Theorem \[approx\].
Let $\delta>0$, $\mathcal{S}_0\subset\Omega$ bounded, closed, simply connected with smooth boundary, which is not a disk, $q_0 $ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ and $T>0$. Let $\tilde{r}>0$ as in Theorem \[approx\] and $\eta= \frac{ \tilde{r} }{ 2} $. We deduce that for any $\gamma\in\mathbb{R}$ with $|\gamma|\leq r'=r'( \frac{ \tilde{r} }{ 2})$ and $q'_0$ in $ \overline{B}(0,\tilde{r})$, there is a mapping $\mathcal{T}: \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), \tilde{r} \big) \rightarrow C^\infty ([0,T]; \mathcal{Q}_\delta ) $ which maps $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ to $q$ where $(q,g) $ is a controlled solution associated with the initial data $(q_0 , q'_0)$, such that for any $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), \tilde{r} \big)$, $ \| \big(\mathcal{T}({q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) , \mathcal{T}({q}_1 , {q}'_1 )' \big) (T) -( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) \| \leqslant \frac{ \tilde{r} }{ 2} .$ We define a mapping $f $ from $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), \tilde{r} \big)$ to $\mathbb R^6$ which maps $({q}_1 , {q}'_1 )$ to $ f ({q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) := \big(\mathcal{T}({q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) , \mathcal{T}({q}_1 , {q}'_1 )' \big) (T) $. Then we apply the following lemma borrowed from [@G-R pages 32-33], to $w_0 = ({q}_0 , {q}'_0 ) $ and $ \kappa = \tilde{r} $.
\[top\] Let $w_0 \in\mathbb{R}^n,$ $\kappa>0$, $f:\overline{B}(w_0,\kappa)\to\mathbb{R}^n$ a continuous map such that we have $|f(w)-w|\leq \frac{\kappa}{2}$ for any $x$ in $\partial B(w_0,\kappa).$ Then $B(w_0,\frac{\kappa}{2})\subset f(\overline{B}(w_0,\kappa)).$
This allows to conclude the proof of Theorem \[lmain\] by setting $r=\min\left\{\frac{\tilde{r}}{2\sqrt{5}},r'(\frac{\tilde{r}}{2})\right\}$, since the conditions $q_1 \in {B}(q_0,r)$, $|\gamma|\leq r$ and $q'_0 , q'_1\in {B}(0,r)$ imply $|\gamma|\leq r'( \frac{ \tilde{r} }{ 2})$ and $(q_1,q'_1)\in B((q_0,q'_0), \frac{ \tilde{r} }{ 2} )$.
Proof of the approximate controllability result Theorem \[approx\] {#proof-approx}
==================================================================
In this section we prove Theorem \[approx\] by exploiting the geodesic feature of the uncontrolled system with zero circulation, cf. the observation below Theorem \[reform\]. To do so, we will use some well-chosen impulsive controls which allow to modify the velocity $q'$ in a short time interval and put the state of the system on a prescribed geodesic (and use that $|\gamma|$ is small). We mention here [@Br] and the references therein for many more examples on the impulsive control strategy.
First step {#firststep}
----------
We consider $\mathcal{S}_0\subset\Omega$ as before and consider $\delta>0$ so that $q_0 \in \mathcal{Q}_\delta$. We let $r_1 > 0$ be small enough so that $B(q_0 , r_1) \subset \mathcal{Q}_\delta$. We also let $T>0$.
The first step consists in considering the geodesics associated with the uncontrolled, potential case ($\gamma=0$). The following classical result regarding the existence of geodesics can be found for instance in [@MR Section 7.5], see also [@Gai] for the continuity feature.
\[geo\] There exists $r_2 $ in $(0,\frac12 r_1)$ such that for any $q_1 $ in $ \overline{B}(q_0 , r_2)$ there exists a unique $C^\infty$ solution $\bar{q}(t)$ lying in $B(q_0 ,\frac12 r_1 )$ to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{geod}
\begin{split}
\big( \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(\bar{q}) \big)\bar{q}''+\langle\Gamma (\bar{q}),\bar{q}',\bar{q}'\rangle=0 \text{ on } [0,T],
\text{ with } \bar{q}(0)= q_0,\ \bar{q}(T)={q}_1.
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore the map $q_1 \in \overline{B}(q_{0},r_{2}) \mapsto(c_0,c_1)\in\mathbb{R}^6$ given by $c_0=\bar{q}'(0),\ c_1= \bar{q}'(T)$ is continuous.
Let us fix $r_2 $ as in the lemma before. Let $q'_0 $ in $\overline{B}(0,r_2)$ and $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$. Our goal is to make the system follow approximately such a geodesic $\overline{q}$ which we consider fixed during this Section. For the geodesic equation in , $q_{0}$ and $q_{1}$ determine the initial and final velocities (which of course differ in general from $q_{0}'$ and $q_{1}'$). But we will see that is possible to use the penultimate term of in order to modify the initial and final velocities of the system. Precisely, the control will be used so that the right hand side of behaves like two Dirac masses at time close to $0$ and $T$, driving the velocity $q'$ from the initial and final velocities to the ones of the geodesic in two short time intervals close to $0$ and $T$.
Illustration of the method on a toy model {#Illu}
-----------------------------------------
Let us illustrate this strategy on a toy model. We will later on adapt the analysis to the complete model, cf. Proposition \[apr1\].
Let $\beta:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ be a smooth, non-negative function supported in $[-1,1]$, such that $\int_{-1}^{1}\beta(t)^2 \, dt=1$ and, for ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, $\beta_{\varepsilon}(t) :=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\varepsilon}}\beta\left(\frac{t-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}\right) $, so that[^5] $( \beta_{\varepsilon}^2 )_\varepsilon $ is an approximation of the unity when $\varepsilon \to 0^{+}$.
For a function $f$ defined on $[ 0,T] $, we will denote $$\label{NormBonnasse}
\| f \|_{T,\varepsilon} := \| f \|_{ C^{0}( [ 0,T] )} + \| f \|_{C^{1}( [ 2\varepsilon,T-2\varepsilon])} .$$
\[toy\] Let $q_0 $, $r_2 $, $q_1 $, $q'_0$ and $q'_1$ as above. Let $$\label{defv}
v_0 := \big( \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q_0) \big) (c_0 ( q_1) - q'_0 )
\text{ and } v_1 := - \big( \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q_1) \big) (c_1(q_1) - q'_1 ) .$$ Let, for ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, $q_{\varepsilon} $ the maximal solution to the following Cauchy problem: $$\label{RER}
\big( \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q_{\varepsilon}) \big) q_{\varepsilon}''+\langle\Gamma (q_{\varepsilon}),q_{\varepsilon}',q_{\varepsilon}'\rangle = \beta_{\varepsilon}^2 (\cdot)\, v_0 + \beta_{\varepsilon}^2 (T-\cdot) v_1,$$ with $ q_{\varepsilon}(0)= q_0$ and $ q'_{\varepsilon}(0)={q}'_0$. Then for $\varepsilon$ small enough, $q_{\varepsilon} (t)$ lies in $ B(q_0 , r_1) $ for $t$ in $[ 0,T] $ and, as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0^+$, $\| q_{\varepsilon} - \bar{q}\|_{T, \varepsilon} \rightarrow 0$ and $( q_{\varepsilon} , q'_{\varepsilon} ) (T) \rightarrow ( q_1 ,q'_1)$.
For ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, let us denote $T_{\varepsilon} = \sup\, \{ \hat{T} > 0 \text{ such that } \, q_{\varepsilon} (t) \in B(q_0 , r_1) \text{ for } t \in (0,\hat{T}) \}$. Let us first prove that there exists $\tilde{T} > 0$ such that for any ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, $T_{\varepsilon} \geq \tilde{T}$. Using the identity , we obtain indeed, for any ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, for any $ t \in (0,T_{\varepsilon} )$, $$\Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q_{\varepsilon} (t))\Big) q_{\varepsilon}' (t) \cdot q_{\varepsilon}' (t) =
\Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a( q_0)\Big) {q}'_0 \cdot {q}'_0
+ 2 \int_0^{t} \big( \beta_{\varepsilon}^2 (\cdot)\, v_0 + \beta_{\varepsilon}^2 (T-\cdot) v_1 \big) \cdot q_{\varepsilon}' ,$$ Moreover, relying on Remark \[RemReg\], we see that there exists $c > 0$ (which depends on $\delta$) such that for any $q$ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$, for any $p$ in ${\mathbb R}^3$, $$\label{identityNRJeps}
c |p |^2 \leq \Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(q)\Big) p \cdot p \leq c^{-1} |p |^2 .$$ Therefore using Gronwall’s lemma we obtain that there exists $C>0$ such that for any ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, for any $ t \in (0,T_{\varepsilon} )$, $ \sup_{t \in (0,T_{\varepsilon} ) }\, \| q_{\varepsilon}' (t) \| \leq C .$ Therefore by the mean value theorem for $\tilde{T} := r_1 / 2C$, one has for any ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, $T_{\varepsilon} \geq \tilde{T}$.
We now prove in the same time that for $\varepsilon>0$ small enough, $T_{\varepsilon} \geq T$, and the convergence results stated in Lemma \[toy\]. In order to exploit the supports of the functions $\beta_{\varepsilon} (\cdot)$ and $ \beta_{\varepsilon} (T-\cdot)$ in the right hand side of the equation we compare the dynamics of $q_{\varepsilon}$ and $\bar{q}$ during the three time intervals $[0, 2\varepsilon]$, $[ 2\varepsilon,T-2\varepsilon]$ and $[ T-2\varepsilon , T]$.
For $ {\varepsilon}_1 := \tilde{T} / 2 $ and ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,{\varepsilon}_1)$, one already has that $T_{\varepsilon} \geq 2 \varepsilon$ and we can therefore simply compare the dynamics of $q_{\varepsilon}$ and $\bar{q}$ on the first interval $[0, 2\varepsilon]$. Indeed using again the mean value theorem we obtain that $\sup_{t \in [0, 2\varepsilon]} \, | q_{\varepsilon} - q_0 | $ converges to $0$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$. Moreover integrating the equation on $[0, 2\varepsilon]$ and taking into account the choice of $v_0$ in , we obtain $$\begin{gathered}
\label{Grrr}
\Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a( q_{\varepsilon} (2\varepsilon))\Big) q'_{\varepsilon}(2\varepsilon)
= \Big( \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a( q_0)\Big) c_0 ( q_1)
\\
- \int_0^{2\varepsilon} \Big( D\mathcal{M}_a( q_{\varepsilon}) \cdot q'_{\varepsilon} \Big) \cdot q'_{\varepsilon} \, dt
- \int_0^{2\varepsilon} \langle\Gamma (q_{\varepsilon}),q'_{\varepsilon},q'_{\varepsilon}\rangle \, dt ,\end{gathered}$$ Now, there exists $C> 0$ such that for any $q$ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$, for any $p$ in ${\mathbb R}^3$, $$| \big( D\mathcal{M}_a( q) \cdot p \big) \cdot p | + | \langle\Gamma (q),p,p\rangle | \leq C |p |^2 .$$ Combining this and the bound on $q_{\varepsilon}'$ we see that the two terms of the last line of above converge to $0$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$. Since $q\mapsto \mathcal{M}_a( q)$ is continuous on $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ and $ q_\varepsilon (2\varepsilon) $ converges to $q_0$ as $ \varepsilon \rightarrow 0$, the matrix $\mathcal{M}_a( q_{\varepsilon} )$ converges to $\mathcal{M}_a ( q_0) $ as $ \varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. Therefore, using that the matrix $ \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a( q_0)$ is invertible we deduce that $ q_{\varepsilon}'(2\varepsilon) $ converges to $c_0 (q_1)$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$.
During the time interval $[ 2\varepsilon,T-2\varepsilon]$, the right hand side of the equation vanishes and the equation therefore reduces to the geodesic equation in . Since this equation is invariant by translation in time, one may use the following elementary result on the continuous dependence on the data, with a time shift of $2\varepsilon$.
\[depco\] There exists $\eta >0 $ such that for any $(\tilde{q}_0, \tilde{q}'_0) $ in $B((q_0 , c_0 (q_1)) , \eta)$ there exists a unique $C^\infty$ solution $\tilde{q}(t)$ lying in $B(q_0 , r_1 )$ to $\big( \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(\tilde{q}) \big)\tilde{q}''+\langle\Gamma (\tilde{q}),\tilde{q}',\tilde{q}'\rangle=0$ on $ [0,T]$, with $ \tilde{q}(0)= \tilde{q}_0 ,\ \tilde{q}' (0)= \tilde{q}'_0 $. Furthermore $\| \tilde{q} - \overline{q} \|_{ C^{1}( [ 0,T] )} \rightarrow 0$ as $(\tilde{q}_0, \tilde{q}'_0) \rightarrow (q_0 , c_0 (q_1) )$.
Since $q_{\varepsilon} (2 \varepsilon)$ and $q_{\varepsilon}' (2 \varepsilon)$ respectively converge to $q_0$ and $ c_0 (q_1)$, according to Lemma \[depco\] there exists ${\varepsilon}_2 $ in $(0,{\varepsilon}_1)$ such that for ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,{\varepsilon}_2)$, there exists a unique $C^\infty$ solution $\tilde{q}_\varepsilon (t)$ lying in $B(q_0 , r_1 )$ to $\big( \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(\tilde{q}_\varepsilon) \big)\tilde{q}_\varepsilon''+\langle\Gamma (\tilde{q}_\varepsilon),\tilde{q}_\varepsilon',\tilde{q}_\varepsilon'\rangle=0$ on $ [0,T]$, with $ \tilde{q}_\varepsilon(0)= q_{\varepsilon} (2 \varepsilon) ,\ \tilde{q}_\varepsilon' (0)= q_{\varepsilon}' (2 \varepsilon) $ and $\| \tilde{q}_\varepsilon - \overline{q} \|_{ C^{1}( [ 0,T] )} \rightarrow 0$ as $ \varepsilon \rightarrow 0$.
Since the function defined by $ \hat q_{\varepsilon} (t) = q_{\varepsilon} (t + 2\varepsilon)$ also satisfies $\big( \mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a(\hat q_\varepsilon) \big)\hat q_\varepsilon''+\langle\Gamma (\hat q_\varepsilon),\hat q_\varepsilon',\hat q_\varepsilon'\rangle=0$ on $ [0,T-4\varepsilon]$, with $ \hat q_\varepsilon(0)= q_{\varepsilon} (2 \varepsilon) ,\ \hat q_\varepsilon' (0)= q_{\varepsilon}' (2 \varepsilon) $, by the uniqueness part in the Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem one has that $T_{\varepsilon} \geq T- 2 \varepsilon$ and $\hat q_{\varepsilon}$ and $\tilde{q}_\varepsilon $ coincide on $ [0,T-4\varepsilon]$, so that, shifting back in time, $\| q_\varepsilon - \overline{q} (\cdot - 2\varepsilon) \|_{ C^{1}( [ 2\varepsilon,T-2\varepsilon ])} \rightarrow 0$ as $ \varepsilon \rightarrow 0$. Since $\overline{q}$ is smooth, this entails that $\| q_\varepsilon - \overline{q} \|_{ C^{1}( [ 2\varepsilon,T-2\varepsilon ])} \rightarrow 0$ as $ \varepsilon \rightarrow 0$.
Finally one deals with the time interval $[ T-2\varepsilon , T]$ in the same way as the first step. In particular, reducing $\varepsilon$ one more time if necessary one obtains, by an energy estimate, a Gronwall estimate and the mean value theorem, that $T_{\varepsilon} \geq T$. Moreover the choice of the vector $v_1$ in allows to reorientate the velocity $ q_{\varepsilon}'$ from $c_1 (q_1)$ to $q'_1$ whereas the position is not much changed (due to the uniform bound of $q'_{\varepsilon}$ and the mean value theorem) so that the value of $q_{\varepsilon} $ at time $T$ converges to $ q_1$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$.
Back to the complete model {#REM}
--------------------------
Now in order to mimic the right hand side of we are going to use one part of the force term $F_1$ introduced in Definition \[def-forces\]. Let us therefore introduce some notations for the different contributions of the force term $F_1$. We define, for any $q$ in $\mathcal{Q}$, $p$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$, $\alpha $ in $C^{\infty}(\overline{\mathcal{F}(q)}; \mathbb R)$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{f1a} F_{1,a} (q) [ \alpha] &:= - \frac12 \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q)} |\nabla\alpha|^{2} \, \partial_n \Phi (q,\cdot) \, d \sigma ,
\\ \label{f1b} F_{1,b} (q,p) [ \alpha] &:= - \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q)} \nabla\alpha \cdot \nabla (p\cdot \Phi(q,\cdot)) \, \partial_n \Phi (q,\cdot) \, d \sigma ,
\\ \label{f1c} F_{1,c} (q) [\alpha] &:= - \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q)} \nabla\alpha \cdot \nabla^{\perp}\psi(q,\cdot) \, \partial_n \Phi(q,\cdot) \, d \sigma ,\end{aligned}$$ so that for any $\gamma$ in $\mathbb R$, $$F_1 (q,p, \gamma) [ \alpha] = F_{1,a} (q) [ \alpha] + F_{1,b} (q,p) [ \alpha] + \gamma F_{1,c} (q) [\alpha] .$$ The part which will allow us to approximate the right hand side of is $F_{1,a} $. More precisely we are going to see (cf. Proposition \[apmain\]) that there exists a control $\alpha$ (chosen below as $ \alpha = \mathcal A [q ,g_{\varepsilon} ]$ with $g_{\varepsilon}$ given by ) such that in the appropriate regime the dynamics of behaves like the equation with only $F_{1,a} $ on the right hand side. Moreover the following lemma, where the time parameter does not appear, proves that the operator $F_{1,a} (q) [ \cdot ] $ can actually attain any value $v$ in $\mathbb R^3$. Recall that $\delta >0$ has been fixed at the beginning of Section \[firststep\].
\[farcontr\] There exists a continuous mapping $\overline{g}:\mathcal{Q}_\delta \times \mathbb R^3 \rightarrow \mathcal C$ such that for any $(q,v) $ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta \times \mathbb R^3$ the function $\overline{\alpha} := \mathcal A [q,\overline{g} (q,v)]$ in $C^\infty (\overline{\mathcal{F}(q)};\mathbb{R})$ satisfies: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{harmR}
\Delta \overline{\alpha}=0 \text{ in } \mathcal{F}(q),
\text{ and } \partial_{n} \overline{\alpha} = 0 \text{ on } \partial \mathcal{F}(q) \setminus \Sigma, \\
\label{hszR}
\int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q)} | \nabla\overline{\alpha}|^{2} \, \partial_n \Phi(q,\cdot) \, d \sigma = v , \\
\label{csR}
\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \overline{\alpha} \, \partial_n \Phi(q,\cdot) \, d\sigma = 0 .\end{gathered}$$
We recall that the operator $\mathcal A$ was introduced in Definition \[defA\]. The result above will be proved in Section \[S4\]. Note that when $\mathcal{S}(q)$ is a homogeneous disk, an adapted version of Proposition \[farcontr\] still holds, see Proposition \[dfarcontr\] in Section \[S4\]. The condition will be useful to cancel out the last term of .
We define $$\label{gcontrol}
g_{\varepsilon} (t,x) := \beta_{\varepsilon}(t) \overline{g}(q_0, -2 v_0) (x) + \beta_{\varepsilon} (T-t) \overline{g}(q_1, -2 v_1)(x) ,$$ where $v_0 $ and $v_1$ defined in , for $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$, and $\overline{g}$ is given by Proposition \[farcontr\]. The goal is to prove that for $\varepsilon$ and $|\gamma|$ small enough, this control drives the system with $ \alpha = \mathcal A [q ,g_{\varepsilon} ]$ from $(q_{0},q'_{0})$ to $(q_{1},q'_{1})$, approximately.
[**1.**]{} We first observe that $$\begin{gathered}
\label{vendredi}
F_{1,a} (q) [\mathcal A [q ,g_{\varepsilon} ]] =
\beta_{\varepsilon}^2 (t) F_{1,a} (q) \Big[ \mathcal A [q ,\overline{g} (q_0, -2v_0) ] \Big] \\
+ \beta_{\varepsilon}^2 (T-t) F_{1,a} (q) \Big[ \mathcal A [q ,\overline{g} (q_1,-2v_1) ] \Big] ,\end{gathered}$$ and is therefore a good candidate to approximate the right hand side of if $q$ is near $q_0$ for $t$ near $0$ and if $q$ is near $q_1$ for $t$ near $T$. One then may indeed expect that $$\begin{gathered}
F_{1,a} (q) \Big[ \mathcal A [q ,\overline{g} (q_0, -2v_0) ] \Big]
\text{ and }
F_{1,a} (q) \Big[ \mathcal A [q ,\overline{g} (q_1,-2v_1) ] \Big]
\text{ are close to } \\
F_{1,a} (q_0) \Big[ \mathcal A [q_0 ,\overline{g} (q_0, -2v_0) ] \Big]
\text{ and }
F_{1,a} (q_1) \Big[ \mathcal A [q_1 ,\overline{g} (q_1,-2v_1) ] \Big] ,
\text{ respectively,}\end{gathered}$$ on the respective supports of $\beta_{\varepsilon} (\cdot)$ and $\beta_{\varepsilon} (T-\cdot)$. Moreover, according to Proposition \[farcontr\] these last two terms are equal to $v_0$ and $v_1$ (see and ).
[**2.**]{} Next we will rigorously prove in Proposition \[apr1\] below that the conclusion of Lemma \[toy\] for the toy system also holds when one substitutes the term $F_{1,a} (q) [\mathcal A [q ,g_{\varepsilon} ]]$ in . This corresponds also to with $\gamma=0$ and the term $F_{1,b}$ and $F_{2}$ put to zero.
[**3.**]{} Finally it will appear that in an appropriate regime, in particular for small $\varepsilon$ and $|\gamma|$, the second last term of is dominant with respect to the other terms of the right hand side (here the condition above will be essential in order to deal with the last term of ).
Let us state a proposition summarizing the claims above. According to the Cauchy-Lipschitz theorem there exists a controlled solution $q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}$ associated with the control $g_{\varepsilon}$ introduced in , starting with the initial condition $q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}(0) = q_0$ and $q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}'(0) = q'_0$, with circulation $\gamma$, and lying in $B(q_0 , r_1) $ up to some positive time $T_{\varepsilon,\gamma}$. More explicitly $q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}$ satisfies on $[0,T_{\varepsilon,\gamma} ] $, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{renformEPS}
\big( \mathcal{M}_g + \mathcal{M}_a(q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}) \big) q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}''
+ \langle \Gamma(q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}),q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}',q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}'\rangle
= \gamma^2 E(q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}) + \gamma q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}'\times B(q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}) \\
+ F_1 (q_{\varepsilon,\gamma},q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}', \gamma) \big[ \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,\gamma} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] \big]
+ F_2 (q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}) \big[\partial_t \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,\gamma} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] \big] .\end{gathered}$$ Observe that due to the choice of the control $g_{\varepsilon}$ in the function $q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}$ also depends on $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ through $v_0 $ and $v_1$, see their definition in . We have the following approximation result.
\[apmain\] For $\varepsilon$ and $\vert \gamma \vert$ small enough, $T_{\varepsilon,\gamma} \geqslant T$ and, as $\varepsilon $ and $\vert \gamma \vert$ converge to $0^+$, $\| q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}-\bar{q}\|_{T, \varepsilon} \rightarrow 0$ and $( q_{\varepsilon,\gamma} , q'_{\varepsilon,\gamma} ) (T) \rightarrow ( q_1 ,q'_1)$, uniformly for $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$.
This result will be proved in Section \[S3\]. Once Proposition \[apmain\] is proved, Theorem \[approx\] follows rapidly. Indeed, let us set $\tilde{r}=r_2$, according to Proposition \[apmain\], for $\eta >0$, there exists $\varepsilon=\varepsilon(\eta)>0$ and $r'=r'(\eta)$ in $(0,\tilde{r})$ such that for any $\gamma \in \mathbb{R}$ with $|\gamma| \leq r'$ and for any $q'_0 $ in $\overline{B}(0,\tilde{r})$ the mapping $\mathcal{T}$ defined on $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), \tilde{r} \big)$ by setting $\mathcal{T}({q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) = q_{\varepsilon,\gamma} $, has the desired properties. In particular the continuity of $\mathcal{T}$ follows from the regularity of $c_{0}$ in Lemma \[geo\] and of the solution of ODEs on their initial data. This ends the proof of Theorem \[approx\].
About Remark \[smallflux\] {#REM-smallflux}
--------------------------
Now that we presented the scheme of proof of Theorem \[main\] let us explain how to obtain the improvement mentioned in Remark \[smallflux\]. It is actually a direct consequence of the explicit formula for $g_{\varepsilon} (t,x)$ given in and of a change of variable in time. Due to the expression of $\beta_{\varepsilon}$ given at the beginning of Section \[Illu\] one obtains that the total flux through $\Sigma^{-}$, that is $\int_0^T \int_{\Sigma^{-}} \, g_{\varepsilon} \, \, d\sigma dt$, is of order $\sqrt{\varepsilon}$. Hence one can reduce $\varepsilon$ again in order to satisfy the requirement of Remark \[smallflux\].
On the other hand observe that the time-rescaling argument used in the proof of Theorem \[main\] from Theorem \[lmain\], cf. , leaves the total flux through $\Sigma^{-}$ invariant, while the number $N$ of steps involved in the end of the same proof does not depend on $\varepsilon$.
Closeness of the controlled system to the geodesic. Proof of Proposition \[apmain\] {#S3}
===================================================================================
In this section, we prove Proposition \[apmain\].
Proof of Proposition \[apmain\] {#SS33}
-------------------------------
The proof of Proposition \[apmain\] is split in several parts. To compare $q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}$ and $\overline{q}$, we are going to consider an “intermediate trajectory” $\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}$ which imitates the trajectory $q_{\varepsilon}$ of the toy model of Lemma \[toy\], by using the part $F_{1,a}$ of the force term. More precisely we define $\tilde{q}_\varepsilon$ by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{tildeq}
\Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a( \tilde{q}_{\varepsilon})\Big) \tilde{q}''_{\varepsilon}
+ \langle\Gamma (\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}),\tilde{q}'_{\varepsilon},\tilde{q}'_{\varepsilon}\rangle
= F_{1,a} (\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}) \big[ \mathcal A[\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon},g_{\varepsilon}] \big] , \\
\text{ with }
\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}(0)=q_0,\ \tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}'(0)=q'_0,\end{gathered}$$ where $g_{\varepsilon}$ was defined in and where the operator $\mathcal A$ was introduced in Definition \[defA\]. Note that due to the definition of $g_{\varepsilon}$, the function $\tilde{q}_\varepsilon$ also depends on $q_1 ,q'_1$. The statement below is an equivalent of Lemma \[toy\] for $\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}$, comparing $\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}$ to the “target geodesic” $\overline{q}$.
\[apr1\] There exists $\varepsilon_1>0$ such that, for any $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_1]$, for any $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$, the solution $\tilde{q}_\varepsilon$ given by lies in the ball ${B} (q_0 , r_1 )$ at least up to $T$. Moreover $\|\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}-\bar{q}\|_{T, \varepsilon} $ converges to $0$ and $( \tilde{q}_{\varepsilon} , \tilde{q}'_{\varepsilon} ) (T) $ converges to $ ( q_1 ,q'_1)$ when $\varepsilon$ converges to $0^{+}$, uniformly for $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$ for both convergences.
We recall that the norm $\| \cdot \|_{T, \varepsilon}$ was defined in . The proof of Proposition \[apr1\] can be found in Subsection \[SSpa1\].
The following result allows us to deduce the closeness of the trajectories $q_{\varepsilon,0}$, given by (\[renformEPS\]) with $\gamma=0$, and $\tilde{q}_\varepsilon$ given by (\[tildeq\]). Let us recall that by the definition of $T_{\varepsilon,\gamma}$ that comes along , $q_{\varepsilon,0} $ lies in $B(q_0 , r_1) $ up to the time $T_{\varepsilon,0}$, which depends on $q_1 ,q'_1 $.
\[apr2\] There exists $\varepsilon_2$ in $(0,\varepsilon_1]$ such that for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_2]$, one has $T_{\varepsilon,0} \geq T$. Moreover $\|\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}-q_{\varepsilon,0}\|_{C^1([0,T])} \rightarrow 0$ when ${\varepsilon\to0^{+}}$, uniformly for $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$.
The proof of Proposition \[apr2\] can be found in Subsection \[SSpa2\].
Finally, we have the following estimation of the deviation due to the circulation $\gamma$, which will be proved in Subsection \[SS34\].
\[gimpact\] There exists $\varepsilon_3$ in $(0,\varepsilon_2]$ such that for all $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_{3}]$, there exists $\gamma_0 >0$ such that for any $\gamma\in[-\gamma_0,\gamma_0]$, we have $T_{\varepsilon,\gamma}\geq T$ and $\|q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}-q_{\varepsilon,0}\|_{C^1 [0,T] } $ converges to $0$ when $ \gamma \to 0$, uniformly for $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$.
Propositions \[apr1\], \[apr2\] and \[gimpact\] give us directly the result of Proposition \[apmain\].
Proof of Proposition \[apr1\] {#SSpa1}
-----------------------------
We proceed as in the proof of Lemma \[toy\] with a few extra complications related to the fact that the right hand side of the equation is more involved than the one of the equation and to the fact that we need to obtain uniform convergences with respect to $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$.
As in the proof of Lemma \[toy\] we introduce, for ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, the time $T_{\varepsilon} = \sup\, \{ \hat{T} > 0 \text{ such that } \, \tilde q_{\varepsilon} (t) \in B(q_0 , r_1) \text{ for } t \in (0,\hat{T}) \}$ and we first prove that there exists $\tilde{T} > 0$ such that for any ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, $T_{\varepsilon} \geq \tilde{T}$ thanks to an energy estimate. In order to deal with the term coming from in the right hand side of the energy estimate, recalling Remark \[RemReg\] and the definition of $F_{1,a}$ in , we observe that for any $R > 0$, there exists $C > 0$ such that for any $q, \tilde q$ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$, for any $v$ in $B(0,R)$, $$| \, F_{1,a} (q) \big[\mathcal A [q ,\overline g(\tilde q,v) ] \big] \, | \leq C .$$ This allows to deduce from the expressions of $v_0 $ and $v_1$ in that there exists $\tilde{T} > 0$ and $C>0$ such that for any $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$, for any ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, $T_{\varepsilon} \geq \tilde{T}$ and $ \|\tilde{q}'_{\varepsilon}\|_{C([0,{T}_{\varepsilon}])} \leq C$. We deduce that for $ {\varepsilon}_1 := \tilde{T} / 2 $ and ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,{\varepsilon}_1)$, $T_{\varepsilon} \geq 2 \varepsilon$ and that $\sup_{t \in [0, 2\varepsilon]} \, | \tilde q_{\varepsilon} - q_0 | $ converges to $0$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$ uniformly in $( q_1 ,q'_1)$ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$.
Now let us prove that $ \tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}'(2\varepsilon) $ converges to $c_0 (q_1)$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$ uniformly in $( q_1 ,q'_1)$ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$. We integrate the equation on $[0, 2\varepsilon]$. Thus $$\begin{gathered}
\label{tildeqInt}
\Big(\mathcal{M}_g+ \mathcal{M}_a( \tilde{q}_{\varepsilon} (2\varepsilon) )\Big) \tilde{q}'_{\varepsilon} (2\varepsilon)
= \Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a( q_0)\Big) {q}'_0 \\
- \int_0^{2\varepsilon} \Big( D\mathcal{M}_a( \tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}) \cdot \tilde{q}'_{\varepsilon} \Big) \cdot \tilde{q}'_{\varepsilon} \, dt
- \int_0^{2\varepsilon}\langle\Gamma (\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}),\tilde{q}'_{\varepsilon},\tilde{q}'_{\varepsilon}\rangle \, dt
+ \int_0^{2\varepsilon} F_{1,a} (\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}) \big[ \mathcal A[\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon},g_{\varepsilon}] \big] \, dt .\end{gathered}$$ Then we pass to the limit as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0^+$ in the last equality. Here we use two extra arguments with respect to the corresponding argument in the proof of Lemma \[toy\]. On the one hand we see that the convergences of $ \mathcal{M}_a( \tilde{q}_{\varepsilon} (2\varepsilon) )$ to $ \mathcal{M}_a( q_0 ) $ and of the two first terms of the last line to $0$, already obtained in the proof of Lemma \[toy\], hold uniformly with respect to $( q_1 ,q'_1)$ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$, as a consequence of the uniform estimates of $\tilde q_{\varepsilon}- q_0$ and $ \tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}' $ obtained above. On the other hand the term $ F_{1,a} $ enjoys the following regularity property with respect to $q$: we have that $ q \mapsto F_{1,a} (q) \Big[ \mathcal A [q , \overline{g} (q_0, v) ]\Big] $ is Lipschitz with respect to $q$ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ uniformly for $v$ in bounded sets of $\mathbb {\mathbb R}^3$. Therefore using that $\sup_{t \in [0, 2\varepsilon]} \, | \tilde q_{\varepsilon} - q_0 | $ converges to $0$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$ uniformly in $( q_1 ,q'_1)$ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$, the expressions of $v_0 $ and $v_1$ in and that $F_{1,a} (q_0) \Big[ \mathcal A [q_0 ,\overline{g} (q_0, -2v_0) \Big] = v_0$, according to Proposition \[farcontr\] we deduce that $$\sup_{t \in [0, 2\varepsilon]} \,
\Big| F_{1,a} (\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}) \Big[ \mathcal A [\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon} , \overline{g} (q_0, -2v_0) ]\Big] - v_0 \Big|$$ converges to $0$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$ uniformly in $( q_1 ,q'_1)$ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$. Since for $t$ in $[0, 2\varepsilon]$, the equation applied to $q=\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}$ is simplified into $$F_{1,a} (\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}) [\mathcal A [\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon} ,g_{\varepsilon} ]] =
\beta_{\varepsilon}^2 (t) F_{1,a} (\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}) \Big[ \mathcal A [\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon} ,\overline{g} (q_0, -2v_0) ] \Big] ,$$ and that $\int_{0}^{2\varepsilon} \beta_{\varepsilon}^2 (t)\, dt=1$, we get that the last term in converges to $ v_0$ when $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$. Moreover, due to the choice of $v_0$ the first and last term of the right hand side of can be combined at the limit to get $ \Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a( q_0)\Big) c_0 (q_1)$.
Therefore, inverting the matrix in the right hand side of and passing to the limit, we see that $ \tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}'(2\varepsilon) $ converges to $c_0 (q_1)$ as $\varepsilon$ goes to $0$ uniformly in $( q_1 ,q'_1)$ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$.
When $t$ is in $[ 2\varepsilon,T-2\varepsilon]$, the equation reduces to a geodesic equation so that the same arguments as in the proof of Lemma \[toy\] apply.
Finally for the last step, for $t$ in $[ T-2\varepsilon,T]$, we proceed in the same way as in the first step. This ends the proof of Proposition \[apr1\].
Proof of Proposition \[apr2\] {#SSpa2}
-----------------------------
We begin with the following lemma, which provides a uniform boundedness for the trajectories $q_{\varepsilon,0}$ satisfying (\[renformEPS\]) with $\gamma=0$, that is $$\begin{gathered}
\label{renff}
\big( \mathcal{M}_g + \mathcal{M}_a (q_{\varepsilon,0}) \big) q_{\varepsilon,0}''
+ \langle \Gamma (q_{\varepsilon,0}) , q_{\varepsilon,0}',q_{\varepsilon,0}'\rangle
= F_{1,a} (q_{\varepsilon,0}) \big[ \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] \big]
\\ + F_{1,b} (q_{\varepsilon,0},q_{\varepsilon,0}') \big[ \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] \big]
+ F_2 (q_{\varepsilon,0}) \big[\partial_t \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] \big] .\end{gathered}$$ We recall that $g_\varepsilon$ is given by with $v_0$ and $v_1$ given by . The terms $F_{1,a}$ and $F_{1,b}$ were defined in -, $F_{2}$ in . Also we recall that by definition of $T_{\varepsilon,0}$ (see the definition of $T_{\varepsilon,\gamma}$ in the end of Subsection \[REM\]), during the time interval $[0,T_{\varepsilon,0}]$, $q_{\varepsilon,0}$ remains in $B(q_0,r_1)$.
\[bddtrajg\] There exists $\varepsilon_a>0$ such that $$\sup_{\substack{{(q_1,q'_1) \in \overline{B}((q_0,q'_0),r_2),} \\ {\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_a]}}} \|q'_{\varepsilon,0}\|_{C([0,T_{\varepsilon,0}])}<+\infty.$$
First we see that the mappings $$q \mapsto F_{1,a} (q) [\mathcal A[q , \overline{g}(q_0, v) ] ] \text{ and }
q \mapsto F_{1,b} (q,\cdot) [ \mathcal A[q , \overline{g}(q_0, v) ] ]$$ are bounded for $q$ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$, uniformly for $v$ in bounded sets of $\mathbb {\mathbb R}^3$. Let us now focus on the $F_2$ term. For $t$ in $[0,2 \varepsilon]$, $g_{\varepsilon} (t) = \beta_{\varepsilon} (t) \overline{g} (q_0, -2v_0) $ so that, by the chain rule, for $t$ in $[0,\min(2 \varepsilon,T_{\varepsilon,0}) ]$, $$\partial_t \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] =
\beta_{\varepsilon} D_q \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} , \overline{g}(q_0, -2 v_0) ] \cdot q'_{\varepsilon,0}
+ \beta'_{\varepsilon} \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} , \overline{g}(q_0, -2 v_0) ].$$ For what concerns $F_2$ we have, using the property , $$\begin{gathered}
F_2 (q_{\varepsilon,0}) \big[\partial_t \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] \big]
= \beta_{\varepsilon} \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q_{\varepsilon,0})} \Big(D_q \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} , \overline{g}(q_0, -2 v_0) ] \cdot q'_{\varepsilon,0}\Big) \, \partial_n \Phi(q_{\varepsilon,0},\cdot) \, d \sigma \\
+ \beta'_{\varepsilon} \Big( \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q_{\varepsilon,0})} \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} , \overline{g}(q_0, -2 v_0) ]
\, \partial_n \Phi(q_{\varepsilon,0},\cdot) \, d \sigma
- \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q_{0})} \mathcal A[q_{0} ,\overline{g}(q_0, -2 v_0) ]
\, \partial_n \Phi(q_{0},\cdot) \, d \sigma \Big) .\end{gathered}$$
Using that the mapping $q \mapsto \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q)} \nabla_q \mathcal A[q , \overline{g}(q_0, v) ] \otimes \partial_n \Phi(q,\cdot) \, d \sigma$ is bounded for $q$ over $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$ and that the mapping $q \mapsto \int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q)} \mathcal A[q , \overline{g}(q_0, v) ] \, \partial_n \Phi(q,\cdot) \, d \sigma$ is Lipschitz with respect to $q$ in $\mathcal{Q}_\delta$, both uniformly for $v$ in bounded sets of $\mathbb {\mathbb R}^3$, we see that this involves (recalling the expression of $\beta_{\varepsilon} $ given at the beginning of Section \[Illu\]) $$\label{EstF2}
\big| F_2 (q_{\varepsilon,0}) \big[\partial_t \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] \big] \big|
\lesssim
C \left( \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{1/2}} |q'_{\varepsilon,0}| +
\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{3/2}} |q_{\varepsilon,0} - q_{0}| \right),$$ uniformly for $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$. Then, multiplying by $q'_{\varepsilon,0}$ and using once more the identity , we obtain, for any ${\varepsilon}$ in $(0,1)$, for $t$ in $[0,\min(2 \varepsilon,T_{\varepsilon,0}) ]$, $$\begin{gathered}
\label{EEs}
\Big(\mathcal{M}_g+ \mathcal{M}_a(q_{\varepsilon,0} (t))\Big) q_{\varepsilon,0}' (t) \cdot q_{\varepsilon,0}' (t) =
\Big(\mathcal{M}_g+\mathcal{M}_a( q_0)\Big) {q}'_0 \cdot {q}'_0
\\ + 2 \int_0^{t} \Big( F_{1,a} (q_{\varepsilon,0}) \big[ \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] \big] + F_{1,b} (q_{\varepsilon,0},q_{\varepsilon,0}') \big[ \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] \big] + F_2 (q_{\varepsilon,0}) \big[\partial_t \mathcal A[q_{\varepsilon,0} ,g_{\varepsilon} ] \big]\Big) \cdot q' _{\varepsilon,0} ,\end{gathered}$$ Then, using , the boundedness of the mappings $ q \mapsto F_{1,a} (q) [\mathcal A[q , \overline{g}(q_0, v) ] ] $ and $q \mapsto F_{1,b} (q,\cdot) [ \mathcal A[q , \overline{g}(q_0, v) ] ] $ already mentioned above, the definition of $\beta_{\varepsilon}$ and the bound , we get $$|q_{\varepsilon,0}' (t) |^2 \leq C \left(
1 + \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{1/2}} \int_0^{t} |q_{\varepsilon,0}' (s) |^2 \, ds
+ \frac{1}{\varepsilon^{3/2}} \int_0^{t} |q'_{\varepsilon,0} (s)| |q_{\varepsilon,0} (s)- q_{0}| \, ds \right).$$ Then using the mean value theorem and that $t \leq 2 \varepsilon$, we have that $$|q_{\varepsilon,0}' (t) |^2 \leq C
\left(1 + \varepsilon^{1/2} \sup_{[0,\min(2 \varepsilon,T_{\varepsilon,0}) ]} \, |q_{\varepsilon,0}' |^2 \right) ,$$ so that for $\varepsilon$ small enough, and for $t$ in $[0,\min(2 \varepsilon,T_{\varepsilon,0}) ]$, $ |q_{\varepsilon,0}' (t) | \leq C $, uniformly for $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$. As a consequence of the usual blow-up criterion for ODEs, we have that $T_{\varepsilon,0} \geq 2 \varepsilon$.
During the next phase, i.e. for $t$ in $[2 \varepsilon,T - 2 \varepsilon]$, the control is inactive so that the equation is a geodesic equation. Then by a simple energy estimate we get again that $ |q_{\varepsilon,0}' (t) | \leq C $ on $[0,\min(T-2 \varepsilon,T_{\varepsilon,0}) ]$.
Finally if $T_{\varepsilon,0} \geq T-2 \varepsilon$, then we deal with the last phase as in the first phase. This concludes the proof of Lemma \[bddtrajg\].
We then conclude the proof of Proposition \[apr2\] by a classical comparison argument using Gronwall’s lemma and the Lipschitz regularity with respect to $q$ of the various mappings involved ($ \mathcal{M}_a$, $\Gamma$, $ F_{1,a} $, $ F_{1,b} $ and $F_2$). This allows to prove that there exists $\varepsilon_2$ in $(0,\varepsilon_1]$ such that for any $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_2]$, $T_{\varepsilon,0} \geq T$ and $\|\tilde{q}_{\varepsilon}-q_{\varepsilon,0}\|_{C^1([0,T])} \rightarrow 0$ when ${\varepsilon\to0^{+}}$, uniformly for $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$. This ends the proof of Proposition \[apr2\].
Proof of Proposition \[gimpact\] {#SS34}
--------------------------------
First we may extend Lemma \[bddtrajg\] to the solutions $q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}$ to (\[renformEPS\]) in the following manner.
\[bddtrajg++\] There exists $\varepsilon_b$ in $(0,\varepsilon_2)$ such that $\|q'_{\varepsilon,\gamma}\|_{C([0,T_{\varepsilon,\gamma}])}$ is bounded uniformly in $\varepsilon\in(0,\varepsilon_b]$, for any $\gamma\in[-1,1]$, and for $(q_1,q'_1) \in \overline{B}((q_0,q'_0),r_2)$.
It is indeed a matter of adding the “electric field” $E$ in , and noting that $E$ is bounded on $Q_{\delta}$; the “magnetic field” $B$ gives no contribution to the energy.
We now finish the proof of Proposition \[gimpact\]. Using a comparison argument we obtain that there exists $\varepsilon_3$ in $(0,\varepsilon_b]$ such that for all $\varepsilon \in (0,\varepsilon_{3}]$, there exists $\gamma_0 >0$ such that for any $\gamma\in[-\gamma_0,\gamma_0]$, we have $T_{\varepsilon,\gamma}\geq T$ and $\|q_{\varepsilon,\gamma}-q_{\varepsilon,0}\|_{C^1 [0,T] } $ converges to $0$ when $ \gamma \to 0$, uniformly for $ ( {q}_1 , {q}'_1 ) $ in $ \overline{B}\big( (q_0 , q'_0), r_2 \big)$. This concludes the proof of Proposition \[gimpact\].
Design of the control according to the solid position. Proof of Proposition \[farcontr\] {#S4}
========================================================================================
This section is devoted to the proof of Proposition \[farcontr\].
The case of a homogeneous disk
------------------------------
Before proving Proposition \[farcontr\] we establish the following similar result concerning the simpler case where the solid is a homogeneous disk. In that case, the statement merely considers $q$ of the form $q=(h,0)$. Thus in order to simplify the writing, we introduce $${\mathcal Q}_{\delta}^h :=\{ h \in {\mathbb R}^2 \ \text{ such that } \ (h,0) \in {\mathcal Q}_{\delta} \}.$$ Also in all this section when we will write $q$, it will be understood that $q$ is associated with $h$ by $q=(h,0)$.
\[dfarcontr\] Let $\delta>0$. Then there exists a continuous mapping $\overline{g}: {\mathcal Q}_{\delta}^h \times \mathbb R^2 \rightarrow {\mathcal C}$ such that the function $\overline{\alpha} := \mathcal A [q,\overline{g} (q,v)]$ in $C^\infty (\overline{\mathcal{F}(q)};\mathbb{R})$ satisfies: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{harm}
\Delta \overline{\alpha}(q,x)=0 \text{ in } \mathcal{F}(q), \text{ and } \partial_{n}\overline{\alpha}(q,x)=0
\text{ on } \partial\mathcal{F}(q)\setminus\Sigma, \\
\label{hsz}
\int_{ \partial \mathcal{S} (q)} |\nabla\overline{\alpha}(q,x)|^{2} \, n \, d \sigma = v, \\
\label{cs}
\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \overline{\alpha}(q,x) \, n \, d\sigma = 0 .\end{gathered}$$
In order to prove Proposition \[dfarcontr\], the mapping $\overline{g}$ will be constructed using a combination of some elementary functions which we introduce in several lemmas.
To begin with, we will make use of the elementary geometrical property that $ \{n (q_0,x):\ x\in\partial\mathcal{S}(q_0)\}$ is the unit circle $\mathbb S^1$ and of the following lemma.
\[kup1\] There exist three vectors $e_1, e_{2}, e_{3} \in \{n (q_0,x):\ x\in\partial\mathcal{S}(q_0)\}$ and positive $C^\infty$ maps $(\mu_i)_{1\leqslant i \leqslant 3} : {\mathbb R}^{2} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}_{+}$ such that for any $v \in {\mathbb R}^{2}$, $$\label{SommeDesMu}
\sum_{i=1}^3 \mu_i (v) e_i = v.$$
One may consider for instance $e_{1}:=(1,0)$, $e_{2}:=(0,1)$, $e_{3}:=(-1,-1)$, and $$\begin{gathered}
\mu_{1}(v) = v_{1} +\sqrt{1 + |v_{1}|^2 + |v_{2}|^2}, \ \
\mu_{2}(v) = v_{2} +\sqrt{1 + |v_{1}|^2 + |v_{2}|^2} \\
\text{ and } \mu_{3}(v) = \sqrt{1 + |v_{1}|^2 + |v_{2}|^2}.\end{gathered}$$
In the next lemma, we introduce some functions that are defined in a neighbourhood of $\partial\mathcal{S}(q_0)$ (for some $q_{0} = (h_{0},0)$ fixed), satisfying some counterparts of the properties and .
\[LemBase\] There exist families of functions $(\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j})_{\varepsilon \in (0,1)}$, $i,j\in\{1,2,3\}$, such that for any $i,j\in\{1,2,3\}$, for any $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$, $\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}$ is defined and harmonic in a closed neighbourhood $ \mathcal{V}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}$ of $\partial\mathcal{S}(q_0)$, satisfies $\partial_{n} \tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j} =0$ on $\partial\mathcal{S}(q_0)$, and moreover one has for any $i,j,k,l$ in $\{1,2,3\}$, $$\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q_0)} \nabla\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j} \cdot \nabla\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{k,l} \,n\, d\sigma
\rightarrow \delta_{(i,j),(k,l)} \, e_i \quad \text{ as } {\varepsilon}\rightarrow 0^+ .$$
Without loss of generality, we may suppose that $\mathcal{S}(q_0)$ is the unit disk. Consider the parameterisation $\{c(s)=(\cos(s),\sin(s)),\ s\in [0,2\pi]\}$ of $\partial\mathcal{S}(q_0)$ and the corresponding $s_i$ such that $n(q_0,c(s_i))=e_i,\ i\in\{1,2,3\}$.
We consider families of smooth functions $\beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}: [0,2\pi] \to \mathbb{R}$, $i,j\in\{1,2,3\}$, $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$, such that $\text{supp } \beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j} \, \cap \, \text{supp }\beta_{\varepsilon}^{k,l}=\emptyset$ whenever $(i,j)\neq(k,l)$, $\text{diam}\left(\text{supp }\beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}\right)\to 0$ as $\varepsilon\to0^{+}$, $$\int_{0}^{2\pi}\beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(s)\, d\sigma= 0 \, \text{ and }
\left| \int_{0}^{2\pi} |\beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(s)|^2 \, n(q_0,c(s)) ds-e_i \right| \to 0 \text{ as } \varepsilon \to 0^{+}.$$ Then we define $\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}$ in polar coordinates as the truncated Laurent series: $$\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(r,\theta) := \frac12 \sum_{0<k\leq K} \frac{1}{k} \left(r^k+\frac{1}{r^k}\right)( -\hat{b}_{k,\varepsilon}^{i,j} \cos(k\theta) +\hat{a}_{k,\varepsilon}^{i,j} \sin(k\theta)) ,$$ where $\hat{a}_{k,\varepsilon}^{i,j}$ and $\hat{b}_{k,\varepsilon}^{i,j}$ denote the $k$-th Fourier coefficients of the function $\beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j} $. It is elementary to check that the function $\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}$ satisfies the required properties for an appropriate choice of $K$.
Now, for any $h \in\mathcal{Q}^h_\delta$, we may define $\mathcal{V}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(q):= \mathcal{V}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}-h_0+h,$ which is a neighborhood of $\partial\mathcal{S}(q)$, and $\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(q,x):=\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(x+h_0-h), \text{ for each } x\in \mathcal{V}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(q)$. We have for $i,j,k,l$ in $\{1,2,3\}$, $$\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \nabla\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j} (q,x) \cdot \nabla\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{k,l} (q,x) \, n(q,x) \, d\sigma
=
\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q_0)} \nabla\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j} (x) \cdot \nabla\tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{k,l} (x) \, n(q_0,x) \, d\sigma .$$ Proceeding as in [@OG-Addendum] (see also [@Cortona p. 147-149]) and relying in particular Runge’s theorem, we have the following result which asserts the existence of harmonic approximate extensions on the whole fluid domain.
\[LemmeEta\] There exists a family of functions $(\alpha_{\eta}^{i,j})_{\eta \in (0,1)}$, $i,j \in \{1,2,3\}$, harmonic in $\mathcal{F}(q)$, satisfying $\partial_n \alpha_{\eta}^{i,j}(q,x)=0$ on $\partial\mathcal{F}(q)\setminus \Sigma$, with for any $k$ in $\mathbb N$, $$\label{del2new}
\| \alpha_{\eta}^{i,j}(q,\cdot) - \tilde{\alpha}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(q,\cdot) \|_{C^k(\mathcal{V}_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(q)\cap\overline{\mathcal{F}(q)})}
\rightarrow 0 \text{ when } \eta \rightarrow 0^+ .$$
We now check that the above construction can be made continuous in $q$.
\[Lem10\] For any $\nu>0$, there exist continuous mappings $h \in \mathcal{Q}^h_\delta \mapsto \overline{\alpha}^{i,j} (q,\cdot)\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\mathcal{F}(q)})$ where $q=(h,0)$, $i, j\in\{1,2,3\}$, such that for any $h \in \mathcal{Q}^h_\delta$, $\Delta_{x}\overline{\alpha}^{i,j} (q,x)=0$ in $\mathcal{F}(q)$, $\partial_{n}\overline{\alpha}^{i,j} (q,x)=0$ on $\partial\mathcal{F}(q)\setminus\Sigma$ and $$\label{nd1}
\left| \int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \nabla \overline{\alpha}^{i,j}(q,\cdot) \cdot \nabla \overline{\alpha}^{k,l}(q,\cdot) \,n\, d\sigma
- \delta_{(i,j),(k,l)} \, e_i \right| \leq \nu .$$
Let us assume that the functions $\alpha_{\eta}^{i,j}$ were previously defined not only for $h \in Q^h_{\delta}$ but for $h \in \overline{Q^h_{\delta}}$; this is possible by using a smaller $\delta$. Hence we may for each $h \in \overline{Q^h_{\delta}}$ find functions $\alpha_{\eta}^{i,j}$ (for some $\eta>0$) satisfying the properties above, and in particular such that is valid.
Next we observe that for any $h \in \overline{\mathcal{Q}^h_\delta}$, setting $q=(h,0)$, the unique solution $\hat{\alpha}_{\eta}^{i,j}(\tilde{q},q,\cdot)$ (up to an additive constant) to the Neumann problem $\Delta_{x} \hat{\alpha}_{\eta}^{i,j}(\tilde{q},q,x)=0$ in $ \mathcal{F}(\tilde{q})$, $\partial_{n}\hat{\alpha}_{\eta}^{i,j}(\tilde{q},q,x)=0$ on $\partial \mathcal{F}(\tilde{q}) \setminus \Sigma$, $\partial_{n} \hat{\alpha}_{\eta}^{i,j}(\tilde{q},q,x) = \partial_{n}\alpha_{\eta}^{i,j}(q,x)$ on $\Sigma$, is continuous with respect to $\tilde{q} \in \mathcal{Q}_\delta$. It follows that when a family of functions ${\alpha}_{\eta}^{i,j}$ satisfies at some point $h \in \overline{Q^h_{\delta}}$, it satisfies (with perhaps $2\nu$ in the right hand side) in some neighborhood of $h$. Since $\overline{Q^h_{\delta}}$ is compact and can be covered with such neighborhoods, one can extract a finite subcover and use a partition of unity (according to the variable $q$) adapted to this subcover to conclude: one gets an estimate like with $C \nu$ on the right hand side (for some constant $C$). It is then just a matter of considering $\nu/C$ rather than $\nu$ at the beginning.
Finally our basic bricks to prove Proposition \[dfarcontr\] are given in the following lemma, where we can add the constraint .
\[Lem3emeCond\] For any $\nu>0$, there exist continuous mappings $q=(h,0) \in\mathcal{Q}_\delta \mapsto \overline{\alpha}^{i} (q,\cdot)\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\mathcal{F}(q)})$, $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, such that for any $q=(h,0) \in\mathcal{Q}_\delta$, $\Delta_{x} \overline{\alpha}^{i} (q,x)=0$ in $\mathcal{F}(q)$, $\partial_{n}\overline{\alpha}^{i} (q,x)=0$ on $\partial\mathcal{F}(q)\setminus\Sigma$ and $$\begin{gathered}
\label{angou}
\left| \int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \nabla \overline{\alpha}^{i}(q,\cdot) \cdot \nabla \overline{\alpha}^{j}(q,\cdot) \,n\, d\sigma
- \delta_{i,j} \, e_i \right| \leq \nu , \\
\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \overline{\alpha}^{i}(q,\cdot) \,n\, d\sigma = 0 .\end{gathered}$$
Consider the functions $\overline{\alpha}^{i,j}$ given by Lemma \[Lem10\]. For any $q=(h,0) \in\mathcal{Q}_\delta$, for any $i\in\{1,2,3\}$, the three vectors $ \int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \overline{\alpha}^{i,j}(q,\cdot) \, n \, d\sigma$, where $j\in\{1,2,3\}$, are linearly dependent in $\mathbb R^2$; therefore there exists $\lambda^{i,j}(q)\in\mathbb{R}$ such that $$\label{fucklasncf}
\sum_{j=1}^{3} \lambda^{i,j}(q) \int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} \overline{\alpha}^{i,j}(q,\cdot) \, n \, d\sigma = 0
\text{ and } \displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{3} |\lambda^{i,j}(q)|^2 = 1,$$ Then one defines $\overline{\alpha}^{i}(q,\cdot):=\sum_{j=1}^{3} \lambda^{i,j}(q) \overline{\alpha}^{i,j}(q,\cdot)$, and one checks that it satisfies with some $C \nu$ in the right hand side. Again changing $\nu$ in $\nu/C$ allows to conclude.
We are now in position to prove Proposition \[dfarcontr\].
Let $\delta>0$. Let $\nu>0$. We define the mapping ${\mathcal S}$ which with $(h,v) \in \mathcal{Q}^h_\delta \times {\mathbb R}^2$ associates the function $$\tilde{\alpha}(q,\cdot):=\sum_{i=1}^{3}\sqrt{\mu^{i}(v)} \, \overline{\alpha}^{i}(q,\cdot),$$ in $C^\infty (\overline{\mathcal{F}(q)})$, where the functions $\mu^i$ were introduced in Lemma \[kup1\] and the functions $\overline{\alpha}^{i}$ were introduced in Lemma \[Lem3emeCond\]. Next we define ${\mathcal T}: \mathcal{Q}_\delta^h \times {\mathbb R}^2 \rightarrow \mathcal{Q}_\delta^h \times {\mathbb R}^2$ by $$(h,v) \mapsto ({\mathcal T}_{1},{\mathcal T}_{2})(h,v):= \left( h, \int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} |\nabla \tilde{\alpha}(q,\cdot)|^2 \,n\, d\sigma \right) ,
\ \text{ where } \ \tilde{\alpha} ={\mathcal S}(h,v) .$$ Using and , one checks that ${\mathcal T}$ is smooth and that $$\frac{\partial {\mathcal T}_{2}}{\partial v} = \mbox{Id} + {\mathcal O}(\nu).$$ Hence taking $\nu$ sufficiently small, we see that $\frac{\partial {\mathcal T}_{2}}{\partial v}$ is invertible, hence $\frac{\partial {\mathcal T}}{\partial (h,v)}$ is invertible. Consequently one can use the inverse function theorem on ${\mathcal T}$: for each $h_{0} \in \overline{{Q}_{\delta}^h}$ it realizes a local diffeomorphism at$(h_{0}, 0)$, and hence on $\overline{Q^h_{\delta}} \times B(0,r)$ for $r>0$ small enough. This gives the result of Proposition \[dfarcontr\] for $v$ small: given $(h,v) \in \overline{Q^h_{\delta}} \times B(0,r)$, we let $(h,\tilde{v}):= {\mathcal T}^{-1}(h,v)$. Then the functions $\overline{\alpha}:=\sum_{i=1}^{3}\sqrt{\mu^{i}( \tilde{v})} \, \overline{\alpha}^{i}(q,\cdot)$ and $\overline{g}:=\mathbbm{1}_{\Sigma} \, \partial_{n} \overline{\alpha}$ satisfy the requirements. The general case follows by linearity of and and by homogeneity of . This ends the proof of Proposition \[dfarcontr\].
The case when $\mathcal{S}_0$ is not a disk
-------------------------------------------
We now get back to the proof of Proposition \[farcontr\]. We will denote by $\text{coni}(A)$ the conical hull of $A$, namely $$\text{coni}(A) : =\left\{\sum_{i=1}^{k} \lambda_i a_i,\ k \in \mathbb{N}^*, \ \lambda_i \geq 0, \ a_i\in A \right\},$$ The first step is the following elementary geometric lemma.
\[geocond\] Let $\mathcal{S}_0\subset\Omega$ bounded, closed, simply connected with smooth boundary, which is not a disk. Then $ \text{coni}\{(n (x),(x-h_0)^\perp \cdot n(x)), \ x \in \partial \mathcal{S}_0 \}=\mathbb{R}^3.$
Suppose the contrary. Then there exists a plane separating (in the large sense) the origin in $\mathbb{R}^3$ from the set $\text{coni} (\{ (n (x), (x-h_0)^\perp \cdot n(x)), \ x \in \partial \mathcal{S}_0 \})$. We claim that a normal vector to this plane can be put in the form $(a,b,1)$, with $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$. Indeed, otherwise it would need to be of the form $(a,b,0)$, and the separation inequality would give $(a,b)\cdot n (x) \geq 0,\ \forall x \in \partial\mathcal{S}_0$. However, since $\partial\mathcal{S}_0$ is a smooth, closed curve, the set $\{n (x):\ x\in\partial\mathcal{S}_0\}$ is the unit circle of $\mathbb{R}^2$, therefore we have a contradiction.
Now we deduce that we have the following separation property: $$(a,b)\cdot n (x) + (x-h_0)^\perp \cdot n(x) \geq 0, \ \ \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{S}_0.$$ Denoting $w=(a,b)-h_0^\perp$, this translates into $(w+x^\perp)\cdot n (x) \geq 0$. But using Green’s formula, we get $$0 \leq \int_{\partial\mathcal{S}_0} (w+x^\perp)\cdot n (x) \, d\sigma = \int_{\mathcal{S}_0} \text{div}(w+x^\perp) \, dx = 0,$$ and consequently, we deduce that $(w+x^\perp)\cdot n (x)=0$ for all $x$ in $\partial \mathcal{S}_0$. This is equivalent to $(x-w^\perp) \cdot \tau (x) = 0$ for all $x$ in $\partial \mathcal{S}_0$. Parameterizing the translated curve $\partial\mathcal{S}_0-w^\perp$ by $\{c(s),\ s\in[0,1]\}$, it follows that $c(s)\cdot \dot{c}(s) = 0$, for all $s$ in $[0,1]$, and therefore $|c(s)|^2$ is constant. This means that $\partial\mathcal{S}_0-w^\perp$ is a circle, so $\mathcal{S}_0$ is a disk, which is a contradiction.
Fix $q_0 \in Q_{\delta}$. Recalling the definitions of the Kirchhoff potentials in (\[phi\]) and (\[kir\]), we infer from the previous lemma that $$\text{coni}\{ \partial_n \Phi (q_0,x),\ x\in\partial\mathcal{S}_0 \} = \mathbb{R}^3.$$ In place of Lemma \[kup1\], we have the following lemma which is a straightforward consequence of Lemma \[geocond\] and of a repeated application of Carathéodory’s theorem on the convex hull.
\[kup2\] There are some $(x_i )_{i\in\{1,\ldots,16\}}$ in $ \partial \mathcal{S}_0$ and positive continuous mappings $\mu_{i}: {\mathbb R}^{3} \rightarrow {\mathbb R}, \ {1\leqslant i \leqslant 16} $, $v \mapsto \mu_i(v) $ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{16} \mu_i(v) \partial_n \Phi (q_0,x_i)= v $.
We are now in position to establish Proposition \[farcontr\]. We deduce from Lemma \[kup2\] that for any $q := (h,\vartheta) \in \overline{Q_{\delta}}$, for any $v$ in $ {\mathbb R}^{3}$, $$\sum_{i=1}^{16} \mu_i( \mathcal{R} (\vartheta) v) \, \partial_n \Phi (q, x_i (q)) = \mathcal{R} (\vartheta) v ,$$ where $ x_i (q) := R(\vartheta) (x_i - h_0) + h $ and $\mathcal{R} (\vartheta) $ denotes the $3 \times 3$ rotation matrix defined by $$\mathcal{R} (\vartheta)
:= \left( \begin{array}{ccc}
R(\vartheta) & 0\\
0 & 1
\end{array} \right) .$$
Due to the Riemann mapping theorem, there exists a biholomorphic mapping $\Psi:\overline{\mathbb{C}}\setminus B(0,1)\to \overline{\mathbb{C}}\setminus\mathcal{S}(q)$ with $\partial\mathcal{S}(q)=\Psi(\partial B(0,1))$, where $\overline{\mathbb{C}}$ denotes the Riemann sphere. We consider the parametrisations $\{c(s)=(\cos(s),\sin(s)),\ s\in [0,2\pi]\}$ of $\partial B(0,1)$, respectively $\{\Psi(c(s)),\ s\in [0,2\pi]\}$ of $\partial \mathcal{S}(q)$, and the corresponding $s_i$ such that $ x_i (q) = \Psi(c(s_i))$, for $i\in\{1,\ldots,16\}$.
Then, for any smooth function $\alpha:\partial\mathcal{S}(q)\to\mathbb{R}$, due to the Cauchy-Riemann relations, we have the following: $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\partial_{n} \alpha(\Psi(x)) &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\text{det}(D\Psi(x))|}} \partial_{n_B} (\alpha\circ\Psi )(x),\\
\int_{\partial\mathcal{S}(q)} |\nabla\alpha(x)|^2 \, \partial_n \Phi(q,x) \, d\sigma &= \int_{\partial B(0,1)} |\nabla\alpha(\Psi(x))|^2 \, \partial_{n_B} \Phi(q,\Psi(x)) \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\text{det}(D\Psi(x))|}} \, d\sigma,
\end{split}\end{aligned}$$ for any $x\in\partial B(0,1)$, where $n$ and $n_B$ respectively denote the normal vectors on $\partial\mathcal{S}(q)$ and $\partial B(0,1)$. Note that, since $\Psi$ is invertible, we have $|\text{det}(D\Psi(x))|>0$, for any $x\in\partial B(0,1)$.
For each $\varepsilon>0$, $i\in\{1,\ldots,16\}, j\in\{1,2,3,4\}$ (here the index $j$ belongs to $\{1,2,3,4\}$ rather than $\{1,2,3\}$ in order to adapt the linear dependence argument of Lemma \[Lem3emeCond\] to the case of the three linear constraints ), we consider families of smooth functions $\beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}:[0,2\pi]\to\mathbb{R}$ satisfying $\text{supp }\beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}\cap\text{supp }\beta_{\varepsilon}^{k,l}=\emptyset $ for $(i,j)\neq(k,l),$ $\text{diam}\left(\text{supp }\beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}\right)\to 0$ as $\varepsilon\to0^{+}$, $$\int_{0}^{2\pi}\beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(s) \, ds=0,$$ and $$\left|\int_{0}^{2\pi}|\beta_{\varepsilon}^{i,j}(s)|^2 \, \partial_n \Phi(q,c(s)) \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\text{det}(D\Psi(c(s)))|}} \,\, ds- \tilde{e}_{i} \right|\to 0\ \text{as } \varepsilon\to0^{+} ,$$ where $$\tilde{e}_{i}:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{|\text{det}(D\Psi(c(s_i)))|}} \partial_n \Phi (q, x_i (q)).$$
Then one may proceed essentially as in the proof of Proposition \[dfarcontr\]. The details are therefore left to the reader.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We would like to thank Jimmy Lamboley and Alexandre Munnier for helpful conversations on shape differentiation. The authors also thank the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Project DYFICOLTI, grant ANR-13-BS01-0003-01 and Project IFSMACS, grant ANR-15-CE40-0010 for their financial support. F. Sueur was also partially supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Project SINGFLOWS grant ANR-18-CE40-0027-01, Project BORDS, grant ANR-16-CE40-0027-01, the Conseil Régionale d’Aquitaine, grant 2015.1047.CP, the Del Duca Foundation, and the H2020-MSCA-ITN-2017 program, Project ConFlex, Grant ETN-765579. Furthermore, J. J. Kolumbán would also like to thank the Fondation Sciences Mathématiques de Paris for their support in the form of the PGSM Phd Fellowship.
[99]{} G. Aronsson, Global Controllability and Bang-Bang Steering of Certain Nonlinear Systems, SIAM Journal on Control, 11 (1973), no. 4, 607–619. M. Boulakia, S. Guerrero, Local null controllability of a fluid-solid interaction problem in dimension 3, J. European Math Society, 15 (2013), no. 3, 825–856. M. Boulakia, A. Osses, Local null controllability of a two-dimensional fluid-structure interaction problem, ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var., 14 (2008), no. 1, 1–42. A. Bressan, Impulsive Control Systems, Nonsmooth Analysis and Geometric Methods in Deterministic Optimal Control, Volume 78 of the series The IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications, 1–22. P. Brunovský, C. Lobry, Controlabilité Bang Bang, controlabilité différentiable, et perturbation des systèmes non linéaires. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 105 (1975), 93–119. T. Chambrion, A. Munnier, Generic controllability of 3d swimmers in a perfect fluid. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 50(5) (2012), 2814–2835.
J.-M. Coron, Exact boundary controllability of the Euler equations of incompressible perfect fluids in dimension two, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Serie I, 317 (1993), 271–276. J.-M. Coron, On the controllability of the $2$-D incompressible Navier-Stokes equations with the Navier slip boundary conditions, ESAIM Contrôle Optim. Calc. Var. 1 (1995/96), 35–75. J.-M. Coron, On the null asymptotic stabilization of two-dimensional incompressible Euler equations in a simply connected domain, SIAM J. Control Optim., 37 (1999), 1874–1896.
J.-M. Coron, F. Marbach, F. Sueur, Small time global exact null controllability of the Navier-Stokes equation with Navier slip-with-friction boundary conditions, to appear in Journal of EMS, 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08087. J.-M. Coron, F. Marbach, F. Sueur, On the controllability of the Navier-Stokes equation in spite of boundary layers. Proceeding of the RIMS conference “Mathematical Analysis of Viscous Incompressible Fluid”, Volume 2058, 162-180, 2018. http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.07265. R. Gaines, Continuous dependence for two-point boundary value problems, Pacific J. Math. 28 (1969), no. 2, 327–336. O. Glass, Some questions of control in fluid mechanics. Control of partial differential equations, 131–206, Lecture Notes in Math. 2048, Fond. CIME/CIME Found. Subser., Springer, Heidelberg, 2012. O. Glass, An addendum to a J. M. Coron theorem concerning the controllability of the Euler system for 2D incompressible inviscid fluids. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 80 (2001), no. 8, 845–877. O. Glass, Asymptotic stabilizability by stationary feedback of the 2-D Euler equation: the multiconnected case, SIAM J. Control Optim. 44 (2005), no. 3, 1105–1147. O. Glass, Exact boundary controllability of the 3D Euler equation, ESAIM: Control, Optimization and Calculus of variations, 2000. O. Glass, T. Horsin, Prescribing the motion of a set of particles in a 3D perfect fluid, SIAM J. Control Optim. 50 (2012), No. 5, 2726–2742. O. Glass, T. Horsin, Approximate Lagrangian controllability for the 2-D Euler equation. Application to the control of the shape of vortex patches. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 93 (2010), no. 1, 61–90. O. Glass, T. Horsin, Lagrangian controllability at low Reynolds number. ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 22 (2016), no. 4, 1040–1053. O. Glass, C. Lacave, F. Sueur, On the motion of a small body immersed in a two dimensional incompressible perfect fluid, Bull. Soc. Math. France 142 (2014), no. 2, 1–48. O. Glass, A. Munnier, F. Sueur, Dynamics of a point vortex as limits of a shrinking solid in an irrotational fluid, preprint 2014, to appear in Inventiones Mathematicae, [arXiv:1402.5387]{}. O. Glass, L. Rosier, On the control of the motion of a boat, Math. Mod. Meth. Appl. Sci. 23 (2013), no. 4, 617–670. O. Glass, F. Sueur, The movement of a solid in an incompressible perfect fluid as a geodesic flow, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 140 (2012), 2155–2168. O. Glass, F. Sueur, Uniqueness results for weak solutions of two-dimensional fluid-solid systems, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis. Volume 218 (2015), Issue 2, 907–944. O. Glass, F. Sueur, T. Takahashi, Smoothness of the motion of a rigid body immersed in an incompressible perfect fluid, Ann. Sci. de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure Volume 45, fascicule 1 (2012), 1–51. K. A. Grasse, Nonlinear perturbations of control-semilinear control systems, SIAM J. Control Optim. 20 (1982), No. 3, 311–327. K. A. Grasse, Perturbations of nonlinear controllable systems, SIAM J. Control Optim. 19 (1981), No. 2, 203–220. A. Henrot, M. Pierre, Variation et optimisation de formes, Une analyse géométrique, Springer 2005 (in French). J.-G. Houot, J. San Martin, M. Tucsnak, Existence and uniqueness of solutions for the equations modelling the motion of rigid bodies in a perfect fluid. J. Funct. Anal., 259(11):2856–2885, 2010. O. Imanuvilov, T. Takahashi, Exact controllability of a fluid-rigid body system. J. Math. Pures Appl. 87, Issue 4 (2007), 408-437. J. J. Kolumbán, Control at a distance of the motion of a rigid body immersed in a two-dimensional viscous incompressible fluid, Preprint 2018, arXiv:1807.06885. R. Lecaros, L. Rosier, Control of underwater vehicles in inviscid fluids. I: Irrotational flows, ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 20 (2014), no. 3, 662-703. J. Lohéac, A. Munnier. Controllability of 3D low Reynolds number swimmers. ESAIM: Control, Optimisation and Calculus of Variations, 20 (2014) no. 1, 236-268. J. E. Marsden, T. Ratiu, Introduction to mechanics and symmetry: a basic exposition of classical mechanical systems (Vol. 17). Springer Science & Business Media. 2013. A. Munnier, Locomotion of Deformable Bodies in an Ideal Fluid: Newtonian versus Lagrangian Formalisms. J. Nonlinear Sci (2009) 19: 665-715.
J. Ortega, L. Rosier, T. Takahashi, On the motion of a rigid body immersed in a bidimensional incompressible perfect fluid. Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire, 24 (2007), no. 1, 139–165. J. H. Ortega, L. Rosier, T. Takahashi. Classical solutions for the equations modelling the motion of a ball in a bidimensional incompressible perfect fluid. M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal., 39 (2005), no. 1, 79–108. C. Rosier, L. Rosier. Smooth solutions for the motion of a ball in an incompressible perfect fluid. Journal of Functional Analysis, 256 (2009), no. 5, 1618–1641.
[^1]: CEREMADE, UMR CNRS 7534, Université Paris-Dauphine, PSL Research University, Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 75775 Paris Cedex 16, France
[^2]: Institut für Mathematik, Universität Leipzig, D-04109, Leipzig, Germany.
[^3]: Univ. Bordeaux, CNRS, Bordeaux INP, IMB, UMR 5251, F-33400, Talence, France $\&$ Institut Universitaire de France.
[^4]: The condition of simple connectedness is actually not essential and one could generalize the present result to the case where $\Omega$ is merely open and connected at the price of long but straightforward modifications.
[^5]: In the next lemma we are going to make use only of the square function $\beta_{\varepsilon}^2$ but we will also have to deal with the function $\beta_{\varepsilon}$ itself in the sequel, see below Proposition \[farcontr\].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- Ezio Bruno
- Leon Zingales
- Antonio Milici
title: ' Local Charge distributions in Metallic Alloys: a Local Field Coherent Potential Approximation Theory'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
In the last decade order N electronic structure calculations [@LSMS; @FWS2] made possible the study of large supercells containing from 100 to 1000 atoms. Namely Faulkner, Wang and Stocks [@FWS2; @FWS1] have shown that simple linear laws, the so called ’$qV$’ relations, link the local charge excesses and the local Madelung potentials in metallic alloys. These $qV$ linear laws have been obtained from the numerical analysis of data produced by Locally Self-consistent Multiple Scattering (LSMS) [@LSMS] calculations, while their formal derivation within the density functional theory has not yet been obtained. As a matter of fact, the above laws can be considered to hold at least within the approximations underlying LSMS calculations, i.e. the Local Density and the muffin-tin approximations.
In this paper we shall develop a new version of Coherent Potential Approximation theory (CPA). We apply a local external field and study the response of the mean field CPA alloy. Because of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, the response to the external field must be equal to the internal field caused by electrostatic interactions. This new theoretical scheme, avoiding the consideration of specific supercells, will enable us to explore a broad range of fields and clarify certain aspects of the mentioned $qV$ relations.
We shall find that, in a quite broad range of applied fields, $\Phi$, the [*integrated*]{} charge excess at a given site, $q$, scales linearly with the field, in agreement with the findings of Refs [@FWS2; @FWS1]. However, remarkably, in the same range of $\Phi$ values, the charge density at a given point does not obey a linear scaling. Our results for the CuPd and CuZn alloy systems compare favourably both with the LSMS and conventional superlattice multiple scattering theory calculations, as well as with the available experimental data. Our theory, when applied to random alloys, is computationally inexpensive in comparison with other approaches and can, in principle, be used, in conjunction with statistical methods, to describe ordering phenomena in metallic alloys.
In the next section 2, we shall discuss about charge transfers in multiple scattering theory calculations and CPA theory, while in section 3 we shall describe the above new version of the CPA theory that incorporates local fields (CPA+LF) and apply it to the study of fcc CuPd and fcc and bcc CuZn alloys. In the conclusion we shall summarize the most important features of our work.
CHARGE TRANSFERS IN METALLIC ALLOYS.
====================================
Charge transfers from LSMS calculations.
----------------------------------------
Faulkner, Wang and Stocks [@FWS2; @FWS1] have analysed the distribution of charges in binary metallic alloys as obtained from LSMS calculations. They have studied large supercells with periodic boundary conditions containing hundreds of atoms and designed to simulate substitutional disorder. LSMS calculations are based on the local density approximation to the density functional theory and the muffin-tin approximation for the crystal potential; thus the results of their analysis hold $\it{within}$ the same approximations. Below we shall summarize and comment the conclusions obtained in Refs. [@FWS2; @FWS1] that are relevant for our present concerns:
i\) [ *For a given alloy configuration*]{}, the site charges $q_i$ and the Madelung potentials $V_i$ obtained from LSMS calculations for binary alloys [*lie on two straight lines*]{} of equations: $$\label{qvsv}
a_i q_i + V_i = k_i$$ where the quantities $a_i$ and $k_i$ take the values $a_A$ and $k_A$ if the i-th site is occupied by an A atom and $a_B$ and $k_B$ if it is occupied by B. The size of the deviations from linearity appears $\it{comparable}$ with the numerical accuracy of LSMS calculations.
The Madelung potentials $V_i$ entering in Eq. (\[qvsv\]) are determined by the charges at all the crystal sites through the relationship: $$\label{Mad}
V_i = 2 \sum_i M_{ij} q_j$$ where the factor 2 comes from using atomic units. The Madelung matrix elements, $M_{ij}$, are defined [@Ziman] as $$\label{madmat}
M_{ij}=\sum_{\vec{R}} \frac{1}{|
\vec{r}_{ij}+\vec{R}|}$$ in terms of the translation vectors from the i-th to the j-th site, $\vec{r}_{ij}$, and the supercell lattice vectors $\vec{R}$.
ii\) For different alloy configurations corresponding [*to the same molar fractions*]{}, the four constants $a_A$, $k_A$, $a_B$ and $k_B$ in Eq. (\[qvsv\]) take different values. This notwithstanding, the variations of the same constants when considering different samples at the same concentration appear much smaller than their variation with the concentration.
iii\) The site charge excess corresponding to each chemical species in a random alloy configuration take [*any*]{} possible value in some interval $q_{min} \leq q_i \leq q_{max}$.
Faulkner, Wang and Stocks [@FWS2; @FWS1] have stressed that the existence of a linear relation is not a trivial consequence of classical electrostatics. In fact, Eq. (\[qvsv\]) is not verified at a generic Kohn-Sham iteration for the charge density in LSMS calculations, while it is found to hold [*only*]{} when convergence is achieved. Thus the linearity of the $qV$ laws should be interpreted as a consequence of the screening phenomena that occur in metals. As shown by Pinski [@pinski], linear $qV$ laws can be obtained also by Thomas-Fermi density functional calculations. This circumstance strongly suggests that the linearity of the $qV$ relations has little to do with the specific form of the density functional used in the calculation. The conclusions drawn in Refs. [@FWS2; @FWS1] and summarized above are indirectly supported by photoemission experiments [@Weightman; @FWS3]. Moreover, electronic structure calculations based on the Locally Self-consistent Green’s Function method (LSGF) and the atomic sphere approximation for the crystal potential have also confirmed the linearity of the $qV$ relations [@Abrikosov_cpa; @Ruban1; @Ruban2].
It should be clear that the definition of charge excess is based on the quite artificial partition of the crystal volume into “atomic” sites. This partition is accomplished using the muffin-tin approximation in Refs. [@FWS2; @FWS1] or the atomic sphere approximation in Refs. [@Abrikosov_cpa; @Ruban1; @Ruban2]. Of course other procedures are possible, but even in the case in which no spherical approximation is made, as it could be for full potential calculations (that unfortunately are not yet available), the way in which the “atomic cells” are chosen would remain arbitrary. However, different partitions of the crystal volume [*always*]{} lead to linear laws. This has been shown, e.g., in Ref. [@Ruban1] by changing the ratio $r$ between the atomic radii associated with each chemical species [@note]. To summarize: at least when a spherical approximation is used, the functional form of Eq. (\[qvsv\]) is maintained while, of course, the actual values of the coefficients depend on the particular partition used.
As it is evident, the presence of the charge transfers leads to energy corrections that can be important in the physics of metallic alloys. The simple functional form in Eq. (\[qvsv\]) allows an easy route for including such corrections [@BMZc]. An alternative way for accounting the electrostatic energy contribution due to charge transfers has been proposed by Gonis et al [@note; @gonissb]. It consists in choosing the dimensions of the atomic spheres for each alloying species in such a way to have zero charge transfers and, hence, zero contribution to the total energy. Of course, such a procedure could cause large overlap volumes (for simple lattices the overlap volume is minimum when equal atomic spheres are used) and, hence, large errors in density functional theory calculations.
Although, in principle, the quantities $a_i$, $k_i$ in Eq. (\[qvsv\]) can be influenced by the local environments, it is clear that [*the consideration of the site chemical occupation only is sufficient to determine the same quantities*]{} within an accuracy comparable with the numerical errors in LSMS calculations. This circumstance, as a matter of fact, suggests that a single site theory [@VKE] as the CPA could be sufficient to determine the above $a_i$, $k_i$. In section 3 this suggestion shall be analysed.
Charge transfers in the CPA theory.
-----------------------------------
For many years the CPA theory [@Soven] has been used for calculating the electronic properties of random metallic alloys. In fact, the CPA has allowed for very careful studies of spectral properties [@Abrikosov_cpa], Fermi surfaces [@physrep], phase equilibria [@phase] and magnetic phenomena [@magnetic] in metallic alloys. Moreover, in spite of its simplicity, the theory has achieved remarkable successes in the calculation of properties related with Fermi liquid effects, such as spin [@spinwaves] and concentration waves [@cwaves]. However, for the purpose of the present work two aspects of the theory are particularly relevant: its elegant formulation in terms of multiple scattering theory [@Gyorffy; @KKR] and the fact that it constitutes the natural first step for perturbative studies.
As it is well known [@Magri], the CPA does not include the energetic contributions that derive from charge transfers in metallic alloys. In spite of this, the CPA is useful for understanding some physical properties related with these charge transfers. We will try to explain below the reasons for this apparent paradox.
The CPA theory (we shall use the multiple scattering theory formalism [@Gyorffy; @KKRCPA] for a random binary alloy $A_{c_A}B_{c_B}$) consists of solving for $t_C$ the so called CPA equation, $$\label{CPA}
c_A G_A(t_A,t_C)+c_B G_B(t_B,t_C)=G_C(t_C)$$
The three Green’s functions in Eq. (\[CPA\]), $G_A(t_A,t_C)$, $G_B(t_B,t_C)$ and $G_C(t_C)$, refer to the three different problems sketched in Fig. \[cpa\]. In fact, $G_C(t_C)$ is the Green’s function for an infinite crystal whose sites are all occupied by effective scatterers characterised by the single-site scattering matrix $t_C$.
On the other hand, $G_{A(B)}(t_{A(B)},t_C)$ is the Green’s function for a single impurity ’atom’ described by the single-site scattering matrix $t_{A(B)}$ and embedded in an infinite crystal with all the other sites characterised by the single-site scattering matrix $t_C$.
While the homogeneous effective crystal, the ’coherent’ medium of the CPA theory, let us call it C, is electroneutral, the two impurity Green’s functions lead to net charge excesses, $q^0_A$ and $q^0_B$, in the sites occupied by the A and B impurities. On behalf of Eq. (\[CPA\]), these charge excesses satisfy the condition, $$\label{elecn}
c_A q^0_A + c_B q^0_B=0$$ In C there is no charge transfers from one site to the others and, thus, Eq.(\[elecn\]) cannot be interpreted as an ordinary electroneutrality condition. However $q^0_{A(B)}$ can be considered as the charge that the impurity A(B) attracts from the mean medium C, in the sense that there is an indirect charge transfer from A to B, through the mean medium C. The last can be reinterpreted as a reference system and plays a role similar to that of the Hydrogen atom for molecules, in the formulation of the electronegativity theory by Pauling [@Pauling].
In summary: we could say that the CPA ’charge transfers’ $q^0_{A(B)}$ [*reflect*]{} the difference of electronegativity between A and B. Of course the CPA theory, being a single site and a mean field theory, cannot account for the complex charge relaxation phenomena that are expected to make non equivalent sites occupied by same species and surrounded by different local chemical environments. In order to have a picture in which sites occupied by the atoms of the same kind are no longer equivalent, it is necessary to renounce to a single-site picture. Non single-site formulations of the CPA theory have been proposed several times in the literature. Here we mention the charge-correlated CPA by Johnson and Pinski [@more_scr] and the Polymorphous Coherent Potential Approximation (PCPA) by Ujfalussy et al [@Ujfalussy]. In this paper, we shall develop a different approach by introducing an external local field in a single-site CPA picture; this will allow to maintain all the mathematical simplicity of a single-site theory, nevertheless the presence of external fields will be sufficient to lead to polymorphous site potentials.
RESPONSE TO LOCAL FIELDS OF THE ’CPA ALLOY’.
============================================
The local field CPA (CPA+LF) model
----------------------------------
In this section, we develop a new version of CPA theory by introducing an external local field $\Phi$. It will formally enter in the theory as a parameter that can be varied at will. We shall focus on the response of the system due to the resulting rearrangement of the charge distribution.
We imagine an A impurity atom in a otherwise homogeneous crystal with all the other sites occupied by C scatterers. We suppose that the single site scattering matrix of the CPA medium, $t_C$, and its Fermi energy, $E_F$, have been determined by the CPA theory for the binary alloy $A_{c_A}B_{c_B}$. The local external field, $\Phi$, takes a constant value within the impurity site volume and is zero elsewhere [@note2]. This situation is pictorially represented in Fig. \[cpaphi\]. To simplify our discussion we shall solve the problem using the Atomic Sphere Approximation (ASA). However, the following considerations hold for any cellular method, and, with minor modifications, also for the muffin-tin approximation.
We shall refer to the impurity A in the presence of the external field $\Phi$ as to $(A,\Phi)$. When $\Phi=0$, the site Green’s function associated with it, $G^\Phi_A(t^\Phi_A,t_C)$, reduces to the usual CPA Green’s function, $G_A(t_A,t_C)$. When $\Phi\ne 0$, $G^\Phi_A(t^\Phi_A,t_C)$ can be readily obtained using the multiple scattering theory impurity formula [@KKRCPA]:
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Green}
G^\Phi_A(E, \vec{r}, \vec{r}^{\;\prime}) & = &
\sum_{L,L^\prime} [ Z^\Phi_L(E, \vec{r})
\tau^\Phi_{A,LL^\prime} Z^\Phi_{L^\prime} (E, \vec{r}^{\;\prime}) -
Z^\Phi_L(E,
\vec{r}) J^\Phi_{L^\prime} (E, \vec{r}^{\;\prime}) \delta_{LL^\prime}]\end{aligned}$$
where $$\label{tau}
\tau^\Phi_A=D^\Phi_A \tau_C=\left[1+\tau_C \left( (t^\Phi_A)^{-1}-t_C^{-1}
\right) \right]^{-1} \tau_C$$ In Eqs. (\[Green\]) and (\[tau\]), E is the energy, $t_C$ and $\tau_C$ are the CPA single site scattering matrix and scattering-path operator, [*as determined by a standard CPA calculation*]{}, i.e. $\Phi=0$, for the alloy at hand. The single site scattering matrix corresponding to $(A,\Phi)$, $t^\Phi_A$, is to be determined from the site potential $V^\Phi_A(\vec{r})+\Phi$, $D^\Phi_A$ is the CPA projector relative to the same site potential, $Z^\Phi_L(E, \vec{r})$ and $J^\Phi_L(E, \vec{r})$ are two orthogonal solutions of the Schroedinger equation for the same potential, the first of which is regular at $r=0$. In our notation $L=(l,m)$ labels the angular momentum quantum numbers and, for sake of simplicity, we omit the energy dependence of all the scattering matrices. A complete account of the notation can be found in Ref. [@KKRCPA].
The charge density corresponding to $(A,\Phi)$ is obtained integrating Eq. (\[Green\]) over the energy up to the Fermi level, $$\label{rhoel}
\rho^\Phi_A(\vec{r})=-\frac{1}{\pi} Im \; \bigg\{ \int_{-\infty}^{E_F} dE \;
G^\Phi_A(E, \vec{r}, \vec{r}^{\;\prime}=\vec{r}) \bigg\}$$
The corresponding site potential, $V^\Phi_A(\vec{r})$, can be reconstructed by solving the appropriate Poisson equation and adding the exchange-correlation contribution [@Janak; @Winter]. Unless $\Phi=0$, it will be different from the site potential obtained from the zero field CPA theory, $V_A(\vec{r})=V^{\Phi=0}_A(\vec{r})$, due to the charge relaxations expected to screen in part the external field. In a numerical implementation of the theory, Eqs. (\[Green\]-\[rhoel\]) and the potential reconstruction need to be iterated starting from a convenient initial guess, until convergence is achieved for $V^\Phi_A(\vec{r})$ or, equivalently, for $\rho^\Phi_A(\vec{r})$. Hereafter we shall refer to the above model as to the Local Field CPA (CPA+LF).
Once convergence is obtained for the charge density, the net charge on the site A can be obtained by integrating over the atomic sphere volume and subtracting the nuclear charge, $Z_A$, $$\label{charge}
q_A(\Phi)=\int d\vec{r} \rho^\Phi_A(\vec{r}) - Z_A$$
It is important to realise that, while the above self-consistent determination of $V^\Phi_A(\vec{r})$ or $\rho^\Phi_A(\vec{r})$ allows for full charge relaxation at the impurity site, the CPA+LF does not modify the properties of the CPA medium C: these remain specified by the quantities $t_C$ and $E_F$ determined at zero external field. The resulting lack of self-consistency in the CPA+LF is not a serious drawback if one is interested, as in the present case, to the investigation of trends and general aspects of the screening phenomena.
CPA+LF results for CuZn and CuPd alloys: the site charges
---------------------------------------------------------
We have implemented the CPA+LF theory within our well tested KKR-CPA code [@KKRAlgorithms]. If $t_C$ and $\tau_C$ from a previous standard KKR-CPA calculation are stored on a convenient energy mesh, the extra computational efforts required by the CPA+LF calculation are negligible.
In this paper we discuss results for fcc CuPd and for bcc and fcc CuZn random alloys at several concentrations. In all the cases we have used the Local Density approximation (LDA) for the exchange-correlation potential , the ASA approximation for the site potentials and the angular momentum expansions have been truncated at $l_{MAX}=3$. We use a fully relativistic treatment for core electrons and a scalar relativistic approximation for valence electrons. For all the alloy systems considered in this paper, the lattice parameters have been kept fixed on varying the concentration. In particular, we set $a=5.5$ a.u. and $a=6.9$ a.u. for bcc and fcc CuZn, and $a=7.1$ a.u. for fcc CuPd. With this choice, the atomic volumes in fcc and bcc CuZn alloys differ only about 1.3 per cent.
As we shall discuss in the next subsection, the charge relaxation occurring at the impurity site in presence of the external field phenomena are quite complex. Nevertheless, the CPA+LF model gives a simple linear relation between the potential $\Phi$ and the corresponding site charges. In Fig. \[qvsphi\] we report $q_\alpha$ ($\alpha=$Cu, Zn) vs. $\Phi$ for a Cu$_{0.50}$Zn$_{0.50}$ bcc random alloy. As it is evident, the data can be fitted very well by two straight lines, one for each atomic species ( with correlations that differ from one by less than one part over a million). Interestingly, the slopes of the two lines are different by a relatively small but statistically relevant amount, slightly less than 2 per cent.
We notice that in Fig. \[qvsphi\] we have considered also $\Phi$ values considerably larger that those observed in LSMS calculation or likely to occur in real systems; so according to our data the linear relations seem to be valid in a quite broad field range. We have fitted the $q_\alpha$ vs. $\Phi$ curves at each molar fraction for fcc Cu$_c$Pd$_{1-c}$, fcc Cu$_c$Zn$_{1-c}$ and bcc Cu$_c$Pd$_{1-c}$ random alloys, at a number of alloy concentrations, using the linear relationships $$\label{qfit}
q_\alpha(\Phi)=q_\alpha^0 - R_\alpha \; \Phi$$ However, at $\Phi=0$, our CPA+LF model satisfies the CPA ’electronegativity’ condition, Eq. (\[elecn\]), and we have: $$c_A q_A^0 +c_B q_B^0=0$$ Henceforth, $q_A^0$ and $q_B^0$ are not independent quantities and we have chosen as the parameters of our fit only the three quantities $R_A$, $R_B$ and $$\label{delta}
\Delta = q_A^0/c_B = - q_B^0/c_A = q_A^0 - q_B^0$$ The results of these fits are reported in Table 1. The trends found for the fitting parameters vs. the alloy molar fractions are shown in Fig. \[R\_delta\_vs\_c\]. The dependence on the concentration is appreciable for all the fitting parameters, as expected on the basis of the arguments in section 2. Remarkably, the dependences on the alloy system and on the concentration appear at least as much important as that on the atomic species. Thus, for instance, for a given alloy system and concentration, there are relatively small differences between the values of $R$ corresponding to sites occupied by different atoms. On the other hand, we find much larger variations for $R_{Cu}$ throughout the alloy systems considered. It is interesting to observe that the trends for the slopes, $R_{Cu}$ and $R_{Zn}$, and for $\Delta$ are very similar in [*both*]{} fcc and bcc CuZn alloys. We notice also that $\Delta$, a measure of the electronegativity difference between the alloying species, exhibits, at least for CuPd alloys, non negligible variations vs. the concentration. In the model of Ref. [@Magri], the same quantity is assumed independent on the concentration. As we see from Table 1, the values for $\Delta$ from our theory are systematically smaller than those from LSMS. This fact has not to do with the presence of external fields and it is a feature of the standard CPA theory already discussed in the literature [@BG]. This notwithstanding, the CPA is able to catch the qualitative trends of $\Delta$ vs. the concentration for all the systems considered.\
Although the CPA+LF model gives for $q$ vs. $\Phi$ the same linear functional form as that obtained for $q$ vs. $V$ from LSMS calculations, the differences between the two different sets of calculations forbid, at this stage, a direct comparison of the fit coefficients. In fact, as we have already stressed, our CPA+LF model does not account for charge relaxations outside the impurity site volume. By its construction, the CPA medium C is able to screen the impurity charge at $\Phi=0$, i.e. $q_\alpha^0$. We can think that this amount of charge is screened by the infinite volume of C. The introduction of the local field at the impurity site causes a local excess of charge, $q_\alpha(\Phi) - q_\alpha^0$, with respect to the standard CPA. In order to have global electroneutrality in the CPA+LF theory, it is necessary to introduce, somewhere outside the impurity site, an opposite amount of charge, $q_\alpha^0 - q_\alpha(\Phi)$. Here it will be accomplished using the arguments of the screened impurity model (SIM-CPA) model by Abrikosov et al. [@Abrikosov]. We suppose that the excess (with respect to the standard CPA) charge at the impurity site, $q_\alpha(\Phi)- q_\alpha^0$, is [*completely screened*]{} at some distance, $\rho$, of the order the nearest neighbours distance, $r_1$. Accordingly, in the mean, each of the $n$ nearest neighbours of the impurity cell has a net charge excess $(q_\alpha^0-q_\alpha(\Phi))/n$. This, in turn, induces an extra field $\Phi_1 = n (2/\rho)(q_\alpha^0-
q_\alpha(\Phi))/n=2(q_\alpha^0-q_\alpha(\Phi))/\rho$ on the impurity site.
Alloys $c$ $\Delta$ R$_{Cu}$ R$_{Pd(Zn)}$ RMS $\times 10^4$ $\tilde{R}_{Cu}$ $\tilde{R}_{Pd(Zn)}$ $\Delta$ $\tilde{R}_{Cu}$ $\tilde{R}_{Pd(Zn)}$
---------------------- ------ ---------- ---------- -------------- ------------------- ------------------ ---------------------- ---------- ------------------ ----------------------
fcc Cu$_c$Pd$_{1-c}$ 0.10 0.183 1.093 1.156 1.8 0.762 0.792 0.238 0.833 0.843
0.25 0.175 1.124 1.187 2.1 0.776 0.806 0.229 0.838 0.851
0.50 0.160 1.184 1.244 1.9 0.805 0.832 0.219 0.843 0.851
0.75 0.150 1.243 1.288 2.4 0.831 0.851 0.212 0.838 0.853
0.90 0.148 1.267 1.307 4.4 0.842 0.860 0.211 0.836 0.853
bcc Cu$_c$Zn$_{1-c}$ 0.10 0.109 1.206 1.232 10 0.800 0.812 0.155 0.536 0.581
0.25 0.114 1.237 1.255 10 0.814 0.822 0.159 0.526 0.554
0.50 0.116 1.237 1.251 6.9 0.814 0.820 0.156 0.545 0.549
0.75 0.116 1.247 1.255 5.0 0.819 0.822 0.155 0.567 0.564
0.90 0.116 1.248 1.254 3.2 0.819 0.822 0.158 0.582 0.577
fcc Cu$_c$Zn$_{1-c}$ 0.10 0.106 1.202 1.223 8.2 0.805 0.815 0.145 0.575 0.628
0.25 0.111 1.220 1.237 8.1 0.813 0.821 0.150 0.580 0.618
0.50 0.116 1.222 1.241 5.5 0.814 0.822 0.151 0.600 0.622
0.75 0.117 1.247 1.256 5.2 0.825 0.829 0.150 0.615 0.632
0.90 0.118 1.249 1.256 3.3 0.826 0.829 0.152 0.616 0.630
\[tabI\]
The total field at the impurity site is then the sum of the external field $\Phi$ and of the above extra term, in formulae, $$\label{screen}
V_\alpha =\Phi + 2 (q_\alpha^0-q_\alpha(\Phi))/\rho$$ Then, by solving for $\Phi$ the last equation and substituting in Eq. (\[qfit\]), we find $$\label{qfit_mod}
q_\alpha(\Phi)=q_\alpha^0 -
\frac{R_\alpha}{1+2R_\alpha/\rho} \; V_\alpha = q_\alpha^0 -
\tilde{R}_\alpha V_\alpha$$ The coefficients $\tilde{R}_\alpha$ can be compared directly with the slopes of the $qV$ relations from LSMS calculations. However, the comparison, reported in Table 1, requires a caveat: we have assumed $\rho=r_1$, i.e. a complete screening at the distance of the nearest neighbours.
Actually, the screening lengths in metals are of the order of this distance [@Pines], but our estimate is too crude to expect for a very good quantitative agreement with LSMS calculations in which the charge relaxation is allowed at all the length scales. However, the agreement found is quite satisfactory, within 10 per cent, for CuPd alloys, while larger discrepancies are found for CuZn. Again, the trends for $\tilde{R}_\alpha$ vs. the concentration are qualitatively reproduced.
CPA+LF results for CuZn and CuPd alloys: the charge relaxation
--------------------------------------------------------------
We have already said, in spite of the $qV$ linear laws, the relaxation phenomena occurring in presence of an external field are complicated. The CPA+LF model allows for the determination of the response to an external potential field by the electrons [*inside*]{} the atomic sphere A.
CONCLUSIONS
===========
The most important result of this work is the reproduction of the linear laws between local charge excesses and local electrostatic fields, in good quantitative agreement with order N electronic structure calculations [@FWS2; @FWS1]. This is very remarkable if one considers the [*single site*]{} nature of our CPA+LF model, that, hence, requires really modest computational efforts. The only non first-principles input of our theory has been the inclusion of a screening length that we have fixed to the nearest neighbours distance. Work is in progress to build a new, completely [*ab initio*]{}, version. The simple mathematical structure of our model has allowed the investigation of a range of fields much broader than that accessible by order N calculations. On this basis, we can conclude that the above linear relations have little to do with the [*size*]{} of the external field. On the other hand, our study shows that, in the same range of fields, non linear trends are clearly observable for other site properties, including the charge density $\rho(r)$ (see, e.g. Figs. \[rhovsphi\], \[rhologvsphi\], \[rhologvsphi2\]).\
As we have already noticed, the CPA+LF theory fixes the reference medium, the CPA alloy, or, in a more mathematical language, the system Green’s function that depends only on the mean molar fractions. Thus, for a given concentration, any site physical observable depends only on the CPA projectors and the site wavefunctions (see Eqs. (\[Green\]) and (\[tau\])), which, in turn, are completely determined by the nuclear charge on the impurity site and the coupling potential entering in the corresponding Schroedinger-Kohn-Sham equation. Thus, in the CPA+LF theory, [*any*]{} site property is a [*unique*]{} function of the chemical species and of $\Phi$. A question arises: could this uniqueness be maintained in the more realistic multiple scattering theory treatment? We argue that, also in this case, there is a well defined system Green’s function and, in principle ’site projectors’ $D_i$, could be defined relating the site diagonal part at the site $i$ to the system Green’s function. The excellent performance of the CPA theory about the spectral properties of many alloy systems [@Abrikosov_cpa], the present results and those of Ref. [@Ujfalussy] suggest that these generalized projectors should be very close to their CPA counterparts, $D_\alpha$, but, in principle, they should also be affected by the chemical environment of the first few neighbours shells of $i$-th site. These effects, if they are important, could be studied, for instance by including local fields in the charge-correlated CPA scheme by Johnson and Pinski [@more_scr]. Of course, all the above does not solve the problem of a formal derivation of the $qV$ laws within the density functional scheme, it simply offers a not too difficult mathematical ground in which, we hope, such a derivation could be obtained.\
A further advantage of the CPA+LF model is that, in conjunction with the Charge Excess Functional theory [@BMZc], it is able to give a good description of the charge distribution in excellent agreement with order N calculations. This, and the flexibility of the scheme, that does not require the use of specific supercells and is then able to deal on the same footing with ordered or disordered configurations, suggest that it constitutes a first step towards an [*ab initio*]{} non perturbative theory of ordering phenomena in metallic alloys.
We thanks Professor J.S. Faulkner and Dr. Y. Wang for having made available in digital form the data of Refs. [@FWS2; @FWS1]. We acknowledge also discussions with Professor E.S. Giuliano.
[99]{}
Y. Wang, G.M. Stocks, W.A. Shelton, D.M.C. Nicholson, Z. Szotek and W.M. Temmerman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 2867 (1995). J.S. Faulkner, Y. Wang and G.M. Stocks, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 7492 (1997). J.S. Faulkner, Y. Wang and G.M. Stocks, Phys. Rev. B [**52**]{}, 17106 (1995). P. Hohenberg and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. [**136**]{}, B864 (1964); W. Kohn and L.J. Sham, Phys. Rev. [**140**]{}, A1133 (1965). Dreizler R.M., Gross E.K.U.,[*Density Functional Theory*]{}, Spinger-Verlag (1990). J.M. Ziman, [*Principles of the theory of solids*]{}, Cambridge University Press (1969). F.J.Pinski, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 15140 (1998).
R.J. Cole, N.J. Brooks and P. Weightman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**78**]{}, 3777 (1997). J.S. Faulkner, Y. Wang and G.M. Stocks, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**81**]{}, 1905 (1998). I.A. Abrikosov and B. Johansson, Phys. Rev. B [**57**]{}, 14164 (1998). A.V. Ruban, S.I. Simak, P.A. Korzhavyi and H.L. Skriver, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 024201 (2002). A.V. Ruban and H.L. Skriver, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 024202 (2002). As noticed in Ref. [@gonissb], it exists a special value of $r$ at which the charge transfers are zero for all the alloying species. This is not in contrast with the existence of linear laws: for the above value of $r$, the range $q_{min} \leq q_i \leq q_{max}$ collapses in a single point [@Ruban1]. Also in this case $qV$ linear relationships hold with finite values for $a_A$ and $a_B$ and with $k_A$=$k_B$=0 as it can be established by following the methods illustrated in section 3. E. Bruno, this conference; E. Bruno, L. Zingales and Y. Wang, to be published. Gonis A.,Turchi P.E.A., Kudrnovsky J., Drchal V. and Turek I., J. Phys. Cond. Mat. [**8**]{},7883 (1996). B. Velicky, S. Kirkpatrick and H. Ehrenreich, Phys. Rev. [**175**]{}, 747 (1968). P. Soven, Phys. Rev. [**156**]{}, 809 (1967). E. Bruno, B. Ginatempo, E.S. Giuliano, A.V. Ruban and Yu. Kh. Vekilof, Phys. Rep. [**249**]{}, 3353 (1994). B.L. Gyorffy and G.M. Stocks, Phys. Rev. Lett [**50**]{}, 374 (1983); J.B. Staunton, D.D. Johnson and F.J. Pinski, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 1450 (1994). J.B. Staunton, F.J. Pinski and D.D. Johnson, J. Appl. Phys. [**61**]{}, 3715 (1987); J.B. Staunton, J. Poulter, F.J. Pinski, B. Ginatempo and E. Bruno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 3340 (1999). S.S.A. Razee, J.B. Staunton, B. Ginatempo, F.J. Pinski and E. Bruno, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 5369 (1999). I. Wilkinson, R.J. Hughes, Zs. Major, S.B. Dugdale, M.A. Alam, E. Bruno, B. Ginatempo and E.S. Giuliano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 216401 (2001). B.L. Gyorffy, Phys. Rev. B [**5**]{}, 2382 (1972). J. Korringa, Physica (Amsterdam) [**13**]{}, 392 (1947); W. Kohn and N. Rostoker, Phys. Rev. [**94**]{}, 111 (1954). R. Magri, S.H. Wei and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B [**42**]{}, 11388 (1990). J.S. Faulkner and G.M. Stocks, Phys. Rev. B [**21**]{}, 3222 (1980); A. Gonis, [*Green functions for ordered and disordered systems*]{}, North-Holland Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1992). L. Pauling, [*The Nature of Chemical Bond*]{}, Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1960). D.D. Johnson and F.J. Pinski, Phys. Rev. B [**48**]{}, 11553 (1993). B. Ujfalussy, J.S. Faulkner, N.Y. Moghadam, G.M. Stocks and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. B [**61**]{}, 2005 (2000). This steplike behaviour of the field $\Phi$ in our model corresponds to the assumptions made for the Madelung field in atomic sphere or muffin-tin approximation calculations for periodic systems. J.F. Janak, Phys. Rev. B [**9**]{}, 3985 (1974). H. Winter and G.M. Stocks, Phys. Rev. B [**27**]{}, 882 (1983). E. Bruno and B. Ginatempo, Phys. Rev. B [**55**]{}, 12946 (1997). E. Bruno, L. Zingales and A. Milici, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{} to appear on December 15th, 2002; cond-mat/0206088. E. Bruno and B. Ginatempo, Europhys. Lett. [**42**]{}, 649 (1998). I.A. Abrikosov, Yu. Kh. Vekilov and A.V. Ruban, Phys. Lett. A [**154**]{}, 407 (1991); I.A. Abrikosov, Yu. Kh. Vekilov, P.A. Korzahavyi, A.V. Ruban and L.E. Shilkrot, Sol. St. Comm. [**83**]{}, 867 (1992). D. Pines, Solid State Phys. [**1**]{} (1955). E. Bruno, unpublished.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Color octet bosons are a universal prediction of models in which the 750 GeV diphoton resonance corresponds to a pion of a QCD-like composite sector. We show that the existing searches for dijet and photon plus jet resonances at the LHC constrain single productions of color octet states and can be translated into stringent limits on the 750 GeV diphoton rate. For a minimal $5+\overline{5}$ model, the 750 GeV diphoton signal cross section at the 13 TeV LHC is constrained to be below around 5 fb. Future LHC searches for the photon plus jet resonances can establish evidence of a new color-octet state with 20 fb$^{-1}$ and validate a pion-like explanation for the 750 GeV resonance.'
author:
- 'Yang Bai,$^{a}$ Vernon Barger$^{a,b}$ and Joshua Berger$^{a}$'
bibliography:
- 'OctetRefs.bib'
title: 'Color-octet Companions of a 750 GeV Heavy Pion '
---
***Introduction.*** The ATLAS and CMS collaborations have recently reported excesses in their searches for a heavy diphoton resonance at a mass of 750 GeV [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-018; @CMS-PAS-EXO-16-018]. If the excesses get confirmed by further data at Run 2 of the LHC, the 750 GeV resonance could be the first particle discovered beyond the Standard Model (SM). The relatively large cross-section of the signal suggests strong dynamics, possibly QCD-like, with its confinement scale at the TeV scale [@Harigaya:2015ezk; @Nakai:2015ptz; @Franceschini:2015kwy; @Low:2015qep; @Curtin:2015jcv; @Bian:2015kjt; @Bai:2015nbs; @Craig:2015lra; @Franzosi:2016wtl; @Harigaya:2016pnu; @Draper:2016fsr; @Harigaya:2016eol]. The 750 GeV resonance behaves in a similar manner to the neutral pion in the SM QCD sector. It couples to SM gauge bosons via the triangle anomaly such that it can be produced via two gluon partons at the LHC and subsequently decay into two photons.
In the many proposed composite models [@Harigaya:2015ezk; @Nakai:2015ptz; @Franceschini:2015kwy; @Low:2015qep; @Curtin:2015jcv; @Bian:2015kjt; @Bai:2015nbs; @Craig:2015lra; @Franzosi:2016wtl; @Harigaya:2016pnu; @Draper:2016fsr; @Harigaya:2016eol], the properties of the SM gauge singlet corresponding to the 750 GeV particle have been studied extensively, including related $\gamma Z$, $ZZ$ and $WW$ decay channels. These models also predict color-octet and color-triplet bosons because the SM-singlet 750 GeV must couple to gluons. Although the existence of such QCD-charged particles have been mentioned in various studies, their detailed properties and current status based on the existing LHC data have not been examined. In this Letter, we determine the properties of the QCD charged states for a class of models and point out that the existing LHC data can already impose stringent constraints for a large fraction of models. Additional data from the LHC Run 2 will very likely find evidence for the color-octet if the 750 GeV resonance has its origin similar to the neutral pion in the SM.
![The triangle-anomaly diagrams for the 750 GeV SM-singlet boson (upper) and its predicted color-octet companion (lower) couplings to SM gauge bosons.[]{data-label="fig:feyn"}](anomaly_singlet.eps "fig:")\
[$\Downarrow$]{}\
![The triangle-anomaly diagrams for the 750 GeV SM-singlet boson (upper) and its predicted color-octet companion (lower) couplings to SM gauge bosons.[]{data-label="fig:feyn"}](anomaly_octet.eps "fig:")
Unlike the color-triplet heavy pions, whose decays depend on additional higher-dimension operators of undetermined flavor structure, the color-octet heavy pions have leading one pion interactions with SM particles via the triangular interactions with two gluons or one gluon plus one photon as shown in Fig. \[fig:feyn\]. The size of the octet pion couplings are predicted by that of the 750 GeV particle. The color-octet heavy pions therefore behave as dijet or photon plus jet narrow resonances. In addition to the spin-zero color octet state, the spin-one color-octet vector meson, analogous to the $\rho$ meson, has also been studied. Dijet resonance searches highly constrain this vector meson such that these models are forced into a portion of parameter space in which its dominant decay is to pairs of pions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model Big-Quark Big-pion
-------------- ----------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D $\oplus$ L $(3,1)_{-1/3} \oplus (1,2)_{1/2}$ $(8,1)_0
\oplus (3,2)_{-5/6} \oplus (\bar{3},2)_{5/6} \oplus (1,3)_0 \oplus
(1,1)_0$
D $\oplus$ E $(3,1)_{-1/3} \oplus (1,1)_{1}$ $(8,1)_0
\oplus (\bar{3},1)_{4/3} \oplus (3,1)_{-4/3} \oplus (1,1)_0$
D $\oplus$ T $(3,1)_{-1/3} \oplus (1,3)_1$ $(8,1)_0 \oplus
(\bar{3},3)_{-2/3} \oplus (3,3)_{2/3} \oplus (1,5)_0 \oplus (1,3)_0 \oplus
(1,1)_0$
L $\oplus$ Q $(1,2)_{1/2} \oplus (\bar{3},2)_{-1/6}$ $(8,3)_0
\oplus (8,1)_0 \oplus (3,3)_{2/3} \oplus (\bar{3},3)_{-2/3}
\oplus$
$(3,1)_{2/3} \oplus (\bar{3},1)_{-2/3} \oplus 2\times (1,3)_0 \oplus
(1,1)_0$
U $\oplus$ E $(3,1)_{2/3} \oplus (1,1)_{-1}$ $(8,1)_0 \oplus
(\bar{3},1)_{-5/3} \oplus (3,1)_{5/3} \oplus (1,1)_0$
U $\oplus$ N $(3,1)_{2/3} \oplus (1,1)_0$ $(8,1)_0 \oplus
(\bar{3},1)_{-2/3} \oplus (3,1)_{2/3} \oplus (1,1)_0$
E $\oplus$ Q $(1,1)_{-1} \oplus (3,2)_{1/6}$ $(8,3)_0 \oplus
(8,1)_0 \oplus (\bar{3},2)_{5/6} \oplus
(3,2)_{-5/6} \oplus (1,3)_0 \oplus (1,1)_0$
E $\oplus$ S $(1,1)_{-1} \oplus (6,1)_{2/3}$ $(27,1)_0 \oplus
(8,1)_0 \oplus (\bar{6},1)_{1/3} \oplus (6,1)_{-1/3} \oplus
(1,1)_0$
S $\oplus$ N $(6,1)_{2/3} \oplus (1,1)_0$ $(27,1)_0 \oplus
(8,1)_0 \oplus (\bar{6},1)_{-2/3} \oplus (6,1)_{2/3} \oplus
(1,1)_0$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***Big-color models for the 750 GeV resonance.*** If the strong dynamics giving rise to the 750 GeV resonance is QCD-like, it could arise due to an asymptotically free non-Abelian gauge group, which we denote by $SU(N_b)$. We call the new color quantum number [*big-color*]{}. We assume vector-like big-quarks that transform in the fundamental representation of $SU(N_b)$. Some or all of the big-quarks can also be charged under SM gauge interactions. As a phenomenologically broad overview of the possibilities for composite models of the 750 GeV diphoton resonance, we consider the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) inspired models of Ref. [@Redi:2016kip], and show the SM gauge representations of the big-color quarks and pions for different models in Table \[tab:representations\].
The models in Table \[tab:representations\] are selected such that i) they can potentially have SM gauge couplings run up to the GUT scale without hitting a Landau pole (for instance, the $5 + \overline{5}$ or D $\oplus$ L model requires $N_b\leq 10$); ii) the big-quarks fall into SM representations that can be embedded in low dimension GUT multiplets; iii) there is a potential 750 GeV diphoton signal. Within the models considered in Ref. [@Redi:2016kip], we further select the models that can explain the 750 GeV diphoton resonance using a pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson pion as opposed to heavier pseudo-scalar $\eta^\prime$. Models that explain the excess with an $\eta^\prime$ tend to have lighter QCD-charged meson spectra and even tighter constraints than those considered in this work. The SM-singlet meson in each spectrum is fit to the 750 GeV diphoton excess of ATLAS and CMS [@ATLAS-CONF-2016-018; @CMS-PAS-EXO-16-018]. There are two hypercharge choices for the color-triplet or color-sextet pions. For convenience, we have chosen one of them in Table \[tab:representations\].
All models considered here have a QCD-charged big-quark $\psi_c$ and a QCD-neutral big-quark $\psi_n$. In the UV theory, we write the big-quark mass terms as - m\_c \_c \_c - m\_n \_n \_n . To determine the constraints on the QCD-charged mesons in the models, we perform a rescaling of the QCD meson spectrum and couplings to determine the structure of our composite sector. We include both spin-zero big-pions, $\pi_b$s, and spin-one big-rho-mesons, $\rho_b$s, in the spectrum. Their interactions with the SM particles are determined by their decay constants $f_{\pi_b}$ and $f_{\rho_b}$, respectively. The pions obtain their masses from the bare quark masses and the radiative corrections from SM gauge interactions [@Hill:2002ap]. The rho mesons receive small corrections from those two contributions such that all rho mesons could have the same mass at leading order. While the pion spectrum is expected to be accurate at the 10% level for the parameter space we consider, the $\rho_b$ meson masses are far more uncertain. In SM QCD, the fractional mass difference between the lightest and heaviest vector mesons composed of three light quarks is roughly 30%. Since our spectra generally has $m_{c, n} / f_{\pi_b}$ that fall within the SM range, we allow a 30% uncertainty for the $\rho_b$ masses and take the heavier side in our analysis. After fixing the singlet mass and production cross-section, $4.6\pm 1.2$ fb [@Buttazzo:2015txu], to fit the 750 GeV diphoton excess, we show a benchmark model spectrum as a function of $m_{c, n}/f_{\pi_b}$ in Fig. \[fig:spectrum\], where we have multiplied our tree-level cross section by a K-factor of 2.5 [@Catani:2003zt].
![Sample spectrum of light mesons for the D $\oplus$ L model with $N_d = 6$. We fit the singlet mass to be 750 GeV and fix the pseudo-scalar decay constant such that $\sigma[pp \to \pi_b^{(1,1)_0} \to \gamma\gamma] = 4.6~{\rm fb}$. Here, $m_c$($m_n$) is QCD-charged(singlet) big-quark mass. The upper limit on $m_c/f_{\pi_b}$ arises from requiring $m_n \ge 0$.[]{data-label="fig:spectrum"}](spectrum_simplified.eps)
The most phenomenologically significant mesons in the short term are those charged under QCD. Simply by demanding theoretical consistency up to the GUT scale and a fit to the 750 GeV diphoton data, the spectrum of the QCD-charged mesons is highly restricted. For all models considered here that fit the central experimental diphoton cross section of 4.6 fb, the color-octet pion mass is bounded from above by M\[\_b\^[(8, 1)\_0]{}\] 2.2 . \[eq:octet-mass-bound\] For the minimal $D\oplus L$ model, the upper bound on the color-octet big-pion is 1.7 TeV. If we change the diphoton cross section to be 3.4 fb, the upper bound becomes 1.9 TeV. The color-triplet pseudo-scalars must be below 1.5 TeV, while the vector $\rho_b$ mesons must be below 4.7 TeV. Further constraints from existing searches for these particles apply as we discuss below.
***Color-octet (or color-27) big-pions.*** \[sec:octet-pion\] The color-octet big-pion, $\pi_b^{(8,1)_0}$, must be present in all QCD-like models for the 750 GeV resonance. It has the following triangle-anomaly interactions && - d\^[abc]{} \_b\^[8a]{} \_ G\^[b]{} G\^[ c]{}\
&& + \_b\^[8a]{} \_ G\^[a]{} B\^ . where $c_W = \cos{\theta_W}$ with $\theta_W$ as the Weinberg angle; $d^{abc}$ is the $SU(3)_c$ symmetric group structure constant; $Y_c$ is the hypercharge of the QCD-charged big-quark; $A_r = 1(7)$ and $C_r = 1/2(5/2)$ for color-triplet(sextet) big-quark. Based on the interactions, the color-octet big-pion can be singly produced via two gluon partons at the LHC. It mainly decays back to two gluons with a smaller but non-negligible branching ratio into $g + \gamma$ given by = . For the D $\oplus$ L model, the above branching ratio is 4.6%. The branching ratio into $g + Z$ is similar, but reduced by $s_W^2/c_W^2$; it is $\approx 1.3\%$ for the D $\oplus$ L model. For 4.6 fb of the 750 GeV diphoton signal, the total width of the octet pion is $\approx 135~{\rm MeV}$ for a mass of 1 TeV, so the octet pion is a very narrow resonance. The color-27 pion couples to two gluons via the triangle anomaly; its detailed properties will be presented in Ref. [@BBB-longer]. There is another potential octet big-pion, $(8, 3)_0$, which couples to one gluon plus one weak gauge boson via a triangle anomaly and has interesting pair-production signatures studied in Refs. [@Bai:2010mn; @Dobrescu:2011px] but small single production.
![Upper bounds on the 750 GeV diphoton cross section at the 13 TeV LHC for different color-octet pion masses, from various LHC narrow resonance searches including 8 TeV dijet [@Aad:2014aqa], 8 TeV $\gamma\, j$ [@Aad:2013cva], 13 TeV dijet [@ATLAS:2015nsi] and 13 TeV $\gamma\, j$ [@Aad:2015ywd]. Also shown is the our projected limit for $\gamma\, j$ resonance searches with 20 fb$^{-1}$ and 1% systematic error.[]{data-label="fig:sample-limit"}](sample_limits.eps)
There are two relevant production channels for the color-octet and color-27 mesons at the LHC: pair production and single resonant production. The pair production channel is determined entirely by QCD couplings to the gluon (up to additional $\rho_b$ mediated productions) and is independent of the decay constant. The mesons decay with nearly 100% branching fraction to two gluons. A search for pair production of dijet resonances at the 8 TeV LHC from CMS [@Khachatryan:2014lpa] currently places a lower bound on the octet mass of 700 GeV and on the color-27 mass of 1.1 TeV. A correlated channel in which one of the two pair produced mesons decays to gluon plus photon, rather than two gluons, will likely have comparable, though somewhat weaker, sensitivity and provides an important test of such models.
![Upper bounds on the 750 GeV diphoton cross section at the 13 TeV LHC from searching for color-octet (and/or color-27) pions in the $jj$ or $j \gamma$ channels. Also shown is the upper bound on the correlated $\pi_b^{(1,1)_0} \to Z\gamma$ channel. All limits assume the weakest constrained color-octet or color-27 mass that is theoretically consistent and not ruled out by pair production searches.[]{data-label="fig:current-limit"}](max_xsec.eps)
Resonant production depends on the mass and decay constant of the meson. Within a given model and for a given color-octet mass, the ratio $\sigma[p p \to \pi^{(8,1)_0} \to g g] / \sigma[p p \to \pi^{(1,1)_0} \to \gamma \gamma]$ is fixed, so that a bound on dijet resonance production translates directly into a bound on the 750 GeV diphoton cross-section due to the singlet meson. For the D $\oplus$ L model, this ratio is 25/4 for identical color-octet and singlet pion masses. A similar story happens for the color-27 pions [@BBB-longer]. Taking the least constrained color-octet or color-27 meson mass, we place a conservative upper bound on the 750 GeV diphoton cross-section at the 13 TeV LHC. To derive the projected constraints, we use a Feynrules/MadGraph 5/Pythia 6/PGS [@Alloul:2013bka; @Alwall:2011uj; @Sjostrand:2000wi; @PGS] simulation to estimate the 13 TeV reach with 20 ${\rm fb}^{-1}$ for the octet meson and the correlated singlet cross-section. We have multiplied the color-octet tree-level production cross section by a K-factor of $\approx 3.0$ [@Idilbi:2009cc]. In Fig. \[fig:sample-limit\] and for the D $\oplus$ L model, we show the upper bounds on the 750 GeV diphoton cross sections for different color-octet masses. One can see that the dijet and $\gamma\, j$ searches are complimentary. The limits are independent of the big-color rank $N_b$. For the theoretically allowed range of octet pion masses in Eq. (\[eq:octet-mass-bound\]), the 750 GeV diphoton cross section has an upper bound abound of 5.0 fb, the weakest bound at 1.1 TeV in Fig. \[fig:sample-limit\], which is very close to the central value, 4.6 fb, to fit the diphoton excess [@Buttazzo:2015txu]. It is also interesting to note that there is a small excess at around 1.1 TeV from searches for narrow dijet resonances by ATLAS [@Aad:2014aqa]. In Fig. \[fig:current-limit\], we show the limits for different models by taking the least constrained diphoton cross sections for different color-octet (or color-27) meson masses.
***Color-octet $\rho_b$ meson.*** \[sec:rho\] The spin-one color-octet $\rho_b$ meson couples to two QCD-charged big-pions just as the $\rho$ meson couples to pions in the SM. For instance, one has the interaction of $g_{\rho_b \pi_b \pi_b} f^{abc} \rho^a_{b\,\mu} \pi_b^b \partial^\mu \pi_b^c$ for the color-octet pion. The $\rho$–$\pi$–$\pi$ coupling $g_{\rho\pi\pi}$ is estimated using the KSRF relation [@Kawarabayashi:1966kd; @Riazuddin:1966sw]. If the two-pion phase space is open, it can decay into two big-pions with the decay width = ( 1 - )\^[3/2]{} , with “$r$" denoting the QCD representation of the big-pion. For $g_{\rho_b \pi_b \pi_b} \approx 6$ and only decay into two octet pions with $C_r = 3$, obtain a decay width of $445$ GeV for $M[\rho_b^{(8,1)_0}]=3$ TeV and $M[\pi_b^{(8,1)_0}]=1$ TeV, which is a very broad vector meson. In Fig. \[fig:phase-space\], we show the allowed region for the vector meson decaying into color-triplet pions with (darker green) or without (lighter green) color-octet pions.
![Allowed decay modes for the $\rho_b^{(8,1)_0}$ meson in the D $\oplus$ L model. The black dashed line indicates the full limits of the allowed parameter space, such that only decays to $q\bar{q}$ are allowed in the clear region enclosed by the dashed line.[]{data-label="fig:phase-space"}](phase_space.eps)
If the two-pion phase space is closed, the $\rho_b^{(8,1)_0}$ meson mainly decays into two SM fermions. The relevant coupling is related to the kinetic mixing between $\rho_b^{(8,1)_0}$ and the QCD gluon and is given by $ i g_s \, t_\theta \, \rho^a_{b\, \mu} \overline{q} t^a \gamma^\mu q$ with $t_\theta \approx 0.2$ as a benchmark point. Ignoring the SM quark mass, the total decay width into all six quarks is $\Gamma[\rho_b^{(8,1)_0}]= \alpha_s \, t_\theta^2 \,M[\rho_b^{(8,1)_0}] \approx 10$ GeV for $M[\rho_b^{(8,1)_0}] = 3$ TeV, and hence a narrow resonance. For a $1~{\rm TeV}$ $\rho_b^{(8,1)_0}$ meson, this gives a large dijet production cross-section such that existing dijet resonance searches [@Aad:2014aqa; @ATLAS:2015nsi] rule out all models considered other than D $\oplus$ E and D $\oplus$ T. We therefore focus on the portion of parameter space, if it exists, where decays into pseudo-scalar mesons are allowed. In Fig. \[fig:vector-cross-section\], we show the $\rho_b^{(8,1)_0}$ meson-mediated production for QCD-charged pions at the 13 TeV LHC in the Breit-Wigner approximation, which can boost the potential discovery of color-octet pions in the searches for pair produced dijet resonances [@Dobrescu:2007yp; @Kilic:2008pm; @Bai:2011mr; @Simmons:2013zoa].
![Pair production cross-section of QCD-charged $\pi_b$ at the 13 TeV LHC. The shaded regions are already excluded by searches for pair produced dijet resonances with the blue (orange) shaded region corresponding to a 1 TeV (0.75 TeV) $\pi_b^{\rm QCD}$ [@Khachatryan:2014lpa].[]{data-label="fig:vector-cross-section"}](rho_meson_production_final.eps)
***Discussion and conclusions.*** \[sec:conclusions\] In all of the models considered here, there are additional QCD-triplet (or sextet) heavy pions. These triplets do not decay without introducing additional non-renormalizable interactions. The lowest dimension-six four-fermion interactions cause leptoquark- or diquark-like decays. The flavor structure of their couplings could have interesting phenomenological consequence in the $B$ or $D$-meson system [@Buttazzo:2016kid].
We also stress the importance of continuing searches for moderately heavy narrow resonances with smaller cross sections at the LHC. As can be seen from Fig. \[fig:sample-limit\], the search for a $\gamma\,j$ resonance around one TeV is crucial to understand the underlying dynamics of the 750 GeV resonance. One could also look for this color-octet big-pion in the dijet channel using clever ways to overcome trigger and systematics issues [@Dobrescu:2013coa; @scouting].
In conclusion, color-octet companions of the 750 GeV heavy pion could be discovered by the LHC Run 2 in the dijet or jet plus photon channel, as well as in the four-jet channel from its QCD and vector-meson mediated interactions. The existence of a new and QCD-like strong dynamics can be discovered.
This work is supported by the U. S. Department of Energy under the contract DE-FG-02-95ER40896 and in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF PHY11-25915.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
\[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\]
**THE SZEGÖ KERNEL ON AN ORBIFOLD CIRCLE BUNDLE**
Jian Song
Department of Mathematics
Columbia University, New York, NY 10027
**Introduction** {#1}
================
The analysis of holomorphic sections of high powers $L^N$ of holomorphic ample line bundles $L\rightarrow M$ over compact Kähler manifolds has been widely applied in complex geometry and mathematical physics. Any polarized Kähler metric $g$ with respect to the ample line bundle $L$ corresponds to the Ricci curvature of a hermitian metric $h$ on $L$. Any orthonormal basis $\{S^N_0,...,S^N_{d_N}\}$ of $H^0(M, L^N)$ induces a holomorphic embedding $\Phi_N$ of M into $CP^{d_N}$. We call the pullback of the rescaled Fubini-Study metric $\frac{1}{N}\Phi_N^* g_{FS}$ the Bergman metric with respect to $L^N$. Tian[@T1] applied Hörmander’s $L^2$-estimate to produce peak sections and proves the $C^2$ convergence of the Bergman metrics. Zelditch[@Z] later generalized Tian’s theorem by applying Boutet de Monvel-Sjöstrand[@BS] parametrix for the Szegö kernel. Namely
[(Zelditch[@Z])]{.nodecor} Let M be a compact complex manifold of dimension n and let $(L,h)\rightarrow M$ be a positive Hermitian holomorphic line bundle. Let g be the Kähler metric on M corresponding to the Kähler form $\omega _{g}=Ric(h)$. For each positive integer $N$, $h$ induces a Hermitian metric $h_{N}$ on $L^{N}.$ Let $\{S_{0}^{N},S_{1}^{N},...,S_{d_{N}}^{N}\}$ be any orthonormal basis of $H^{0}(M,L^{N})$, $d_{N}+1=\dim
H^{0}(M,L^{N}),$ with respect to the inner product: $$(s_{1},s_{2})_{h_{N}}=\int_{M}h_{N}(s_{1}(x),s_{2}(x))dV_{g},$$ where $dV_{g}=\frac{1}{n!}\omega _{g}^{n}$ is the volume form of $g$. Then there is a complete asymptotic expansion:
$$\sum\limits_{i=0}^{d_{N}}||S_{i}^{N}(z)||_{h_{N}}^{2}\sim
a_{0}(z)N^{n}+a_{1}(z)N^{n-1}+a_{2}(z)N^{n-2}+...$$ for some smooth coefficients $a_{j}(z)$ with $a_{0}=1$. More precisely, for any k: $$\left| \left|
\sum\limits_{i=0}^{d_{N}}||S_{i}^{N}(z)||_{h_{N}}^{2}- \sum_{0\leq
j<R}a_{j}(z)N^{n-j}\right| \right| _{C^{k}}\leq C_{R,k}N^{n-R}$$ where $C_{R,k}$ depends on $R,k$ and the manifold $M$.
In [@L], Lu shows that each coefficient $a_j(z)$ is a polynomial of the curvature and its covariant derivatives and gives a method to compute them explicitly. In particular $a_1(z)$ is the scalar curvature with respect to $g$, which together with the asymptotic expansion helps Donaldson[@D] prove that a metric of constant scalar curvature on a polarized Kähler manifold is the limit of balanced metrics.
Since orbifolds arise as degeneration limits of non-singular Kähler manifolds, the property of such limits are crucial to the understanding of the notion of K-stability conjectured by Tian to be equivalent to the existence of metrics of constant scalar curvature. Unfortunately the asymptotic expansions of the Bergman metrics fail near the singularities in the case of orbifolds. In this paper we generalize Zelditch’s theorem to orbifolds of finite isolated singularities.
Suppose $M$ is a compact Kähler orbifold of $\dim\geq 2$ with only finite isolated singularities $\{z_i\}_{i=1}^{m}$ and let $(L,h)\rightarrow M$ be a positive holomorphic orbifold line bundle. Let g be the orbifold Kähler metric on M corresponding to the Kähler form $\omega_g=Ric(h)$. For each N, h induces a hermitian metric $h_N$ on $L^N$. Let $\{S^N_0,...,S^N_{d_N}\}$ be any orthonormal basis of $H^0(M, L^N)$, where $d_N+1=\dim H^0(M,
L^N)$, with respect to the inner product $$<s_1,s_2>_{h_N}=\int_M(s_1(z),s_2(z))h^NdV_g.$$ Let $\{\delta_{z_i}(z)\}_{i=1}^{m}$ be the corresponding distributions. Then there exists an asymptotic expansion $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i=0}^{d_N}\|S^N_i(z)\|^2_{h_N}&\sim&
a_0N^n+a_1(z)N^{n-1}+...+a_n(z)+\sum_{i=1}^{m}b(i)\delta_{z_i}(z)\\
&&+a_{n+1}(z)N^{-1}+a_{n+2}(z)N^{-2}+...\end{aligned}$$ in the sense that $$\sum_{i=0}^{d_N}\|S^N_i(z)\|^2_{h_N}-
(a_0N^n+a_1(z)N^{n-1}+...+a_n(z))$$ weakly converges to $\sum_{i=1}^{m}b(i)\delta_{z_i}(z)$ as $N\rightarrow\infty$. Furthermore there exist constants $\delta>0$ and $C_{R,k}$ such that $$\|\sum_{i=0}^{d_N}\|S^N_i(z)\|^2_{h_N}-
\sum_{0\leq j< R}a_j(z)N^{n-j})\|_{C^k}\leq
C_{R,k}(N^{n-R}+N^{n+k/2}e^{-\delta Nr^2})$$ where $r$ is the smallest geodesic distance from $z$ to the singularities. In particular, $a_0=1$ and $a_1(z)$ is the scalar curvature of the orbifold $(M,g)$ and $b(i)=\frac{1}{|G_i|}\sum_{1\neq g\in
G_i}\frac{1}{\det(I-g|T_{z_i})}$, where $G_i$ is the structure group of $z_i$ for $i=1,...,m.$
We can define the embedding $\Phi_N$: $M\rightarrow
\mathbf{CP}^{d_N}$ by sending $z\in M$ to $$\Phi_N(z)=[S_0^N(z),..,S_{d_N}^N(z)]\in \mathbf{CP}^{d_N}$$ for $N$ large enough and let $\omega_{FS}$ be the Fubini-Study metric on $\mathbf{CP}^{d_N}$.
Suppose $M$ is a compact Kähler orbifold of $\dim\geq 2$ with only finite isolated singularities $\{z_i\}_{i=1}^{m}$ and let $(L,h)\rightarrow M$ be a positive holomorphic orbifold line bundle. Let $g$ be the Kähler metric on M corresponding to the Kähler form $\omega_g=Ric(h)$. For any smooth plurisubharmonic function $\phi$ with $\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}\partial\overline{\partial}\phi+\omega\geq
0$, we denote $\tilde{h}$ by $he^{-\phi}$ and $\omega_{\tilde{g}}$ by $Ric(\tilde{h})$. Let $\{\tilde{S}^N_0, ... ,
\tilde{S}^N_{d_N}\}$ be any orthonormal basis of $H^0(M, L^N)$ with respect to the inner product $$<\tilde{s}_1,\tilde{s}_2>_{h_N}=\int_M(\tilde{s}_1(z), \tilde{s}_2(z))\tilde{h}_N \tilde dV_{\tilde{g}}.$$ Then $$\|\phi-\frac{1}{N}\log(\sum_{i=0}^{d_N}\|\tilde{S}^N_i(z)\|^2_{h_N})\|_{C^0(M)}\rightarrow
0.$$ Furthermore, if we assume that for each $z_i$ its structure group $G_i$ is abelian, then $$\|\phi-\frac{1}{N}\log(\sum_{i=0}^{d_N}\|\tilde{S}^N_i(z)\|^2_{h_N})\|_{C^{1,\alpha}(M)}\rightarrow
0,$$ for any positive $\alpha<1$. There also exist $ \epsilon>0$ and $N_0>0$ such that for all $N>N_0$, $$\inf_{z\in M}\sum_{i=0}^{d_N}\|S^N_i(z)\|^2_{h_N}\geq \epsilon
N^n,$$ where $\{S^N_i\}_{i=0}^{d_N}$ is an orthonormal basis of $H^0(M, L^N)$ in Theorem 1.2.
With the same assumption in as Theorem 2.5, there exist constants $C_k>0$ and $N_0>0$ such that for any $N>N_0$, we have $$||\frac{1}{N}\Phi_N^*\omega_{FS}-\omega||_{C^k}\leq C_k (\frac{1}{N}+
N^{k/2}e^{-\delta Nr^2}).$$
We conjecture that Theorem 1.3 should be true even without the assumption that the structure groups be abelian. Tian proved that any sequence of Kähler-Einstein surfaces with positive first Chern class converges to a Kähler-Einstein orbifold and that the singular points must be rational double points or of cyclic types. If our conjecture is true then there would exist a uniform constant $\epsilon>0$ such that for any Kähler-Einstein surface $(M, g)$ with $Ric(g)=g$ we would have $$\inf_{x\in M}\sum_{i=0}^{d_N}\|S^N_i(z)\|^2_{g}(x)\geq \epsilon N^n.$$
[**Acknowledgements**]{}. The author deeply thanks his advisor, Professor D.H. Phong for his constant encouragement and help. He also thanks Professor Zhiqin Lu, Professor Zelditch and Ben Weinkove for their suggestion on this work. This paper is part of the author’s future Ph.D. thesis in Math Department of Columbia University.
**Orbifolds and orbifold vector bundles** {#2}
=========================================
\[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\]
We recall the definition of orbifolds which were introduced by Satake as $V$-manifolds [@B; @R; @Sa].
An *orbifold structure* on a Hausdorff separable topological space $X$ is given by an open cover $\bf U$ of X satisfying the following conditions:
1. Each $U\in \bf U$ has a local uniformization $\{\tilde{U}, G,
\pi\}$ where $\tilde{U}$ is a connected open neighborhood of the origin in $\mathbf{C}^n$ and $G$ is a finite group acting smoothly on $\tilde{U}$ such that $U=\tilde{U} /G$ with $\pi$ as the projection map. Let $\textrm{ker} G_U$ the subgroup of $G_U$ acting trivially on $U$.
2. If $V \subset U$, then there is a collection of injections $\{\tilde{V}, G_V, \pi_V\}\rightarrow \{\tilde{U}, G_U, \pi_U\}$. Namely, the inclusion $i: V \rightarrow U$ can be lifted to $\tilde{i}: \tilde{V} \rightarrow \tilde{U}$ and an injective homomorphism $i_{\#}: G_V \rightarrow G_U$ such that $i_{\#}$ is an isomorphism from $ker G_V$ to $ker G_U$ and $\tilde{i}$ is $i_{\#}$-equivariant.
3. For any point $x\in U_1\cap U_2$, where $U_1, U_2 \in \bf U$, there is a $U_3\in \bf U$ such that $x\in U_3\subset U_1\cap U_2$.
An *orbifold bundle* $ B$ over an orbifold $X$ with group $\Gamma$ and fiber $F$ consists of the following data:
1. For each local uniformization $\{\tilde{U}, G_U, \pi_U\}$ there is a bundle $B_U$ over $\tilde{U}$ with group $\Gamma$ and fiber $F$ together with an anti-isomorphism $h_U$ of $G_U$ into a group of bundle maps of $B_U$ onto itself such that if $b$ lies in the fiber over $\tilde{x} \in \tilde{U}$, then $h_U(g)b$ lies in the fiber over $g^{-1} \tilde{x}$ for $g\in G_U$.
2. For any $\tilde{i}: \tilde{V} \rightarrow \tilde{U}$ there is an induced $i_{\#}$-equivariant bundle map $i^*: B_U
\rightarrow B_V$.
3. If $\tilde{i_1}: \tilde{V} \rightarrow \tilde{U}$ and $\tilde{i_2}: \tilde{U} \rightarrow \tilde{W}$ then $(i_1 i_2)^*=i_2^* i_1^*$.
Suppose that $X=M/G$ and that $E \rightarrow M$ is a $G$-equivariant bundle then $E/G \rightarrow X$ is an orbifold vector bundle.
The tangent bundle $T_X$ of $X$ is defined by taking for $T_U$ the tangent bundle over $\tilde{U}$, for $h_U(g)$ the inverse of the mapping of tangent vectors induced by g and $i^*$ the inverse of the mapping of tangent vectors induced by $i$. If $g$ is a metric on $T_X$ then for each $\{\tilde{U}, G, \pi\}$, $g_U$ is a $G$-invariant metric for $\tilde(U)$. We can also define the cotangent bundle $T_X^*$ and $A^p(X)$ the bundle of differential p-forms over $X$ in the same manner.
Let $\{U_i\}_{i\in I}$ be a locally finite covering of $X$ by open sets $U_i$ such that $\{\tilde{U_i}, G_{U_i}, \pi_{U_i}\}\in \bf
U$. By a smooth partition of unity for $\{U_i \}_{i \in I}$ we mean a collection of smooth functions $\{\psi_i\}$ such that $\textrm{supp}(\psi_i)\subset \tilde{U_i}$ and for each $x\in X$ $\sum_{i\in I} \psi_i(x)=1$.
It is easy to show the existence of such partition of unity by shrinking each $\tilde{U_i}$ a little so that we have a locally finite covering $\{V_i\}_{i \in I}$ with $V_i\subset U_i$. Then we can choose for each $i$ a smooth function $u_i$ on $X$ such that $u_i=1$ on $\tilde{V}_i$ and $u_i=0$ outside $\tilde{U}_i$. Then we can put $\psi_i=\frac{u_i}{\sum u_i}$.
[**Example 1**]{}
Let $X$ be the quotient of $\mathbf{CP}^1$ by a cyclic group of order $n$ defined by
$$[Z_0, Z_1]\sim [Z_0 e^{\frac{2k\pi}{n}}, Z_1]$$ for $k=0, 1, 2,...,n-1$. Then it is a “football” which has two isolated quotient singularities $[0,1]$ and $[1,0]$ with the cyclic structure group $\mu_{n}$.
[**Example 2**]{}
Let $d_0,..., d_n$ be $n+1$ positive integers. The weighted projective space $P_{d_0,...,d_n}$ is a toric variety defined by $$P_{d_0,...,d_n}=\{z \in \mathbf{C}^{n+1}-\{0\} ~| z \sim \lambda z,
\lambda\in \mathbf{C}^* \}$$ where $\mathbf{C}^*$ acts by $$\lambda (Z_0, ...,Z_n)=(\lambda^{d_0}Z_0,...,\lambda^{d_n}Z_n).$$
As for the case of projective spaces, we let $U_i=\{Z_i\neq 0\}$, then $$U_i=\{(\frac{Z_0}{Z_i^{d_0/d_i}},...,
\frac{Z_i}{Z_i},...,\frac{Z_n}{Z_i^{d_n/d_i}})\}$$ which is exactly $\mathbf{C}^n/\mu_{d_i}$ if $d=gcd(d_0,...,d_n)=1.$
We have the following properties of weighted projective space:
1. The above $C^*$-action is free if and only if $d_i=d_j$, for all $i, j=0,...n$.
2. Let $d=gcd(d_0,...,d_n)$ be the greatest common divisor of $d_0,...,d_n$, then $P_{d_0,...,d_n}$ is homeomorphic to $P_{d_0/d,...,d_n/d}$.
3. Weighted projective spaces are orbifolds which have singularities with cyclic structure groups acting diagonally. In particular if $(d_i,d_j)=1$ for all $i\neq j$, $i,j=0,...,n$, then $P_{d_0,...,d_n}$ has only isolated singularities.
Now we will state the Riemann-Roch-Kawasaki Theorem which enables us to determine the coefficients of the currents in the expansion in Theorem 1.2.
For each local uniformization $\{\tilde{U},G_U\}$ and each $g\in
G_U$, we consider $\tilde{U}^g$ as a complex manifold on which the centralizer $Z_{G_U}(g)$ acts. For $V\subset U$, the open embedding $i:\tilde{V}\rightarrow \tilde{U}$ defines a natural open embedding $\tilde{V}^h/Z_{G_V}(h)\rightarrow
\tilde{U}^g/Z_{G_U}(g)$ of analytic spaces, where $g=i^{\#}(h)$. We patch all the $\tilde{U}^g/Z_{G_U}(g)$ together by such identification which gives a disjoint union of complex orbifolds of various dimensions: $$X\amalg\tilde{\Sigma}X=\cup_{\{\tilde{U},G_U\},g\in
G_U}\tilde{U}^g/Z_{G_U}(g).$$ We have a canonical map $\tilde{\Sigma}X\rightarrow X$ covered locally by the inclusion $\tilde{U}^g\subset \tilde{U}$. For each $x\in X$ we can choose a local uniformization $\{\tilde{U}_x, G_x\}$ such that $x\in
\tilde{U}_x$ is a fixed point of $G_x$. $G_x$ is unique up to isomorphism. Then the number of pieces of $\tilde{\Sigma}X$ is equal to the number of the conjugacy classes of $G_x$ other than the identity class.
Let $\tilde{\Sigma}X_1$,..., $\tilde{\Sigma}X_k$ be all the connected components of $\tilde{\Sigma}X$. We define $m_i$ for each $\tilde{\Sigma}X_i$ by $$m_i=|ker[Z_{G_U}(g)\rightarrow Aut(\tilde{U}^g)|.$$ Let $\sum_{g\in G_U}\mathcal{L}^g(U;E_U)$ be the equivariant Todd form on $X\amalg\tilde{\Sigma}X$ which represents a cohomology class $\mathcal{L}(X;E)+\mathcal{L}^{\Sigma}(X;E)$ in $H^*(X\amalg\tilde{\Sigma}X; C)$. Then we have the following Riemann-Roch-Kawasaki theorem.
[[@K]]{.nodecor} Let X be a compact complex orbifold and let $E\rightarrow X$ be a holomorphic orbifold vector bundle. Then we have $$\chi (X;\mathcal{O}_X(E))=<\mathcal{L}(X:E),
[X]>+\sum\frac{1}{m_i}<\mathcal{L}^{\Sigma}(X;E),[\tilde{\Sigma}X_i]>.$$
In particular, if $X$ only has isolated singularities $\{x_j\}_{j=1,..m}\}$, we have $$\chi
(X;\mathcal{O}_X(E))=<\mathcal{L}(X:E),
[X]>+\sum_{i=1}^{m}\sum_{1\neq g\in
G_{x_i}}\frac{1}{\textrm{det}(1-g|T_{x_i})}.$$
Notice that since $g|T_{x_j}$ is orthogonal and has no eigenvalue of $1$, it follows that $\det(1-g|T_{x_j})>0.$
**The $\overline{\partial}_b$-equation** {#3}
========================================
\[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\]
In this section we will establish the $\overline{\partial}_b$-equation for orbifolds and obtain subelliptic estimates which gives the Hodge decomposition for $\overline{\partial}_b$ operator. We will essentially follow Folland and Kohn [@FK].
Let $X$ be a compact, orientable real orbifold of dimension $2n-1$. A partially complex structure on $X$ is an $(n-1)$-dimensional orbifold subbundle $S$ of $CTX$ such that
1. $S\cap \overline{S}=\{0\}$,
2. if $L$, $L'$ are local sections of $S$ then so is $[L, L']$.
If $X$ is partially complex, we define the orbifold vector bundle $B^{p,q}$$(0\leq p, q\leq n-1)$ by $B^{p,q}=\Lambda ^p S^*\otimes
\Lambda^q \overline{S}^*$, which we can identify with an orbifold subbundle of $\Lambda^{p+q}CTX^*$. We denote by $\mathcal{B}^{p,q}$ the space of smooth sections of $B^{p,q}$, and we define $\overline{\partial}_b : \mathcal{B}^{p,q}\rightarrow
\mathcal{B}^{p,q+1}$ as follows:
1. If $\phi\in \mathcal{B}^{p,0}$, then $\overline{\partial}_b
\phi$ is defined by $$<\overline{\partial}_b \phi,(L_1\Lambda...\Lambda L_p)\otimes V>=V<\phi,
L_1\Lambda...\Lambda L_p>$$ for all sections $L_1, ..., L_p$ of $S$ and $V$ of $\overline{S}$.
2. If $\phi \in \mathcal{B}^{p,q}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&(q+1)<\overline{\partial}_b \phi,(L_1\Lambda...\Lambda
L_p)\otimes(V_1\Lambda...\Lambda V_{q+1})>\\
&=&\sum_{j=1}^{q+1}(-1)^{j+1}V_j<\phi,(L_1\Lambda...\Lambda
L_p)\otimes(V_1\Lambda...\hat{V}_j...\Lambda
V_{q+1})>\\
&&+\sum_{i<j}(-1)^{i+j}<\phi,(L_1\Lambda...\Lambda
L_p)\otimes([V_i, V_j]\Lambda V_1\Lambda
...\hat{V}_i...\hat{V}_j...\Lambda V_{q+1})>.\end{aligned}$$
$\overline{\partial}_b \phi$ is well-defined since $\overline{\partial}_b$ commutes with $G$. $$\begin{aligned}
&&(q+1)<g^*\overline{\partial}_b \phi,(L_1\Lambda...\Lambda
L_p)\otimes(V_1\Lambda...\Lambda V_{q+1})>|_{\tilde{x}}\\
&=&(q+1)<\overline{\partial}_b \phi,g_*(L_1\Lambda...\Lambda
L_p)\otimes g_*(V_1\Lambda...\Lambda V_{q+1})>|_{g \tilde{x}}\\
&=&\sum_{j=1}^{q+1}(-1)^{j+1}V_j<g^*\phi,(L_1\Lambda...\Lambda
L_p)\otimes(V_1\Lambda...\hat{V_j}...\Lambda
V_{q+1})>_{\tilde{x}}\\
&&+\sum_{i<j}(-1)^{i+j}<g^*\phi,(L_1\Lambda...\Lambda
L_p)\otimes([V_i, V_j]\Lambda V_1\Lambda
...\hat{V_i}...\hat{V_j}...\Lambda V_{q+1})>|_{\tilde{x}}\\
&=&(q+1)<\overline{\partial}_b g^*\phi,(L_1\Lambda...\Lambda
L_p)\otimes(V_1\Lambda...\Lambda V_{q+1})>|_{\tilde{x}}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $L_1,..., L_{n-1}$ be a local basis for sections of $S$ over $\tilde{U}$, so $\overline{L}_1,..., \overline{L}_{n-1}$ is a local basis for sections of $\overline{S}$. We choose a local section $N$ of $CTX$ such that $L_1,...,
L_{n-1},\overline{L}_1,..., \overline{L}_{n-1}, N$ span $CTX|_U$ and we may assume that $N$ is purely imaginary. Then the matrix $(c_{ij})$ defined by $$[L_i, \overline{L}_j]=\sum a_{ij}^k L_k+\sum
b_{ij}^k \overline{L}_k+c_{ij}N$$ is hermitian and it is called Levi form.
The number of non-zero eigenvalues and the absolute value of the signature of $(c_{ij})$ at each point $\tilde{x}$ are independent of the choice of $L_1, ..., L_{n-1}, N$.
We say that $X$ satisfies condition $Y(q)$ if the Levi form have $\max(q+1, n-q)$ eigenvalues of the same sign or $\min(q+1,n-q)$ pairs of eigenvalues with opposite signs at each point. Notice that for $n=2$ and $q=1$ the condition $Y(q)$ is never satisfied and if $X$ is pseudoconvex then $Y(q)$ is satisfied for $n>2$ and $0<q<n-1$.
We will now define the Sobolev norms on orbifolds.
Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional compact orbifold. Let $\{U_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha\in \mathcal{A}}$ be a locally finite covering of $X$ with their uniformization $\{\tilde{U}_{\alpha}\}$ and coordinate mappings $\varphi_{\alpha}:\;
\tilde{U}_{\alpha}\rightarrow R^n$. Let $\{\psi_{\alpha}\}$ be a partition of unity subordinate to $\{U_{\alpha}\}$. Then for $s\in
R$ and any $k$-form $\phi$ over $X$ we define $||\phi||_s^2=\sum_{\alpha}||(\psi_{\alpha}\phi)\circ
\varphi_{\alpha}^{-1}||^2_s.$ The norm $||\:||_s$ is not instrinsic, but it is independent of the choice of local coordinate charts, partition of unity and the coordinate mappings up to equivalence.
We can choose a hermitian metric on $CTX$ such that $S$, $\overline{S}$ and $N$ are orthogonal to each other and we can then assume that $L_1$, $...$, $L_{n-1}$, $\overline{L}_1$, $...$ , $\overline{L}_{n-1}$, $N$ are orthonormal. We can define the Sobolev spaces $H^{p,q}_s$ for all real $s$ by completing $\mathcal{B}^{p,q}$ appropriately and define the adjoint operator $\overline{\partial}^*_b$ and the Laplacian $\Delta
_b=\overline{\partial}_b\overline{\partial}^*_b+\overline{\partial}^*_b\overline{\partial}_b$. If $\omega_1,...,
\omega_{n-1},\overline{\omega}_1,...,\overline{\omega}_{n-1},\eta$ is the dual basis to $L_1,..., L_{n-1},\overline{L}_1,...,
\overline{L}_{n-1}, N$, we write $\phi\in\mathcal{B}^{p,q}$ as $\phi=\sum_{IJ}\phi_{IJ}\omega^I\overline{\omega}^J $ and
$\overline{\partial}_b\phi=(-1)^p\sum_{kIJK}\delta^K_{kJ}\overline{L}_k(\phi_{IJ})\omega^I\wedge\overline{\omega}^K$+terms of order zero,
$\overline{\partial}^*_b\phi=(-1)^{p+1}\sum_{kIHK}\delta^J_{kH}\overline{L}_k(\phi_{IJ})\omega^I\wedge\overline{\omega}^H$+terms of order zero.
We define the hermition form $Q_b$ on $\mathcal{B}^{p,q}$ by $$\begin{aligned}
Q_b(\phi,\psi)&=&(\overline{\partial}_b\phi,\overline{\partial}_b\psi)+
(\overline{\partial}^*_b\phi,\overline{\partial}^*_b\psi)+(\phi,\psi)\\
&=&((\Delta_b+I)\phi,\psi).\end{aligned}$$
If $X$ satisfies condition $Y(q)$, then for all $\phi\in
\mathcal{B}^{p,q}$ with support in $U$ we have $||\phi||^2_{1/2}\leq C Q_b(\phi,\phi).$
This is a local subelliptic estimate which can be proved in the same way for non-singular partial complex manifolds with the condition $Y(Q)$ satisfied. See [@FK].
If $X$ satisfies condition $Y(q)$, then for all $\phi\in
\mathcal{B}^{p,q}$ we have $||\phi||^2_{1/2}\leq C
Q_b(\phi,\phi).$
We simply apply the partition of unity and $$||\phi||^2_{1/2}\leq \sum C_1 ||\psi_i \phi||^2_{1/2}\leq C_2\sum
Q_b(\psi_i \phi, \psi_i\phi)\leq C_3Q_b(\phi,\phi).$$
We denote the harmonic space by $\mathcal{H}^{p,q}_b=\{\phi\in
\mathcal{B}^{p,q}:\Delta_b \phi=0\}$ which is finite dimensional. We then have the following Hodge decomposition $$H^{p,q}_0=\overline{\partial}_b\overline{\partial}^*_b
Dom(\Delta_b)\oplus\overline{\partial}_b\overline{\partial}^*_bDom(\Delta_b)\oplus\mathcal{H}^{p,q}_b.$$ Let $H_b$ be the orthogonal projection on $\mathcal{H}^{p,q}_b$ and $G_b$ be the inverse of $\Delta_b$ on $(\mathcal{H}^{p,q})^{\bot}$ and zero on $\mathcal{H}^{p,q}_b$. By the same argument in [@FK] we have the following theorem as in the smooth case.
Suppose $X$ satisfies condition $Y(q)$ then:
1. $G_b$ is a compact operator.
2. For any $a\in H^{p,q}_0$, $a=\overline{\partial}_b\overline{\partial}^*_b a
+\overline{\partial}^*_b\overline{\partial}_b a+ H_b a$.
3. $G_bH_b=H_b G_b=0$; $G_b\Delta_b=\Delta_bG_b=I-H_b$ on $Dom(\Delta_b)$; and if $G_b$ is also defined on $H^{p,q+1}_0$$(H^{p,q-1}_0)$, $G_b\overline{\partial}_b=\overline{\partial}_bG_b$ on $Dom(\overline{\partial}_b)$$(G_b\overline{\partial}^*_b=\overline{\partial}_b^*G_b$ on $Dom(\overline{\partial}^*_b))$.
4. $G_b\mathcal{B}^{p,q}\subset \mathcal{B}^{p,q}$ and $||G_b
a||_s\leq C||a||_{s-1}$ holds uniformly for $a\in
\mathcal{B}^{p,q}$ for each positive integer $s$.
If $X=\partial M$ is pseudoconvex, then the Szegö projector on $X$ is given by $$S=I-\overline{\partial}_b^*G_b\overline{\partial}_b.$$
For $n>2$ and $q=1$ $X$ satisfies the condition $Y(1)$ since $X$ is pseudoconvex and we have by the previous theorem that $$I=\overline{\partial}_b\overline{\partial}^*_bG_b
+\overline{\partial}^*_b\overline{\partial}_bG_b + H_b.$$ So $\overline{\partial}_bf=\overline{\partial}_b
\overline{\partial}^*_b G_b \overline{\partial}_b f$ where $G_b$ is the Green operator. Thus $\overline{\partial}_b\overline{\partial}^*_bG_b$ is the orthogonal projector onto $Im \overline{\partial}_b$ and $\overline{\partial}^*_b G_b \overline{\partial}_b$ is the orthogonal projector onto $(Ker \overline{\partial}_b)^{\bot}$ in $L^2(X)$. Therefore the Szegö projector $S$ which is the orthogonal projection from $L^2(X)$ to $ker(\overline{\partial}_b)\cap L^2(X)$ can be written as $$S=I-\overline{\partial}^*_b G_b \overline{\partial}_b.$$
**From line bundle to circle bundle** {#4}
=====================================
\[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\]
Let $\mathcal{O}(1)\rightarrow \mathbf{CP}^n$ be the hyperplane line bundle and let $<,>$ be its natural hermitian metric. Let $M\in \mathbf{CP}^n$ be a projective manifold and let $L$ be the restriction of $M$ and h be the restriction of $<,>$ to $L$. The following lemma is due to Grauert.
Let D=$\{(z, v)\in L^{\ast}: h(v,v)\leq1\}$. Then D is a strictly pseudoconvec domain in L.
Here $L^{\ast}$ is the dual line bundle to $L$. The boundary of $D$ is a principal $S^1$ bundle $X\rightarrow M$ defined by $
\rho: L^{\ast} \rightarrow R$, $\rho(z,v)=1-|v|^2_z$, where $v\in
L^{\ast}_z$ and $|v|_z$ is its norm in the metric induced by h. $D=\{\rho>0\}$. We will denote the $S^1$ action by $r_{\theta} x$ and its infinitesimal generator by $\frac{\partial}{\partial\theta}$ and $\rho$ is $S^1$-invariant.
Now replace $M$ by an Kähler orbifold on which there is an positive orbforld line bundle $L\rightarrow M$ equipped with the orbifold hermitian metric $h$.
Let $D=\{(z, v)\in L^*: h(v,v)\leq1\}$ and $X=\partial D$. Then both D and X have an orbifold structure. Furthermore, $X$ is an orbifold circle bundle over $M$.
The defining function $\rho(z,v)=1-|v|^2$ is globally defined on the orbifold $L^*$. Since $-\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}\partial\overline{\partial}\log
h^*=Ric(h^*)<0$ we have $\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}\partial\overline{\partial}h^*>0.$ Therefore on each small enough local uniformization $\rho$ is convex with respect to a choice of trivialization of $L^*$ and coordinates on $M$ since $Ric(h)>0$.
There exists a smooth function $\psi(x,y)$ on each local uniformization $\tilde{U}$ such that
1. $\psi(x,x)=\frac{1}{i}\rho(x)$
2. $d''_x \psi(x,y)$ and $d'_y\psi(x,y)$ vanish on the diagonal $\{x=y\}$ to infinite order.
3. $\psi(x,y)=-\overline{\psi(y,x)}.$
By making $\tilde{\psi}(x,y)=\frac{1}{|G|}\sum_{g\in
G}\psi(gx,gy)$ and since $\rho(x)$ is $G$-invariant we can assume $\psi(.,.)$ is invariant under the diagonal action by $G$.
There exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\textrm{Im}\psi(x,y)\geq C(d(x,X)+d(y,X)+|x-y|^2)+O(|x-y|^3)$$
$$\psi(x+h,x+k)\sim \frac{1}{i}\sum
\frac{\partial^{\alpha+\beta}\rho}{\partial
z^{\alpha}\partial\overline{z}^{\beta}}(x)\frac{h^{\alpha}\overline{k}^{\beta}}{\alpha!\beta!}.$$ $$\frac{1}{i}[\psi(x,y)+\psi(y,x)-\psi(x,x)-\psi(y,y)]=L_{\rho}(x-y)+O(|x-y|^3).$$ Also $$Im\psi(x,y)=\frac{1}{2i}(\psi(x,y)-\overline{\psi(x,y)})=\frac{1}{2i}(\psi(x,y)+\psi(y,x)).$$
Notice $\psi$ is only locally defined and in general $\psi$ cannot be globally defined as in the smooth case in [@BS] due to the cancelling of the group action. Also we can always assume $Im\psi\geq 0$ by shrinking the uniformization a little.
Denote by $T'D$, $T''D\subset TD\otimes C$ the holomorphic and antiholomorphic subspaces, and define $d'f=df|_{T'}$ and $d''f=df|_{T''}$ for $f\in C^{\infty}(D)$. Then $X$ inherits an orbifold CR structure $CTX=T'\oplus T''\oplus
C(\frac{\partial}{\partial \theta})$. Denote by $T'X$ the space of holomorphic vector fields on $D$ which are tangent to $X$. They are given in local coordinates by vector fields $ \sum a_j
\frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{z}_j}$ such that $\sum a_j
\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{z}_j}\rho=0$. A local basis is given by the vector fields $Z^k_j=\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{z}_j}-(\frac{\partial
\rho}{\partial\overline{z}_k})^{-1} (\frac{\partial
\rho}{\partial\overline{z}_j})
\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{z}_k}$ for $j\neq k$.
The Cauchy-Riemann operator on $X$ is defined by $$\overline{\partial}_b: C^{\infty}(X) \rightarrow C^{\infty}(X,
(T'')^{\ast})$$ $$\overline{\partial}_b f=df|_{T''}.$$
It’s easy to see $T', T'', \partial \theta$ and $\overline{\partial}_b$ coincide with $S, \overline{S}, N$ and $\overline{\partial}_b$ in the previous section.
$[D_j^k, D_m^k]=0.$
It can be shown by straightforward calculation.
The characteristic cone $\Sigma$ of $\overline{\partial}_b$ is the real cone of $T^*X$ orthogonal to $T''$ and is generated by $$\frac{1}{i}d'\rho|X=-\frac{1}{i}d''\rho|X.$$
$\sigma([Z, W^*])=L_{\rho}(Z, W)$ where $Z$ and $W$ are two $C^{\infty}$ local sections of $T''$.
If $Z=\sum a_j\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{z}_j}$, $W=\sum b_j\frac{\partial}{\partial\overline{z}_j}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sigma([Z,W^*])(\frac{1}{i}d'\rho)=-\sigma([Z,\overline{W}])(\frac{1}{i}d'\rho)\\
&=&-<[Z,\overline{W}],\frac{1}{i}d'\rho>=-<\sum
a_j\overline{\frac{\partial b_k}{\partial
z_j}}\frac{\partial}{\partial z_k},d'\rho>|_X \\
&=&-\sum a_j\overline{\frac{\partial b_k}{\partial
z_j}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial z_k}.\end{aligned}$$
Since $<\overline{W},d'\rho>=<\overline{W}, d\rho>=0$ on $X$ and $Z$ is tangent to $X$ we have $$L_Z<W, d'\rho>=a_j(\overline{\frac{\partial b_k}{\partial
z_j}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial
z_k}+\overline{b_k}\frac{\partial^2\rho}{\partial\overline{z_j}\partial
z_k})=0.$$ Therefore $$\sigma([Z,W^*])(\frac{1}{i}d'\rho)=L_{\rho}(Z,W).$$
The Hardy space $H^2(X)$ is the space of boundary values of holomorphic functions on $D$ which are in $L^2(X)$, i.e. $H^2=\textrm{ker}\overline{\partial}_b\cap L^2(X)$. The $S^1$ action commutes with $\overline{\partial}_b$, hence $H^2(X)=\oplus_{N} H^2_N(X)$, where $H^2_N(X)=\{f\in H^2(X):
f(\tau_{\theta}x)=e^{iN\theta}f(x)\}$.
A section of $L$ determines an equivariant function $\hat{s}$ on $L^{\ast}-\{0\}$ by $\hat{s}(z,\lambda)=<\lambda, s(z)>$ where $z\in M$ and $\lambda\in L^{\ast}_z$. Similarly, a section $s_N$ of $L^N$ determines an equivariant function $\hat{s}_N$ on $(L^N)^{\ast}-0$ by $\hat{s}^N(z,\lambda)=<\lambda^N,s_N(z)>$.
The map $s\rightarrow \hat{s}$ is a unitary equivalence between $H^0(M, L^N)$ and $H^2(X)$.
We can generalize the above statements to orbifolds and holomorphic orbifold line bundles without difficulty.
We denote by $\Pi : L^2(X) \rightarrow H^2(X)$ and $\Pi_N: L^2(X)
\rightarrow H^2_N(X)$ respectively the orthogonal projections. Their kernels are defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi f(x)=\int_X \Pi(x,y)f(y)d\mu(u)\\
\Pi_N f(x)=\int_X \Pi_N (x,y)f(y)d\mu(u).\end{aligned}$$
Let $\{S^N_i\}$ be an orthonormal basis of $H^0(M, L^N)$.
$\| S^N_j(z)\|^2_{h_N}=|\hat{S}^N_i(x)|^2$ for any $x$ with $\pi(x)=z$.
Let $e_L$ be a local $G$-invariant holomorphic section $e_L$ of $L$ over a local uniformization $\{\tilde{U},G\}.$ It induces sections $e^N_L$ of $L^N |_{\tilde{U}}$ and let $S^N_i(z)=f^N_i(z)e^N_L(z)$ for a holomorphic function $f^N_i$ on $U$. Then $$\hat{S}^N_i(z,u)=<u^N,S_i^N(z)>=f^N_i(z)<u^N,
e^N_L(z)>=f^N_i(z)a^{\frac{N}{2}}<u, \frac{e_L}{|e_L|}(z)>^N.$$ So we have $$\hat{S}^N_i(z,\theta)=f^N_i a(z)^{N/2}e^{iN\theta}.$$ Hence $|\hat{S}^N_i(z,\theta)|^2=a(z)^N|f^N_i(z)|^2=\|S^N_i(z)\|^2_{h_N}$.
$\{\hat{S}^N_i\}$ is an orthonormal basis of $H^2(X)$.
Let $dV_g=\frac{\omega^n_g}{n!}$ be the volume form of $(M,g)$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
<S^N_i,S^N_j>&=&\int_M h_N(S^N_i,S^N_j)dV_g\\&=&\int_M
a^N(z)f^N_i(z)\overline{f^N_j(z)}dV_g\\&=&\int_X \hat{S}^N_i
\overline{\hat{S}^N_j}d\mu,\end{aligned}$$ where $d\mu=\alpha\wedge d\alpha^n/n!=d\theta\wedge
\pi^{\ast}\omega^n_g$ is the $G_U$-invariant volume form on any local uniformization $\tilde{U}.$
**The local model** {#5}
===================
\[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] In this and the following section we will follow the method by L. Boutet de Monvel and J. Sjöstrand in [@BS] with a little modification near the singularities to prove a similar formula for the Szegö kernel for pseudoconvex domain with quotient singularities.
Let $(x,y)\in R^n=R^p\times R^q$ and $(\xi, \eta)$ be the dual variable. Let $\Sigma$ be the cone $\{x=\xi=0\}$. Let $D$ be a system of pseudo-differential operators $D_0=\frac{1}{i}(\frac{\partial}{\partial x_j}+x_j|D_y|)$, $j=1,..., p$. Let $R$ be a linear continuous operator: $C_0^{\infty}(R^q)\rightarrow C^{\infty}(R^n)$ defined by $$Rf(x,y)=(2\pi)^{-q}\int
e^{iy\eta-\frac{1}{2}|x|^2|\eta|}(|\eta|/\pi)^{p/4}\hat{f}(\eta)d\eta.$$
One has $D_0 R=0$, $R^*R=I$ and $$I\sim RR^*+L_0D_0.$$ where $L_0\in OPS^{-1, -1}(R^n, \Sigma)$.
The operator $RR^*$ is defined by the oscillatory integral $$RR^*f(x,y)= (2\pi)^{-q}\int \int
e^{i<y-y',\eta>+\frac{1}{2}(|x|^2+|x'|^2)|\eta|}(|\eta|/\pi)^{p/2}f(x',y')dx'dy'd\eta.$$
The phase function is defined by $$\phi=<y-y',\eta>+\frac{1}{2}(|x|^2+|x'|^2)|\eta|.$$
Let $\Sigma^0$ be the cone defined by the complex equation $$\sigma(D_0)=0.$$ Then $\Sigma^0\cap\overline{\Sigma^0}$ is the complexified cone of the real cone $\{x=\xi=0\}$. The canonical relation $C^+_0$ is the complex cone satisfying $$\begin{array}{c}
y'=y+i/2(|x|^2+|x'|^2) \\
\xi=ix|\eta|\\
\xi '=-ix'|\eta|\\
\eta '=\eta.
\end{array}$$ It is easy to see that $C^+_0$ is contained in $\Sigma^0\times\overline{\Sigma^0}$ and contains diag$(\Sigma\times\Sigma).$
The canonical relation $C^+_0$ is unique and satisfies
1. $C^+_0 \subset \Sigma ^0 \times\overline{\Sigma ^0}$
2. The set of all real points of $C^+$ is exactly the diagonal of $\Sigma\times\Sigma$
3. $C^+_0$ is positive.
**The Szegö kernel on $X$** {#6}
===========================
\[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\]
[[@Bo]]{.nodecor} Let $\{Z_j\}$, $j=1,..,v$ be homogeneous pseudo-differential operators of degree $m$ and $\Sigma$ the characteristic cone. If $\{Z_j\}$ satisfy
1. $\sigma\{[Z_j^*,Z_k]\}$ is positive definite on $\Sigma$
2. $[Z_j, Z_k]\sim \sum A_{jk}^iZ_i$,
then there exists an elliptic Fourier integral operator transforming the left ideal generated by the $Z_j$ into the ideal generated by the $\frac{1}{i}(\frac{\partial}{\partial
x_j}+ix_j|D_y|)$, $j=1,...,v$.
Therefore, for any $\xi\in \Sigma$, there exists a canonical isomorphism $\Phi$ defined on a neighborhood of $\xi$ and an elliptic Fourier integral operator $V$ associated with $\Phi$ on a neighborhood of $\xi$ such that $ \overline{\partial}_b=V^{-1} C
D_0 V$ on a neighborhood of $\xi$, where $C$ is a matrix of elliptic pseudo-differential operators.
There exists one canonical relation $C^+$ which is almost analytic on $T^* \tilde{U}\times T^*\tilde{U}$, unique up to equivalence and satisfies
1. $C^+ \subset \Sigma ^0 \times\overline{\Sigma ^0}$.
2. The set of all real points of $C^+$ is exactly the diagonal of $\Sigma\times\Sigma$.
3. $C^+$ is positive.
$C^+$ is the canonical relation associated with the phase function $t\psi(x,y)$ on $\tilde{U}\times \tilde{U}\times R_+$.
Observe that
1. $t\psi$ has no critical points
2. $\frac{\partial}{\partial t}t\psi=\psi=0$ implies that the real critical points is diag$(X)\times R_+$ and on diag$(X) $ $d_x\psi=-d_y\psi=\frac{1}{i}d'\rho|X\neq 0$
3. Im$\psi\geq 0$
4. The set of real points of $C^+$ is exactly diag$\Sigma^+$ as above.
5. Since $d''_x \psi$ and $d'_y\psi$ vanish to infinite order on diagonal, $C^+$ is contained in $\Sigma^0\times\overline{\Sigma^0}.$
For each point $x$ of $X$ there exists a neighborhood of $x$ with its local uniformization $\tilde{U}$ and regular operators $S$ and $L$ such that
1. $ S\sim S^*\sim S^2$
2. $ \overline{\partial}_b S\sim 0$ and $ I\sim L\overline{\partial}_b+S$,
where $S$ is uniquely determined up to an operator of degree $-\infty$ and $S\in I^0_c(\tilde{U}^2, C^+)$.
If $A$ and $B$ are two operators defined on distribution on $\tilde{U}$. then by $A\sim B$ we mean $R=A-B$ is an operator of order $-\infty,$ or the kernel distribution of $R$ is $C^{\infty}$ on $\tilde{U}\times\tilde{U}.$
[**Uniqueness**]{}: Suppose there exist $S'$ and $L'$ which also satisfy conditions 1 and 2. The assertion of the theorem is local. Suppose $W$ is an open cone of $T^{\ast}\tilde{U}-0$, then on $W$ $$S \sim ( S'+ L'\overline{\partial}_b) S \sim S'S$$ and $S' \sim S'^{\ast}$ on $W$. We have on $W$ $$S' \sim SS' \sim (SS')^{\ast}= S'^{\ast}S^{\ast}\sim S'S\sim S.$$
[**Local existence**]{}
Let $S_1=V^{-1}RR^*V$, $L_1=V^{-1}L_0C^{-1}V.$ Then we have
$S_1^2=V^{-1}RR^*RR^*V\sim V^{-1}RR^*V\sim S_1$,
$\overline{\partial}_b S_1\sim V^{-1}CD_0 V S_1\sim
V^{-1}CD_0VV^{-1}RR^*V\sim V^{-1}CD_0RR^*V\sim 0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&&S_1+L_1\overline{\partial}_b\\
&\sim& V^{-1}RR^*V+V^{-1}L_0C^{-1}VV^{-1}CD_0V\\
&\sim& V^{-1}RR^*V+V^{-1}L_0D_0V\\
&\sim& V^{-1}RR^*V+V^{-1}(I-RR^*)V\sim I.\end{aligned}$$
Since $R^*(V^{-1})^*V^{-1}R$ is an elliptic pseudo-differential operator, we denote by $B$ its parametrix. Let $S=V^{-1}RBR^*(V^{-1})^*.$ Then $B\sim B^*$ so $S\sim S^*$.
$SS_1=(V^{-1}RBR^*(V^{-1})^*)(V^{-1}RR^*V)=V^{-1}R(BR^*(V^{-1})^*V^{-1}R)R^*V\sim
S_1$
$S_1S=(V^{-1}RR^*V)(V^{-1}RBR^*(V^{-1})^*)\sim
V^{-1}RBR^*(V^{-1})^*\sim S$
$\overline{\partial}_bS\sim
\overline{\partial}_bS_1S\sim 0$
$S^2\sim SS_1S\sim S_1S\sim S.$ Let $L=(I-S)L_1$, then we have $$S+L\overline{\partial}_b=S+(I-S)L_1\overline{\partial}_b\sim
S+(I-S)(I-S_1)\sim S+I-S-S_1+SS_1\sim I.$$ Thus we show the existence of $S.$
Let $\{W_{\alpha}\}$ be an open covering of $T^*\tilde{U} -\{0\}$ and suppose we have $S_{\alpha}$ and $L_{\alpha}$ satisfying (1) and (2) on each $W_{\alpha}$. By the same argument as in the proof of uniqueness we can show that on $W_{\alpha}\cap W_{\beta}$ we have $S_{\alpha} \sim S_{\beta}$. Using partition of unity as in section 2 we have $Q_{\alpha}$ with $\sum_{\alpha} Q_{\alpha} \sim I$ and $Q_{\alpha}\sim 0$ outside $W_{\alpha}$.
Let $S=\sum Q_{\alpha}S_{\alpha}$ and $L=\sum{\alpha}L_{\alpha}$. Then on $W_{\beta}$ we have $$S=\sum Q_{\alpha}S_{\alpha}\sim Q_{\alpha}S_{\beta}\sim
S_{\beta}$$ which gives $S\sim S^*\sim S^2$. Also we have on each $W_{\beta}$ $$L\overline{\partial}_b=\sum Q_{\alpha}L_{\alpha}\overline{\partial}_b
\sim \sum Q_{\alpha}(I-S_{\alpha})\sim \sum Q_{\alpha}(I-S)\sim
I-S.$$ This completes the proof of the proposition.
Such an $S$ admits the following integral representation $$Sf(x)=\int_{\tilde{U}}\int_0^{\infty}e^{it\psi(x,y)}a(x,y,t)f(y)dtdy,$$ where $f$ has support in $\tilde{U}$ and $a$ is an symbol of degree $n$: $$a(x,y,t)\sim \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}t^{n-k}a_k(x,y).$$ The kernel of $S$ can be written as $$S(x,y)=\int_0^{\infty}e^{it\psi(x,y)}a(x,y,t)dt,$$ and it is smooth off the diagonal. However $S$ is only defined on $\tilde{U}$ because $Sf(x)$ is not invariant under the action of the structure group $G_U.$ Since we wish to have $S$ defined on $U$ instead of its local uniformization, we define
$\tilde{S}=\frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum_{g\in G_U}g S g^{-1}$ i.e.
$\tilde{S} f(x)=\frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum_{g\in G_U} S
\tilde{f}(gx)$ where $\tilde{f}(x)=f(g^{-1}x).$
Now $\tilde{S}$ admits the following integral representation
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{S}f(x)&=&\sum_{g\in
G_U}\int_{\tilde{U}}\int_0^{\infty}e^{it\psi(gx,y)}a(gx,y,t)f(g^{-1}y)dtdy\\
&=&\sum_{g\in
G_U}\int_{\tilde{U}}\int_0^{\infty}e^{it\psi(gx,gy)}a(gx,gy,t)f(y)dtdy\\
&=&\sum_{g\in
G_U}\int_{\tilde{U}}\int_0^{\infty}e^{it\psi(x,y)}a(gx,gy,t)f(y)dtdy.\end{aligned}$$
The last equality holds since the volume form $dy$ is $G_U$-invariant and $\psi$ is invariant under the diagonal action of $G_U$ . The kernel can be written as $$\tilde{S}(x,y)=\sum_{g\in G_U}\int_0^{\infty}e^{it\psi(x,y)}a(gx,gy,t)dt
=\int_0^{\infty}e^{it\psi(x,y)}\tilde{a}(x,y,t)dt$$ which is also smooth off the diagonal. We also define $\tilde{L}=\frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum g L g^{-1}.$
Now since $\tilde{S}$ is $G_U$-equivariant, it can be considered as an operator defined on $U$ instead of on $\tilde{U}$. The same is true for $L$.
On $\tilde{U}$ we still have
1. $\tilde{S}\sim \tilde{S}^{\ast} \sim \tilde{S}^2$
2. $\overline{\partial}_b \tilde{S} \sim 0$ and $I \sim
\tilde{L}\overline{\partial}_b + \tilde{S},$
where $A\sim B$ means $R=A-B$ is an operator of order $-\infty$ and is $G_U$-invariant (or equivalently its distribution kernel is $C^{\infty}$ on $U\times U$).
$$\overline{\partial}_{b}\tilde{S}=\frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum_{g\in
G_U}\overline{\partial}_b g S g^{-1} = \frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum g
\overline{\partial}_b S g^{-1} \sim 0$$
$$\tilde{L}\overline{\partial}_b=\frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum g L
\overline{\partial}_b g^{-1} \sim \frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum g (I-S)
g^{-1}=I-\tilde{S}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{S}^{\ast}&=&\frac{1}{|G|}\sum g S g^{-1}
=\frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum (g S g^{-1})^{\ast}\\
&=&\frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum (g^{-1})^{\ast} S^{\ast} g^{\ast} \sim
\frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum g S g^{-1} \sim \tilde{S}\end{aligned}$$
$$\tilde{S} \sim \tilde{L} \overline{\partial}_b \tilde{S} +
\tilde{S}^2 \sim \tilde{S}^2.$$
Now let $\{U_j\}_{j\in J}$ be an open covering of X with their uniformization $\{U_j, G_j \}$ with partition of unity $Q_j$ and let $\tilde{S}_j$ and $\tilde{L}_j$ be the corresponding operators on $\tilde{U_j}$. Let $S_X=\sum Q_j \tilde{S}_j$ and $L_X=\sum Q_j
\tilde{L}_j$.
If $A$ and $B$ are two operators defined on distribution on $X$, then by $A\sim B$ we mean $R=A-B$ is an operator of $-\infty$, or equivalently the kernel distribution of $R$ is $C^{\infty}$ on $X\times X$.
Given $U_j$ and $U_k$, on the local uniformization $\tilde{U_j}\cap \tilde{U_k}$ the phase functions $\psi_j$ and $\psi_k$ of $\tilde{S}_j$ and $\tilde{S}_k$ are equivalent. Furthermore we have $\tilde{S}_j \sim \tilde{S}_k $.
Notice that $\tilde{S_j}$ and $\tilde{S}_k$ have the same canonical relation on $T^* (\tilde{U_j} \cap \tilde{U_k})$ so they can be composed with each other. And the claim can be easily shown by the same argument in the proof of the uniqueness in Proposition 6.4.
On each $U_k$ we have $S_X=\sum Q_j \tilde{S}_j\sim \sum
Q_j\tilde{S}_k\sim {\sum Q_j} \tilde{S}_k\sim \tilde{S}_k$ and hence $$S_X^2\sim S_X^*\sim S_X$$ $$\overline{\partial}_b S_X\sim 0,$$ and $$L_X\overline{\partial}_b=\sum Q_j
\tilde{L}_j\overline{\partial}_b\sim Q_j
(1-\tilde{S}_j)\sim I - S_X.$$
So we have proved the following theorem:
There exist regular operators $S_X$ and $L_X$ on $X$ such that
1. $ S_X \sim S_X^* \sim S_X^2$
2. $ \overline{\partial}_b \sim 0$ and $ I \sim
L_X\overline{\partial}_b + S_X$,
and $S_X$ is uniquely determined up to an operator of degree $-\infty$.
Let $S$ denote the Szegö kernel of $X$. Then, by uniqueness of $S_X$ and the fact that $I=S+Q_b\overline{\partial}_b$ we have $S\sim S_X$. For each point $(x_0,x_0)\in X\times X$ we can find a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ with its local uniformization $\{\tilde{U},G_U\}$ such that the Szegö kernel $S$ has the local representation
$$S_X(x,y)=\sum_{g\in G_U}\int_0^{\infty}e^{it\psi(gx,gy)}a(gx,gy,t)dt,$$ which is smooth off the diagonal. However $S_X(x,y)$ is not defined on $U\times U$. Remember for any distribution $f$ defined on $X$, it is on a local uniformization $\{\tilde{U},G_U\}$ $G_U$-invariant. So for $f$ supported on $U$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
S_X f(x)&=&\sum_{g\in G_U}\int_{\tilde{U}}\int_0^{\infty}
e^{it\psi(gx,gy)}a(gx,gy,t)f(y)dtdy\\
&=&\sum_{g,h\in G_U}\int_{\tilde{U}}\int_0^{\infty}
e^{it\psi(gx,gy)}a(gx,gy,t)\frac{1}{|G_U|}f(hy)dtdy\\
&=&\sum_{g,h\in G_U}\int_{\tilde{U}}\int_0^{\infty}
e^{it\psi(gx,hy)}a(gx,hy,t)\frac{1}{|G_U|}f(y)dtdy.\end{aligned}$$ This enables us to rewrite the Szegö kernel as $$\Pi(x,y)=\frac{1}{|G_U|}\sum_{g, h\in
G_U}\int_0^{\infty}e^{it\psi(gx,hy)}a(gx,hy,t)dt.$$And such $\Pi(x,y)$ is well-defined on $U\times U.$ Although the set of singularities of $\Pi(x,y)$ sit off-diagonal on $\tilde{U}\times\tilde{U}$, $\Pi(x,y)$ is smooth off the diagonal of $U \times U.$
For each point $(x_0,x_0)\in X\times X$ we can find a neighborhood $U$ of $x$ with its local uniformization $\{\tilde{U},G_U\}$ such that there exist smooth functions $F(x,y)$ and $G(x,y)$ on $\tilde{U}\times\tilde{U}$ such that the Szego kernel has the following representation $$S(x,y)=\sum_{g,h\in G_U} (F(gx,
hy)(-i\psi(gx,hy))^{-n}+G(gx,hy)\log(-i\psi(gx,hy))).$$
**Proof of the main theorems** {#7}
==============================
\[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\] \[theor\]
On any uniformization $(\tilde{U},G)$ we choose a local holomorphic coframe $e^{\ast}_L$ and let $a(z)=|e^{\ast}_L|^2_z$ and $(x,y)=(z,\lambda, w,\mu)$ on $X\times X$, we have $\rho(z,\lambda)=a(z)|\lambda|^2$ and $$\psi(z,\lambda,w,\mu)=\frac{1}{i}a(z,w)\lambda\overline{\mu},$$ where $a(z,w)$ is an almost analytic function on $\tilde{U}\times\tilde{U}$ satisfying $a(z,z)=a(z)$.
On $X$ we have $a(z)|\lambda|^2=1$, so we can assume that $\lambda=a(z)^{-\frac{1}{2}} e^{\theta}$, then $$\psi(z,\theta_1,w,\theta_2)=\frac{1}{i}(\frac{a(z,w)}{i\sqrt{a(z)}\sqrt{a(w)}}e^{i(\theta_1-\theta_2)}-1).$$ The weight space projections $\Pi_N$ are Fourier coefficients of $\Pi$ and hence can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_N(x,y)&=&\sum_{g,h\in G}\int_{t=0}^{\infty}\int_{S^1}
e^{-iN\theta-it\psi(r_{\theta}gx,hy)}s(r_{\theta}gx, hy,t)d\theta
dt\\
&=&\sum_{g,h\in G}\int_{t=0}^{\infty}\int_{S^1}
e^{iN(-\theta+t\psi(r_{\theta}gx,hy))}s(r_{\theta}gx, hy,
Nt)d\theta dt.\end{aligned}$$
In particular on the diagonal $x=y$, we have $$\psi(r_{\theta}gx,hx)=\frac{1}{i}(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}e^{i\theta}-1).$$ So the phase $\psi(t,\theta;gx,hx)=\frac{t}{i}(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}e^{i\theta}-1)-\theta$. If $g=h$, then $\Psi(t,\theta;x,x)=\frac{t}{i}(e^{i\theta}-1)-\theta.$ We have $d_t\Psi(t,\theta;x,x)=\frac{1}{i}(e^{i\theta}-1)$ and $d_{\theta}\Psi(t,\theta;x,x)=te^{i\theta}-1$ thus the critical set is $\{\theta=0, t=1\}.$ The Hessian $\Psi''$ on the critical set is equal to $\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & 1 \\
1 & i
\end{array}\right).$ So the phase is nondegenerate and the critical points are independent of $x$ and we can apply the theorem in [@H2]. However if $g\neq h$ there is no critical point except $z=0$ and we cannot apply the theorem and this makes the asymptotic expansion fail near the singularities. $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_N(z)&=&\sum_{g,h\in G}\int_{t=0}^{\infty}\int_{S^1}
e^{iN(-\theta+t\psi(r_{\theta}gx,hx))}s(r_{\theta}gx,
hx,Nt)d\theta
dt\\
&=&\sum_{g= h\in G}\int_{t=0}^{\infty}\int_{S^1}
e^{-iN\theta-it\psi(r_{\theta}gx,hx)}s(r_{\theta}gx, hx)d\theta
dt\\
&&+\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\int_{S^1} e^{-iN\theta}
\frac{F_{g,h,\theta}}{(1-\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}e^{i\theta})^{n+1}}
d\theta\\
&&+\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\int_{S^1} e^{-iN\theta}
E_{g,h,\theta}\log(1-\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}e^{i\theta})d\theta\\
&=& \Pi^{(1)}_N(z)+\Pi^{(2)}_N(z)+\Pi^{(3)}_N(z).\end{aligned}$$ $\Pi^{(1)}_N$ has a converging expansion similar in [@Z] while $\Pi^{(2)}_N$ might cause difficulties near the singular points. $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{(2)}_N(z) &=&\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\int_{S^1} e^{-iN\theta}
\frac{F_{g,h,\theta}}{(1-\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}e^{i\theta})^{n+1}}d\theta\\
&=&\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\int_{S^1}e^{-iN\theta}F_{g,h,\theta}
(\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(k+n)!}{n!k!}(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)})^ke^{ik\theta})d\theta\\
&=&\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{k=-\infty}^{N}\frac{(l+n)!}{n!l!}
f^{(k)}_{g,h}(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)})^{N-k},\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{(3)}_N(z) &=&\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\int_{S^1} e^{-iN\theta}
E_{g,h,\theta}\log(1-\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}e^{i\theta})d\theta\\
&=&\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\int_{S^1}e^{-iN\theta}E_{g,h,\theta}
(\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{k}(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)})^ke^{ik\theta})d\theta\\
&=&\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{k+l=N}\frac{1}{l}
e^{(k)}_{g,h}(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)})^l\end{aligned}$$ Here we assume $F_{g,h,\theta}=\sum_k f^{(k)}_{g,h} e^{ik\theta}$ and $E_{g,h,\theta}=\sum_k e^{(k)}_{g,h} e^{ik\theta}$.
There exists $\delta>0$ such that for any positive integers $l$ and $s$ there is a constant $C_{l,s}$ such that
1. $||\Pi_N^{(2)}||_{C^s}\leq C_{s,l}
(\frac{1}{N^l}+ N^{n+s/2}e^{-\delta Nr^2}).$
2. $||\Pi_N^{(3)}||_{C^s}\leq C_{s,l}
(\frac{1}{N^l}+ N^{s/2-1}e^{-\delta Nr^2}).$
$$\begin{aligned}
|\Pi_N^{(2)}| &\leq&\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{k=-\infty}^N
\frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}|f^{(k)}_{g,h}|
|\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}|^{N-k}\\
&\leq& \sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{|k|\geq \sqrt{N}}
\frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}|f^{(k)}_{g,h}|
|\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}|^{N-k}\\
&&+\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}
\frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}|f^{(k)}_{g,h}|
|\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}|^{N-k}\\
&\leq& \sum_{g\neq h\in G}\{C_1 \sum_{|k|\geq \sqrt{N}}
(N-k+n)^{n}|f^{(k)}_{g,h}| +C_2\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}
N^n|f_{g,h}^{(k)}||\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}|^{N-k}\}.\end{aligned}$$
Since $|f^{(k)}_{g,h}|\leq C_{l}k^l$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\Pi_N^{(2)}|&\leq& C_l\frac{1}{N^l} +C_2 N^{n}
(\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}|f_{g,h}^{(k)}|e^{(N-k)\log|\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}|})\\
&\leq&C_l\frac{1}{N^l}+C_3 N^n (\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}|f_{g,h}^{(k)}|)e^{-\delta N r^2}\\
&\leq& C_{l,0} (\frac{1}{N^l}+N^ne^{-\delta Nr^2}),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
|\Pi^{(3)}_N|&\leq&\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{k=-\infty}^N
\frac{1}{N-k}|e^{(k)}_{g,h}|
|\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}|^{N-k}\\
&\leq& \sum_{g\neq h\in G}\{ \sum_{|k|\geq \sqrt{N}}
\frac{1}{N-k}|e^{(k)}_{g,h}| +C_4\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}
\frac{1}{N}|f_{g,h}|^{(k)}
e^{(N-k)\log|\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}|}\}\\
&\leq& C_l\frac{1}{N^l} +C_4\frac{1}{N}\sum_{g\neq h\in G}
e^{(N-k)\log(|\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)}|}\\
&\leq&C_l\frac{1}{N^l}+C_4 \frac{1}{N}(\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}|f_{g,h}^{(k)}|) e^{-\delta N r^2}\\
&\leq& C_{l,0} (\frac{1}{N^l}+\frac{1}{N}e^{-\delta Nr^2}).\end{aligned}$$
We have similar bounds for $|\Pi^{(2)}_N|_{C^k}$ and $|\Pi^{(3)}_N|_{C^k}$. If $N>\frac{1}{r^2}$where $r$ is the distance from $x$ to the singular set. Hence $\Pi^{(2)}_N$ and $\Pi^{(3)}_N$ converges to $0$ uniformly away from the singular point. This also proves the first part of Theorem 1.2.
Suppose $z_0$ is an isolated singularity on $X$. Then there is a constant $b(z_0)$ such that for any $C^{\infty}$ test function $\phi(z)$ supported in a small neighborhood of $z_0$, with $z_0$ its only singularity, we have $$\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}<\Pi_N^{(2)}(z)+\Pi_N^{3}(z),
\phi(z)>=\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty}\int_M
(\Pi_N^{(2)}(z)+\Pi_N^{3}(z))\phi(z)\omega^n=b(z_0)\phi(z_0),$$ where $b(z_0)=\sum_{1\neq g\in
G_{z_0}}\frac{1}{\det(I-g|T_{z_0})}$.
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{|z|\leq \epsilon}\Pi_N^{(2)}\phi dV \\
&=&\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\int_{|z|\leq\epsilon}\sum_{|k|\leq
\sqrt{N}} \frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}f^{(k)}_{g,h}
(\frac{1+gz\overline{hz}}{1+|z|^2})^{N-k}\phi dV\\
&=&\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\int_{|z|\leq\epsilon}\sum_{|k|\leq
\sqrt{N}} \frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}f^{(k)}_{g,h}
(\frac{1+gz\overline{hz}}{1+|z|^2})^{N-k}\phi(0) dV\\
&&+O(|\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\int_{|z|\leq\epsilon}\sum_{|k|\leq
\sqrt{N}} \frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}f^{(k)}_{g,h}
(\frac{1+gz\overline{hz}}{1+|z|^2})^{N-k}|z| dV|)\\
&=&\{\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq
\sqrt{N}}\int_{r=0}^{\epsilon}\int_{S^{2n-1}}\frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}(1-\frac{r(1-\xi
g\overline{h}\overline{\xi}))}{1+r})^{N-k}
d\xi r^{n-1}dr f^{(k)}_{g,h}(0)\}\phi(0)\\
&&+O(|\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq
\sqrt{N}}\int_{r=0}^{\epsilon}\int_{S^{2n-1}}\frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}|1-\frac{r(1-\xi
g\overline{h}\overline{\xi})}{1+r}|^{N-k}d\xi r^ndr|)\end{aligned}$$
Let $s=\frac{r}{1+r}$. We have
$$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{|z|\leq \epsilon}\Pi_N^{(2)}\phi dV \\
&=&\{\int_{S^{2n-1}}\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq
\sqrt{N}}\int_{s=0}^{\frac{\epsilon}{1+\epsilon}}\frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}(1-(1-\xi
g\overline{h}\overline{\xi})s)^{N-k}
s^{2n-1} ds f^{(k)}_{g,h}(0)d\xi \}\phi(0)\\
&&+O(\frac{1}{N})\\
&=&\{\int_{S^{2n-1}}\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq
\sqrt{N}}\frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}\frac{n!}{(N-k)...(N-k+n-1)}(1-\xi
g\overline{h}\overline{\xi})^{-(n-1)}\\
&&.\int_{s=0}^{\frac{\epsilon}{1+\epsilon}}(1-(1-\xi
g\overline{h}\overline{\xi})s)^{N-k+n-1}ds f^{(k)}_{g,h}(0)d\xi \}\phi(0)+O(\frac{1}{N})\\
&=&\{\int_{S^{2n-1}}\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq
\sqrt{N}}(1-\xi g\overline{h}\overline{\xi}))^{n}f^{(k)}_{g,h}(0)d\xi \}\phi(0)+O(\frac{1}{N})\\
&=&\{\sum_{g\neq h\in G}(\int_{S^{2n-1}}\frac{1}{(1-\xi
g\overline{h}\overline{\xi})^n}d\xi)(\sum_{|k|\leq
\sqrt{N}}f^{(k)}_{g,h}(0)) \}\phi(0)+O(\frac{1}{N}).\end{aligned}$$
Taking $N\rightarrow \infty$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&&\int_{|z|\leq \epsilon}\Pi_N^{(2)}\phi dV \\
&\rightarrow&(\sum_{g\neq h\in G}\int_{S^{2n-1}}\frac{1}{(1-\xi
g\overline{h}\overline{\xi})^n}d\xi)F((z_0,0),(z_0,0))\phi(z_0)\\
&=&b(z_0)\phi(z_0).\end{aligned}$$ The last equation comes from the fact that $F((z_0,0),(z_0,0))=1$. Also we have $\int_{|z|\leq \epsilon}\Pi_N^{(3)}\phi
dV=O(\frac{1}{N})$ which converges to $0$ as $N\rightarrow
\infty$.
We know that $\Sigma_N^{(1)}$ has an asymptotic expansion: $||\Sigma_N^{(1)}-(a_0 N^n+a_1(z)N^{n-1}+...+a_n(z))||_{C^k}\leq
C_k N^{-1}.$ So $\Pi_N(z)-(a_0 N^n+a_1(z)N^{n-1}+...+a_n(z))$ converges to $\sum_{i=1}^m b(i)\delta_{z_i}(z).$ Therefore we prove Theorem 1.2.
$\chi_N=\frac{1}{N}\log (\Pi_N) $ converges to $0$ in $C^{0}(M).$
It suffices to show that $\Pi_N$ is bounded from below by a uniform positive constant for $N$ large. This can be shown by constructing equivariant peak sections as in [@T2; @T3].
Actually we can obtain much stronger result for the special case where the structure groups are all abelian and from now on we assume $X$ only has finite isolated singularities with abelian structure groups.
If $G$ is a finite abelian subgroup of $U(n)$ then there exists a uniform constant $C_{G,n}>0$ such that for integer $N>0$ and any $z\in C^n$ we have $$\sum_{g\in G}(\frac{1+gz\overline{z}}{1+|z|^2})^N>C_{G,n}.$$
Since $G$ is a finite abelian group of isometry of $T_{z_0}$, $G$ can be linearized as a finite abelian subgroup of $U(n)$ and therefore all elements of $G$ can be diagonalized at the same time. Any element $g \in G$ can be expressed as $$g=\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
e^{\frac{i2p_1(g)\pi}{q_1(g)}} & 0 & ...& 0 \\
0 & e^{\frac{i2p_2(g)\pi}{q_2(g)} } & ...& 0 \\
0 & 0 & ...& 0\\
0 & 0 & ...& e^{\frac{i2p_n(g)
\pi}{q_n(g)}}
\end{array}
\right),$$ where $p_i$ and $q_i$ are relatively prime for $i=1,...,n$.
Then $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{g\in G}(1+gz\overline{z})^N\\
&=&\sum_{g\in
G}\sum_{\alpha_0+\alpha_1+\alpha_n=N}\frac{N!}{\alpha_0!\alpha_1!...\alpha_n!}
|z_1|^{2\alpha_1}|z_2|^{2\alpha_2}...|z_n|^{2\alpha_n}e^{\frac{i2\alpha_1p_1(g)\pi}{q_1(g)}+\frac{i2\alpha_2p_2(g)\pi}{q_2(g)}
+\frac{i2\alpha_np_n(g)\pi}{q_n(g)}}\\
&=&\sum_{\alpha_0+\alpha_1+\alpha_n=N}\frac{N!}{\alpha_0!\alpha_1!...\alpha_n!}
|z_1|^{2\alpha_1}|z_2|^{2\alpha_2}...|z_n|^{2\alpha_n}[\sum_{g\in
G}e^{\frac{i2\alpha_1p_1(g)\pi}{q_1(g)}+\frac{i2\alpha_2p_2(g)\pi}{q_2(g)}
+\frac{i2\alpha_np_n(g)\pi}{q_n(g)}}]\\\end{aligned}$$ Fix $\alpha=(\alpha_0, \alpha_1, ... , \alpha_n)$, we can construct the following group homomorphism $$\begin{aligned}
&&\alpha: G \rightarrow U(1)\\
&&\alpha(g)=e^{\frac{i2\alpha_1p_1(g)\pi}{q_1(g)}+\frac{i2\alpha_2p_2(g)\pi}{q_2(g)}
+\frac{i2\alpha_np_n(g)\pi}{q_n(g)}}.\end{aligned}$$
It is easy to see that $\sum_{g\in
G}e^{\frac{i2\alpha_1p_1(g)\pi}{q_1(g)}+\frac{i2\alpha_2p_2(g)\pi}{q_2(g)}
+\frac{i2\alpha_np_n(g)\pi}{q_n(g)}}$ is nonzero only if $\alpha$ is a trivial homomorphism and in this case $\sum_{g\in
G}e^{\frac{i2\alpha_1p_1(g)\pi}{q_1(g)}+\frac{i2\alpha_2p_2(g)\pi}{q_2(g)}
+\frac{i2\alpha_np_n(g)\pi}{q_n(g)}}$ is a positive integer. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
&&\sum_{g\in G}(1+gz\overline{z})^N\\
&\geq&\sum_{g\in G}\sum_{
\begin{array}{c}
\alpha_0+\alpha_1+\alpha_n=N\\
|G||\alpha_k, \textnormal{ for $k=1,...,n$}\\
\end{array}}
\frac{N!}{\alpha_0!\alpha_1!...\alpha_n!}
|z_1|^{2\alpha_1}|z_2|^{2\alpha_2}...|z_n|^{2\alpha_n}\\
&\geq& C_{G,n}(1+|z|^2)^N.\end{aligned}$$
There exist constants $N_0$, $C$ and $c>0$ such that for $N>N_0$ we have for all $z\in M$ $$cN^n \leq \Pi_N(z)\leq C N^n.$$
For the proof of Theorem 1.3, we have the upper bound. For the lower bound it suffices to prove it near the singularities. $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_N&=&\sum_{g, h\in G}\sum_{k=-\infty}^N
\frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}f^{(k)}_{g,h}(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)})^{N-k}\\
&=&\sum_{g, h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}
\frac{(N-k+n)!}{n!(N-k)!}f^{(k)}_{g,h}(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)})^{N-k}+O(N^{n-1})\\
&=&\sum_{g, h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}
\frac{N^n}{n!}f^{(k)}_{g,h}(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)})^{N-k}+O(N^{n-1})\\
&=&\sum_{g, h\in G}\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}
\frac{N^n}{n!}f^{(k)}_{g,h}(z=0)(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)})^{N-\sqrt{N}}+O(N^{n-\epsilon'})\\
&=&\frac{N^n}{n!}\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}f^{(k)}(z=0)\sum_{g\neq
h\in
G}(\frac{a(gz,hz)}{a(z)})^{N-\sqrt{N}}+O(N^{n-\epsilon'})\\
&\geq&C_5N^n\sum_{g \in
G}(\frac{1+gz\overline{z}}{1+|z|^2})^{N-\sqrt{N}}+O(N^{n-\epsilon'})\geq
cN^n\end{aligned}$$ by lemma 7.3 and here $\sum_{|k|\leq \sqrt{N}}f^{(k)}(z=0)$ converges to $F(0,0)$ which is positive.
$\chi_N=\frac{1}{N}\log\Pi_N $ converges to 0 in $C^{1,\alpha}(M)$ for any $\alpha<1$.
$$\bigtriangledown
\chi_N=\frac{1}{N}\frac{\bigtriangledown\Pi_N^{(1)}+\bigtriangledown\Pi_N^{(2)}+\bigtriangledown\Pi_N^{(3)}}{\Pi_N}.$$ Since we have the above lemma we can do the same calculation in Lemma 7.1 and it is straightforward to prove the lemma.
Let $\omega(N)=\frac{1}{N}\log(\sum_{i=0}^{d_N}\|S^N_I(z)\|^2_{h_N})$ be the pullback of the scaled Fubini-Study metric then $$||\omega(N)-\omega||_{C^k}\leq C_k (\frac{1}{N}+(\sum_{l=0}^k
N^{k/2}(Nr^2)^{l/2+1})e^{-\delta Nr^2}).$$ In particular, $||\omega(N)-\omega||_{C^k}\leq C_k' N^{k/2}.$
The proof is straightforward by induction.
Let $P(M,\omega)=\{\phi\in
C^{\infty}(M)\;|\;\omega_{\phi}=\omega+\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}\partial\overline{\partial}\phi>0,\sup_{M}\phi=0\}$ be the set of all plurisubharmonic functions on $M$. Let $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\omega _{\phi}} &=&\omega +\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}\partial
\overline{\partial} \phi
>0\ \\
\widetilde{h} &=&he^{-\phi }.\end{aligned}$$ Let $\widetilde{h}_{N}$ be the induced Hermitian metric of $\tilde{h}$ on $L^{N}$, $\{\tilde{S}
_{0}^{m},\tilde{S}_{1,...,}^{N}\tilde{S}_{d_{N}}^{N}\}$ be any orthonormal basis of $H^{0}(M,L^{N})$($1+d_{N}=\dim
H^{0}(M,L^{N})$) with respect to $\tilde{h},\omega_{\phi}$. Then we have the following holomorphic approximation theorem which has been proved by Lu.
$\phi_N=\frac{1}{N}\log
(\sum_{k=0}^{d_{N}}||\tilde{S}^N_k(z)||^2_{h^N}) $ converges to $\phi$ in $C^0(M)$ for any $\alpha<1$. If for each singularity its structure group is cyclic, then the $\phi_N$ converges to $\phi$ in $C^{1,\alpha}(M)$ for any $\alpha<1$.
**Examples** {#8}
============
Let $X$ be the quotient of $\mathbf{CP}^1$ by a cyclic group of order $n$ defined by $$[Z_0, Z_1]\sim [Z_0 e^{\frac{i2k\pi}{n}}, Z_1]$$ for $k=0, 1, 2,...,n-1$.
Let $L$ be $O(n)$ the orbifold line bundle over $X$ and the Fubini-Study metric on $X$ is defined by $g_{i\overline{j}}=\frac{\sqrt{-1}}{2\pi}\partial_i\partial_{\overline{j}}\log(|Z_0|^2+|Z_1|^2)$. Then $\{\sqrt{\frac{n(nN+1)!}{(nk)!(nN-nk)!}}Z_0^{nk}Z_1^{nN-nk}\}_{k=0}^{N}$ is an orthonormal basis of $H^0(X, O(nN))$ with respect to the Fubini-Study metric.
On the patch $U_0=\{Z_0\neq 0\}$ we write $r=\frac{|Z_1|^2}{|Z_0|^2}$ and we have $$\begin{aligned}
S^{(N)}(z)&=&n\sum_{m=0}^{N}(nN+1)C_{nN}^{nm}
\frac{|Z_0|^{2nm}|Z_1|^{2nN-2nm}}{(|Z_0|^2+|Z_1|^2)^{nN}}\\
&=&n\sum_{k=m}^{N}(nN+1) C_{nN}^{nm}\frac{r^{nm}}{(1+r)^{nN}}\\
&=&(nN+1)\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(\frac{1+re^{\frac{i2k\pi}{n}}}{1+r})^{nN}\\
&=&nN+1+nN
\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}(\frac{1+re^{\frac{i2k\pi}{n}}}{1+r})^{nN}.\end{aligned}$$ And $$|S^{(N)}|([1,0])=|S^{(N)}|^2([0,1])=n(nN+1)$$ $$\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty,[Z_0, Z_1]\neq [0,1],[1,0]}\frac{|S^{(N)}|^2([Z_0,Z_1])}{nN+1}=1.$$
Also we have $$\begin{aligned}
|S^{(N)}(z)-(nN+1)|&=&(nN+1)|\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}(\frac{1+re^{\frac{i2k\pi}{n}}}{1+r})^{nN}|\\
&\leq&n(nN+1)\max|1-\frac{r(1-e^{\frac{i2k\pi}{n}})}{1+r}|^{nN}\\
&\leq&n(nN+1)e^{-\delta Nr}\\
&\leq&C_2\frac{1}{N},\end{aligned}$$ if $N\geq \frac{1}{r^2}$.
By similar calculation we have $$S^{(N)}\sim
nN+1+\frac{n-1}{2n}([\{[0,1]\}]+[\{[1,0]\}]),$$ as a distribution on $X$ and if we integrate $S^{(N)}$ over $X$ we obtain the Gauss-Bonnet theorem for the quotient sphere. It also verifies Theorem 1.2 since $a(0)=1$, $a(1)=1$ as the scalar curvature and $$b_{[0,1]}=b_{[1,0]}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^{n-1}\frac{1}{1-e^{\frac{i2k\pi}{n}}}=\frac{n-1}{2n} .$$
[100]{}
Atiyah, M. F. and Singer, I. M., [*The index of elliptic operators. I*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 87 (1968) 484–530.
Atiyah, M. F. and Segal, G. B., [*The index of elliptic operators. II*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 87 (1968) 531–545.
Aubin, T., [*Equations du type Monge-Ampére sur les Kähleriennes compacts*]{}, Bull. Sc. Math. 102 (1978), 119–121.
Baily, W., [*The decomposition theorem for $V$-manifolds*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 78 (1956) 862–888.
Boutet de Monvel, L., [*Hypoelliptic operators with double characteristics and related pseudo-differential operators*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 27 (1974), 585–639.
Boutet de Monvel, L. and Sjöstrand, J.,[*Sur la singularit¨¦ des noyaux de Bergman et de Szegö*]{}, ¨¦quations aux D¨¦riv¨¦es Partielles de Rennes (1975), pp. 123–164. Asterisque, No. 34-35, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1976.
Calabi, E., [*On Kähler manifolds with vanishing canonical class*]{}, Algebraic geometry and topology, A symposium in honor of S. Lefschetz, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1955.
Catlin, D., [*The Bergman kernel and a theorem of Tian*]{}, Analysis and geometry in several complex variables (Katata, 1997), 1–23, Trends Math., Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1999.
Demailly, J. P. and Kollár, J., [*Semi-continuity of complex singularity exponents and Kähler-Einstein metrics on Fano orbifolds*]{}, Ann. Sci. école Norm. Sup. (4) 34 (2001), no. 4, 525–556.
Ding, W and Tian, G., [*The generalized Moser-Trudinger Inequality*]{}, Proceedings of Nankai International Conference on Nonlinear Analysis, 1993.
Donaldson, S. K., [*Scalar curvature and projective embeddings*]{}, I. J. Differential Geom. 59 (2001), no. 3, 479–522.
Folland, G. B. and Kohn, J. J., [*The Neumann problem for the Cauchy-Riemann complex*]{}, Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 75. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1972.
Hörmander, L., [*Fourier integral operators I*]{}, Acta Math. 127 (1971), no. 1-2, 79–183.
Hörmander, L., [*The analysis of linear partial differential operators. I. Distribution theory and Fourier analysis*]{}, Second edition. Springer Study Edition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
Hörmander, L., [*An introduction to complex analysis in several variables*]{}, Van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ 1973.
Kawasaki, T., [*The Riemann-Roch theorem for complex $V$-manifolds*]{}, Osaka J. Math. 16 (1979), no. 1, 151–159.
Lu, Z., [*On the lower order terms of the asymptotic expansion of Tian-Yau-Zelditch*]{}, Amer. J. Math. 122 (2000), no. 2, 235–273.
Phong, D. H. and Sturm, J., [*Algebraic estimates, stability of local zeta functions, and uniform estimates for distribution functions*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 152 (2000), no. 1, 277–329.
Phong, D. H.,[*Sturm, Jacob Stability, energy functionals, and Kähler-Einstein metrics*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom. 11 (2003), no. 3, 565–597.
Ruan, W., [*On the convergence and collapsing of Kähler metrics*]{}, J. Differential Geom. 52 (1999), no. 1, 1–40.
Satake, I., [*On a generalization of the notion of manifold*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 42 (1956), 359–363.
Siu, Y.T., [*The existence of Kähler-Einstein metrics on manifolds with positive anticanonical line bundle and a suitable finite symmetry group*]{}, Ann. of Math. (2) 127 (1988), no. 3, 585–627.
Song, J., [*The $\alpha$-Invariant on $\mathbf{CP}^2\#2\overline{\mathbf{CP}^2}$*]{}, accepted by TAMS.
Song, J., [*The $\alpha$-invariant on toric Fano manifolds* ]{}, preprint math.DG/0307288.
Tian, G., [*On Kähler-Einstein metrics on certain Kähler manifolds with $C_ {1}(M)>0$*]{}, Invent. Math. 89 (1987), no. 2, 225–246.
Tian, G., [*On a set of polarized Kähler metrics on algebraic manifolds*]{}, J.Differential Geometry 32(1990)99-130.
Tian, G., [*On Calabi’s conjecture for complex surfaces with positive first Chern class*]{}, Invent. Math. 101 (1990), no. 1, 101–172.
Tian, G., [*Kähler-Einstein metrics with positive scalar curvature*]{}, Invent. Math. 130 (1997), no. 1, 1–37.
Tian, G. and Yau, S.T., [*Kähler-Einstein metrics on complex surfaces with $C\sb 1>0$*]{}, Comm. Math. Phys. 112 (1987), no.1,175–203.
Weinkove, B., [*Convergence of the J-flow on Kahler surfaces*]{}, preprint.
Yau, S.T., [*On the Ricci curvature of a compact Kähler manifold and the complex Monge-Ampère equation I*]{}, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 31 (1978) 339-411.
Zelditch, S., [*Szegö Kernels and a Theorem of Tian*]{}, IMRN1998, No.6 317-331.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We show that the action expanded around Erler-Maccaferri’s $N$ D-brane solution describes the $N+1$ D-brane system where one D-brane disappears due to tachyon condensation. String fields on multi-branes can be regarded as block matrices of a string field on a single D-brane in the same way as matrix theories.'
author:
- |
Isao [Kishimoto]{},$^{1}$ Toru [Masuda]{},$^{2}$ Tomohiko [Takahashi]{},$^{2}$\
and Shoko [Takemoto]{}$^{2}$\
\
$^1$[*Faculty of Education, Niigata University, Niigata 950-2181, Japan*]{}\
$^2$ [*Department of Physics, Nara Women’s University,*]{} [*Nara 630-8506, Japan*]{}
title: |
\
**Open String Fields as Matrices**
---
Introduction
============
Open string field theory has the possibility of revealing non-perturbative aspects of string theory. Recently, Erler and Maccaferri have proposed a method to construct classical solutions, which are expected to describe any open string background [@Erler:2014eqa]. This indeed implies that open string field theory is able to give a unified description of various D-branes regarded as non-perturbative objects of string theory.
Multi-brane solutions in Ref. [@Erler:2014eqa] provide a correct vacuum energy and gauge invariant observables. Accordingly, in order to prove whether the theory describes a multi-brane system, it is necessary to clarify open and closed string spectra in the background of the solution. However, it is difficult to give a definite answer to this problem, because there are some subtleties concerning BRST cohomology in the background [@Erler:2014eqa].
There is another question related to the degree of freedom of string fields in the background. We have one string field in the theory on a single D-brane. However, in the case that the multi-brane solution provides the background of the $N$ D-branes, the number of string fields increases to $N^2$ around the solution. Intuitively, $N^2$ fluctuation fields in the multi-brane background seem to be introduced as redundant degrees of freedom. Here, it is natural to ask how to generate $N^2$ string fields or Chan-Paton factors from one string field.
On the other hand, it is well-known that matrix theories are able to describe various D-branes [@Banks:1996vh; @Ishibashi:1996xs]. In matrix theories, D-branes are created by classical solutions as block diagonal matrices. After expanding a matrix around the solution, block matrices can be understood as representing open strings connecting each D-brane. Here, it should be noted that there are similarities between the matrix and the open string field: the matrix is deeply tied to the open string degree of freedom and an open string field is interpreted as a matrix in which the left and right indices correspond to the left and right half-strings [@Witten:1985cc]. Then, it seems plausible that $N^2$ string fields on $N$ D-branes are embedded like block matrices in a string field on a D-brane.
The purpose of this paper is to clarify the origin of the $N^2$ string fields in the background of an $N$ D-brane solution. We will show that the theory expanded around the solution is regarded as an open string field theory on $N+1$ D-branes, but in which a D-brane vanishes as a result of tachyon condensation. Then, the $N^2$ string fields will be given as block matrices in a string field as an infinite-dimensional matrix. Consequently, we can expect that the $N$ D-brane solution correctly reproduces the open and closed string spectra in the $N$ D-brane background.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. \[sec2\], after a brief explanation of multi-brane solutions by Erler-Maccaferri [@Erler:2014eqa], we will introduce projection operators acting on a space of string fields. Then, we will analyze a string field theory expanded around the $N$ D-brane solution in terms of the projectors. In Sect. \[sec3\], we will give concluding remarks.
Open string field theory around multi-brane solutions \[sec2\]
==============================================================
Erler-Maccaferri’s solution for $N$ D-branes
--------------------------------------------
The action of bosonic cubic open string field theory is $$\begin{aligned}
S[\Psi;Q_{\rm B}]=-\frac{1}{g^2}\int
\left(\frac{1}{2}\Psi Q_{\rm B}\Psi+\frac{1}{3}
\Psi^3\right).
\label{action}\end{aligned}$$ From the action, the equation of motion is given by $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\rm B}\Psi+\Psi^2=0.
\label{eqm}\end{aligned}$$
To construct multi-brane solutions for $N$ D-branes, Erler and Maccaferri introduced $N$ pairs of regularized boundary-conditions-changing operators, $\Sigma_a$ and $\bar{\Sigma}_a$ $(a=1,\cdots, N)$ [@Erler:2014eqa].[^1] These operators satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\Sigma}_a\Sigma_b=\delta_{ab},
\label{SigmaBarSigma}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\rm T}\Sigma_a=Q_{\rm T}\bar{\Sigma}_a=0,
\label{QSigma}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q_{\rm T}$ is a modified BRST operator on the tachyon vacuum. From (\[QSigma\]), we find that $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\rm B}\Sigma_a=\Sigma_a\psi_{\rm T}-\psi_{\rm T}\Sigma_a,
\ \ \
Q_{\rm B}\bar{\Sigma}_a=\bar{\Sigma}_a\psi_{\rm T}-\psi_{\rm T}
\bar{\Sigma}_a,
\label{QBSigma}\end{aligned}$$ where $\psi_{\rm T}$ denotes the tachyon vacuum solution of (\[eqm\]). Here, we only assume that $\Sigma_a$ and $\bar{\Sigma}_a$ satisfy Eqs. (\[SigmaBarSigma\]) and (\[QSigma\]) (or equivalently (\[QBSigma\])) for a tachyon vacuum solution $\psi_{\rm T}$, regardless of wedge-based[@Schnabl:2005gv; @Erler:2009uj] or identity-based[@Takahashi:2002ez; @Kishimoto:2002xi] solutions.
Using $\psi_{\rm T}$, $\Sigma_a$ and $\bar{\Sigma}_a$, Erler-Maccaferri provided a multi-brane solution as[@Erler:2014eqa] $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi_0=\psi_{\rm T}
-\sum_{a=1}^N\Sigma_a\psi_{\rm T}\bar{\Sigma}_a.
\label{EMsol}\end{aligned}$$ We can calculate the action for $\Psi_0$ with the help of (\[SigmaBarSigma\]) and (\[QSigma\]): $$\begin{aligned}
S[\Psi_0;Q_{\rm B}]=-(N-1)S[\psi_{\rm T};Q_{\rm B}].
\label{N-1 S}\end{aligned}$$ Then, the solution $\Psi_0$ provides a correct vacuum energy for $N$ D-branes. Expanding the string field around the solution as $\Psi=\Psi_0+\psi$, we can obtain the action for the fluctuation $\psi$: $$\begin{aligned}
S[\Psi;Q_{\rm B}]=S[\Psi_0;Q_{\rm B}]+S[\psi;Q_{\Psi_0}],\end{aligned}$$ where the operator $Q_{\Psi_0}$ denotes the shifted BRST operator by the solution $\Psi_0$.
Projectors
----------
To clarify the physical interpretation of $S[\psi;Q_{\Psi_0}]$, we introduce $N$ projection states as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
P_a=\Sigma_a\bar{\Sigma}_a\ \ \ (a=1,\cdots,N),\end{aligned}$$ where the same indices $a$ are not summed. Here we have to notice that, as pointed out in Ref. [@Erler:2014eqa], $\bar{\Sigma}_a$ should be multiplied to $\Sigma_a$ from the left and so these projectors should be dealt with carefully. More precisely, we define the projections for arbitrary string fields $A$ and $B$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
AP_a B = (A \Sigma_a)(\bar{\Sigma}_a B).
\label{defP}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[SigmaBarSigma\]) and (\[defP\]), we can easily find that $$\begin{aligned}
P_aP_bA=\Sigma_a(\bar{\Sigma}_a P_bA)=\Sigma_a((\bar{\Sigma}_a\Sigma_b)
(\bar{\Sigma}_bA))=\delta_{ab}P_aA.\end{aligned}$$ This is a sufficient definition of the projectors for later calculation. But it suggests that we need to insert some infinitesimal worldsheet to separate $\Sigma_a$ and $\bar{\Sigma}_a$. We will discuss this point further in the last section.
In addition to $P_a$, we define the $0$th projection as a complementary projector: $$\begin{aligned}
P_0=1-\sum_{a=1}^{N}P_a,\end{aligned}$$ where $1$ denotes the identity string field. By definition, these $N+1$ projections satisfy $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\alpha=0}^NP_\alpha=1,\end{aligned}$$ where the Greek indices are used for values $0,1,\cdots,N$. From (\[QSigma\]), it follows that $Q_{\rm T}P_\alpha=0$ and then we have $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\rm B}P_\alpha=P_\alpha\psi_{\rm T}-\psi_{\rm T}P_\alpha.
\label{QBPa}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we can find some relations among $P_\alpha$, $\Sigma_\alpha$ and $\bar{\Sigma}_\alpha$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&
P_a\Sigma_b= \Sigma_a\delta_{ab},
\ \ \
\bar{\Sigma}_aP_b=\bar{\Sigma}_a\delta_{ab},
\ \ \
P_0\Sigma_b= 0,
\ \ \
\bar{\Sigma}_aP_0=0.
\label{PaSigma}\end{aligned}$$
With the help of these projectors, the string field $\Psi$ can be partitioned into $(N+1)\times (N+1)$ blocks: $$\begin{aligned}
\Psi=\sum_{\alpha=0}^N\sum_{\beta=0}^NP_\alpha \Psi P_\beta=
\left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
\Psi_{00}& \Psi_{01}& \cdots& \Psi_{0 N}\\
\Psi_{10}& \Psi_{11}& \cdots& \Psi_{1 N}\\
\vdots& \vdots& \ddots& \vdots\\
\Psi_{N0}& \Psi_{N1}& \cdots& \Psi_{N N}
\end{array}\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $\Psi_{\alpha\beta}$ is defined as the $(\alpha,\beta)$ sector of $\Psi$, i.e., $\Psi_{\alpha\beta}\equiv P_\alpha\Psi P_\beta$.
According to Ref. [@Erler:2014eqa], the second term in (\[EMsol\]) is a solution to the equation of motion at the tachyon vacuum. From (\[PaSigma\]), the second term is represented as $$\begin{aligned}
-\sum_{a=1}^N\Sigma_a\psi_{\rm T}\bar{\Sigma}_a
=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0& 0& 0& \cdots& 0\\
0& -\Sigma_1\psi_{\rm T}\bar{\Sigma}_1&
0
& \cdots& 0\\
0& 0&
-\Sigma_2\psi_{\rm T}\bar{\Sigma}_2& \cdots& 0\\
\vdots &\vdots& \vdots& \ddots& \vdots\\
0& 0& 0& \cdots& -\Sigma_N\psi_{\rm
T}\bar{\Sigma}_N\\
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Accordingly, it turns out that the $N$ D-brane solution at the tachyon vacuum is given as a block diagonal matrix. This is a similar result to the case of matrix theories [@Banks:1996vh; @Ishibashi:1996xs].
Background described by the solution
------------------------------------
Now, we consider the fluctuation $\psi$ around the $N$ D-brane solution. According to the previous subsection, $\psi$ can be written by matrix representation: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi&=&\sum_{\alpha=0}^N\sum_{\beta=0}^N \tilde{\phi}_{\alpha\beta},
\label{psimatrix}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha\beta}=P_\alpha\psi P_\beta$. $\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha\beta}$ represents a block matrix of $\psi$ with infinite dimension.
Here, we consider change of variables of $\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha\beta}$. $\tilde{\phi}_{ab}$ can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\phi}_{ab}=P_a\tilde{\phi}_{ab}P_b=\Sigma_a(\bar{\Sigma}_a
\tilde{\phi}_{ab}\Sigma_b)\bar{\Sigma}_b.\end{aligned}$$ So, we can change the variables from $\tilde{\phi}_{ab}$ to $\phi_{ab}=\bar{\Sigma}_a\tilde{\phi}_{ab}\Sigma_b$. Similarly, writing $\tilde{\phi}_{0a}=\chi_a\bar{\Sigma}_a$, $\tilde{\phi}_{a0}=\Sigma_a\bar{\chi}_a$, the fluctuation $\psi$ is represented as $$\begin{aligned}
\psi&=&
\chi+ \sum_{a=1}^N\chi_a\bar{\Sigma}_a
+ \sum_{a=1}^N\Sigma_a\bar{\chi}_a
+\sum_{a=1}^N\sum_{b=1}^N\Sigma_a\phi_{ab}\bar{\Sigma}_b
{\nonumber\\}&=&
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\chi& \chi_b\bar{\Sigma}_b\\
&\\
\Sigma_a\bar{\chi}_a &
\Sigma_a\phi_{ab}\bar{\Sigma}_b
\end{array}\right),
\label{PsiTildePhi}\end{aligned}$$ where we rewrite $\tilde{\phi}_{00}$ as $\chi$.
Similar to the equation $Q_{\Psi_0}(\Sigma_a A\bar{\Sigma}_b)=
\Sigma_a(Q_{\rm
B}A)\bar{\Sigma}_b$ given in Ref. [@Erler:2014eqa], by using (\[QBSigma\]) and (\[QBPa\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\Psi_0}(P_0AP_0)&=&P_0(Q_{\rm T}A)P_0,
\\
Q_{\Psi_0}(P_0A\bar{\Sigma}_a)&=&P_0(Q_{{\rm T}0}A)\bar{\Sigma}_a,
\\
Q_{\Psi_0}(\Sigma_aAP_0)&=&\Sigma_a(Q_{0{\rm T}}A)P_0,\end{aligned}$$ where the operator $Q_{\psi_1\psi_2}$ is defined as $Q_{\psi_1\psi_2}A=Q_{\rm B}A+\psi_1A-(-1)^{|A|}A\psi_2$ for two classical solutions $\psi_1$ and $\psi_2$ [@Erler:2014eqa], and then $Q_{{\rm
T}0}\equiv Q_{\psi_{\rm T}\,0}$ and $Q_{0{\rm
T}}\equiv Q_{0\,\psi_{\rm T}}$. Using these relations, we can obtain a matrix representation of $Q_{\Psi_0}\psi$: $$\begin{aligned}
Q_{\Psi_0}\psi&=&\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
P_0(Q_{\rm T}\chi)P_0 & P_0(Q_{{\rm T}0}\chi_b)\bar{\Sigma}_b\\
&\\
\Sigma_a(Q_{0{\rm T}}\bar{\chi}_a)P_0 &
\Sigma_a(Q_{\rm B}\phi_{ab})\bar{\Sigma}_b
\end{array}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, the action expanded around $\Psi_0$ can be rewritten as $$\begin{aligned}
S[\psi; Q_{\Psi_0}]&=& S[\phi_{ab};Q_{\rm B}]
+S'[\chi,\chi_a,\bar{\chi}_a,\phi_{ab}],
\label{phichiaction}\end{aligned}$$ where each action is given by $$\begin{aligned}
S[\phi_{ab};Q_{\rm B}]&=&-\frac{1}{g^2}\int
\left(\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a=1}^N\sum_{b=1}^N
\phi_{ba}Q_{\rm B}\phi_{ab}
+\frac{1}{3}
\sum_{a=1}^N\sum_{b=1}^N\sum_{c=1}^N
\phi_{ab}\phi_{bc}\phi_{ca}\right)
{\nonumber\\}&=&-\frac{1}{g^2}\int {\rm tr}
\left(\frac{1}{2}
\phi Q_{\rm B}\phi
+\frac{1}{3}
\phi^3\right),
\label{Sphi}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
S'[\chi,\chi_a,\bar{\chi}_a,\phi_{ab}]
&=&-\frac{1}{g^2}\int
\left(\frac{1}{2}\chi Q_{\rm T}\chi
+\sum_{a=1}^N\bar{\chi}_aQ_{{\rm T}0}\chi_a
+\frac{1}{3}\chi^3\right.
{\nonumber\\}&&
\left.
+\sum_{a=1}^N\bar{\chi}_a\chi\chi_a
+\sum_{a=1}^N\sum_{b=1}^N\chi_a\phi_{ab}\bar{\chi}_b\right).
\label{Schi}\end{aligned}$$ In (\[Sphi\]), $\phi$ represents a matrix $(\phi_{ab})$ and the trace denotes the sum of the diagonal elements with indices $a,b$. Obviously, (\[Sphi\]) represents the action for $N$ D-branes; namely, $\phi_{ab}$ is a string field of an open string attached on the $a$th and $b$th D-branes. Moreover, in the action (\[Schi\]), $\chi$ is a string field on a D-brane with tachyon condensation, and $\chi_a$ and $\bar{\chi}_a$ represent string fields of an open string attaching on a D-brane with tachyon condensation and on one of the $N$ D-branes, on which $\phi_{ab}$ also attach. Accordingly, the actions (\[Sphi\]) and (\[Schi\]) describe the theory for $N+1$ D-branes in which a D-brane vanishes due to tachyon condensation. This system should be physically equivalent to the $N$ D-brane system because $Q_{\rm T}$ and $Q_{{\rm T}0}$ have trivial cohomology[^2] and therefore this result is consistent with the expectation that the solution (\[EMsol\]) is regarded as an $N$ D-brane solution.
Let us consider an on-shell closed string coupling to an open string field. In the complex plane, a closed string vertex operator is given by ${\cal V}(z,\bar{z})=c(z)c(\bar{z})V_{\rm matt}(z,\bar{z})$, where $V_{\rm matt}$ is a vertex operator with the conformal dimension $(1,1)$ in the matter sector. We can give a BRST invariant state using ${\cal V}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
V={\cal V}(i,-i)I,\end{aligned}$$ where the point $z=i$ corresponds to the midpoint of an open string. Since the vertex is inserted at the midpoint, the state $V$ commutes with any string field $A$: $VA=AV$. For the open string field $\Psi$, an interaction term with the closed string vertex is given as a gauge invariant overlap[@Zwiebach:1992bw]: $$\begin{aligned}
O_{\cal V}(\Psi)=\int V\Psi.\end{aligned}$$ In the background of the $N$ D-brane solution, using (\[SigmaBarSigma\]) and (\[PaSigma\]), we can easily find couplings of the fluctuation fields to the closed string as $$\begin{aligned}
O_{\cal V}(\psi)
&=&O_{\cal V}(\chi)
+\sum_{a=1}^NO_{\cal V}(\phi_{aa}).\end{aligned}$$ This correctly provides a closed string interaction to open strings on the $N+1$ D-branes.
Next, we consider the correspondence between gauge symmetries in the original action (\[action\]) and the expanded action (\[phichiaction\]). The original gauge transformation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_\Lambda \Psi = Q_{\rm B}\Lambda+\Psi\Lambda-\Lambda\Psi.
\label{gaugetrans}\end{aligned}$$ Since $\Psi=\Psi_0+\psi$, the gauge transformation for $\psi$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_\Lambda\psi &=&
Q_{\rm \Psi_0}\Lambda+\psi\Lambda-\Lambda\psi,
\label{gaugetrans3}\end{aligned}$$ where we note that $\Lambda$ is the same parameter as in (\[gaugetrans\]). Here, we decompose $\Lambda$ into $\tilde{\Lambda}_{\alpha\beta}=P_\alpha\Lambda P_\beta$ by the projectors. Then, changing variables as $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{\Lambda}_{ab}=\Sigma_a\Lambda_{ab}\bar{\Sigma}_b,
\ \ \
\tilde{\Lambda}_{0a}=\lambda_a\bar{\Sigma}_a,
\ \ \
\tilde{\Lambda}_{a0}=\Sigma_a\bar{\lambda}_a,\end{aligned}$$ and writing $\tilde{\Lambda}_{00}=\lambda$, we find that $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_\Lambda \psi &=& \sum_{a=1}^N\sum_{b=1}^N
\Sigma_a(\delta_\Lambda \phi_{ab})\bar{\Sigma}_b
+\sum_{a=1}^N
P_0(\delta_\Lambda \chi_{a})\bar{\Sigma}_a
+\sum_{a=1}^N
\Sigma_a(\delta_\Lambda\bar{\chi}_{a})P_0
+P_0(\delta_\Lambda\chi)P_0,
$$ where the gauge transformations for the components are given as $$\begin{aligned}
\delta_{\Lambda} \phi_{ab} &=& Q_{\rm
B}\Lambda_{ab}+\phi_{ac}\Lambda_{cb}
-\Lambda_{ac}\phi_{cb}
+\bar{\chi}_a\lambda_b
-\bar{\lambda}_a\chi_b,
{\nonumber\\}\delta_{\Lambda} \chi_a &=& P_0(Q_{{\rm T}0}\lambda_a)+\chi\lambda_a
+\chi_b\Lambda_{ba}
-\lambda\chi_a-\lambda_{b}\phi_{ba},
{\nonumber\\}\delta_{\Lambda} \bar{\chi}_a
&=& (Q_{0{\rm T}}\bar{\lambda}_a)P_0 +\bar{\chi}_a\lambda+\phi_{ab}\bar{\lambda}_b
-\bar{\lambda}_a\chi-\Lambda_{ab}\bar{\chi}_b,
{\nonumber\\}\delta_\Lambda \chi
&=& P_0(Q_{\rm T}\lambda)P_0+\chi\lambda
+\chi_a\bar{\lambda}_a
-\lambda\chi-\lambda_a\bar{\chi}_a.\end{aligned}$$
Concluding remarks \[sec3\]
===========================
We have shown that the theory expanded around the $N$ D-brane solution given by Erler-Maccaferri describes an $N+1$ D-brane system with a vanishing D-brane due to the tachyon condensation. By projectors made of regularized bcc operators, an open string field in the original theory is divided into multi-string fields with matrix indices. Then, these indices can be regarded as Chan-Paton factors in the $N$ D-brane background. We have found that $N^2$ string fields on $N$ D-branes are embedded in a string field as block matrices. Similarly, gauge transformation parameters in the expanded theory are represented as block elements of a gauge parameter string field in the original theory.
From the matrix representation (\[psimatrix\]), the string fields $\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha\beta}$ are mutually independent variables and then the degrees of freedom of $\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha\beta}$ are equivalent to those of the string field $\psi$. Then, it is natural to expect that the path integral measure of the fluctuation $\psi$ is given by the product of measures of $\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha\beta}$. As seen in the previous section, we can rewrite $\tilde{\phi}_{\alpha\beta}$ as $\phi_{ab}$, $\chi$, $\chi_a$, and $\bar{\chi}_a$ by linear transformations. Therefore, the measure of $\psi$ is expressed by the measures of the string fields on the $N+1$ D-branes: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal D}\psi
=\prod_{a=1}^N\prod_{b=1}^N {\cal
D}\phi_{ab}\,{\cal D}\chi\,\prod_{a=1}^N{\cal D}\chi_a\,
\prod_{a=1}^N{\cal D}\bar{\chi}_a.
\label{measurephichi}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the matrix interpretation of open string fields ensures that the quantum measure for the $N$ D-brane system is correctly derived from the classical solution in the string field theory.
Finally, we should comment on the multiplicative ordering of $\Sigma_a$ and $\bar{\Sigma}_a$ in the projectors. As in (\[defP\]), we have defined the projectors such that $\Sigma_a$ does not operate on $\bar{\Sigma}_a$, because bcc operators break associativity, as discussed in Ref. [@Erler:2014eqa]. To get a more definite result, we should separate these states by some worldsheet. This is a similar approach to that adopted in Ref. [@Ishibashi:2014mua] to remedy the problem due to another nonassociativity. Accordingly, we need to regularize $P_a$ by inserting some worldsheet between $\Sigma_a$ and $\bar{\Sigma}_a$. In the case that $\psi_{\rm T}$ is given by the Erler-Schnabl solution, one possible choice for regularization is $$\begin{aligned}
P_a=\Sigma_a\,Q_{\rm
T}\left(\frac{B}{1+K}e^{-\epsilon K}\right)\bar{\Sigma}_a,\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon$ is a positive infinitesimal parameter. It is noted that $B/(1+K)$ is a homotopy operator for $Q_{\rm T}$ and this construction is parallel to that of the regularized bcc operators from $\sigma$ and $\bar{\sigma}$ [@Erler:2014eqa]. It can easily be seen that $P_aP_b=\delta_{ab}P_a$ and $Q_{\rm T}P_a=0$.
In this regularization, the limit $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ should be taken after calculating the correlation functions related to trace (or integration) of string fields. It should never be done in string fields; e.g., the state $P_a A$ keeps the parameter $\epsilon$ until correlation functions are calculated. Evidently, the state with the regularization parameter is regarded as a kind of distribution as in Ref. [@Bonora:2013cya] and indeed it is outside the usual Fock space like the phantom term in Schnabl’s tachyon vacuum solution [@Schnabl:2005gv]. We hope that, in terms of the projectors, it will be possible to obtain a deeper understanding of a space of string fields, in particular, the topology in the space beyond the single Fock space in string field theories [@Bonora:2014mta].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The work of I. K. and T. T. is supported by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (\#24340051). The work of I. K. is supported in part by a JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) (\#25800134).
[99]{} T. Erler and C. Maccaferri, “String Field Theory Solution for Any Open String Background,” arXiv:1406.3021 \[hep-th\]. T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker and L. Susskind, “M theory as a matrix model: A Conjecture,” Phys. Rev. D [**55**]{}, 5112 (1997) \[hep-th/9610043\]. N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa and A. Tsuchiya, “A Large N reduced model as superstring,” Nucl. Phys. B [**498**]{}, 467 (1997) \[hep-th/9612115\]. E. Witten, “Noncommutative Geometry and String Field Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**268**]{}, 253 (1986). M. Schnabl, “Analytic solution for tachyon condensation in open string field theory,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**10**]{}, 433 (2006) \[hep-th/0511286\]. T. Erler and M. Schnabl, “A Simple Analytic Solution for Tachyon Condensation,” JHEP [**0910**]{}, 066 (2009) \[arXiv:0906.0979 \[hep-th\]\]. T. Takahashi and S. Tanimoto, “Marginal and scalar solutions in cubic open string field theory,” JHEP [**0203**]{}, 033 (2002) \[hep-th/0202133\]. I. Kishimoto and T. Takahashi, “Open string field theory around universal solutions,” Prog. Theor. Phys. [**108**]{}, 591 (2002) \[hep-th/0205275\]. I. Ellwood and M. Schnabl, “Proof of vanishing cohomology at the tachyon vacuum,” JHEP [**0702**]{}, 096 (2007) \[hep-th/0606142\]. S. Inatomi, I. Kishimoto and T. Takahashi, “Homotopy Operators and One-Loop Vacuum Energy at the Tachyon Vacuum,” Prog. Theor. Phys. [**126**]{}, 1077 (2011) \[arXiv:1106.5314 \[hep-th\]\]. B. Zwiebach, “Interpolating string field theories,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**7**]{}, 1079 (1992) \[hep-th/9202015\]. N. Ishibashi, “Comments on Takahashi-Tanimoto’s scalar solution,” arXiv:1408.6319 \[hep-th\]. L. Bonora and S. Giaccari, “Generalized states in SFT,” Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{}, no. 12, 2644 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.2159 \[hep-th\]\]. L. Bonora and D. D. Tolla, “Comments on lump solutions in SFT,” arXiv:1412.0936 \[hep-th\].
[^1]: $\Sigma_a$ and $\bar{\Sigma}_a$ are constructed by boundary-condition-changing (bcc) operators, $\sigma_a$ and $\bar{\sigma}_a$, satisfying the operator product expantion: $\bar{\sigma}_a(z')\sigma_b(z)\to \delta_{ab}$ $(z'\to z)$. In the Minkowski background, a zero momentum condition for the bcc operators is not necessarily required. So, the simplest bcc operators are given as $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_a(z)=e^{ik_a\cdot X(z)},\ \ \
\bar{\sigma}_a(z)=e^{-ik_a\cdot X(z)},\end{aligned}$$ where $k^\mu_a$ satisfy $k_a^2=0$ and $k_a\cdot k_b<0\
(a\neq b)$. For example, we can take $k_a^\mu=(a,1,\sqrt{a^2-1},0,\cdots,0)$.
[^2]: In Ref. [@Ellwood:2006ba], it is shown that a homotopy operator exists for $Q_{\rm T}$, $Q_{{\rm T}0}$, and $Q_{0{\rm
T}}$ if a homotopy state is given for $Q_{\rm T}$. For the identity-based tachyon vacuum solution[@Inatomi:2011xr], $Q_{{\rm T}0}$ and $Q_{0{\rm T}}$ also have vanishing cohomology, as does $Q_{\rm T}$ [@Kishimoto:2002xi], since a homotopy state can be constructed for the solution.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
This [article]{} concerns the asymptotic geometric character of the nodal set of the eigenfunctions of the Steklov eigenvalue problem $$-\Delta \phi_{\sigma_j}=0,\quad\text{ on
}\Omega,\qquad\qquad \partial_\nu \phi_{\sigma_j}=\sigma_j
\phi_{\sigma_j}\quad \text{ on }\partial\Omega$$ in two-dimensional domains $\Omega$. In particular, this paper presents a dense family ${\mathcal{A}}$ of simply-connected two-dimensional domains with analytic boundaries such that, for each $\Omega\in {\mathcal{A}}$, the nodal set of the eigenfunction $\phi_{\sigma_j}$ “is *not* dense at scale $\sigma_j^{-1}$”. This result addresses a question put forth under “Open Problem 10” in Girouard and Polterovich, J. Spectr. Theory, 321-359 (2017). In fact[,]{} the results in the present paper establish that, for domains $\Omega\in {\mathcal{A}}$, the nodal sets of the eigenfunctions $\phi_{\sigma_j}$ associated with the eigenvalue $\sigma_j$ have [starkly]{} different character than anticipated: they are not dense at any [shrinking]{} scale. More precisely, for each $\Omega\in {\mathcal{A}}$ there is a value $r_1>0$ such that [for each]{} $j$ [there is $x_j\in \Omega$]{} such that $\phi_{\sigma_j}$ does not vanish on [the ball of radius $r_1$ around $x_j$]{}.
address:
- 'Department of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, Caltech, Pasadena, CA USA'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Northeastern, Boston, MA USA'
author:
- Oscar Bruno
- Jeffrey Galkowski
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Domains without dense Steklov nodal sets
---
Introduction
============
Let $(M,g)$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with piecewise smooth boundary $\partial M$. The Steklov problem is given by $$\label{e:steklovM}
\begin{cases}
-\Delta_g \phi_{\sigma}=0&\text{in }M\\
\partial_\nu \phi_{\sigma}=\sigma \phi_{\sigma}&\text{on }\partial M.
\end{cases}$$ There is a discrete sequence $0=\sigma_0<\sigma_1\leq \sigma_2\leq \dots$ of values of $\sigma$, with $\sigma_j\to \infty$ as $j\to \infty$, for which non-trivial solutions satisfying exist [@HiLu]. These are the *Steklov eigenvalues* and the corresponding functions $\phi_{\sigma_j}$ are the *Steklov eigenfunctions*. This paper studies the asymptotic character of the nodal set of the eigenfunctions of the Steklov eigenvalue problem in the case $M$ equals a bounded open set $\Omega\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$. In particular the results in this paper show that the nodal set of the eigenfunction $\phi_{\sigma_j}$ is *not* dense at scale $\sigma_j^{-1}$ for some such sets $\Omega$—or, more precisely, that there is a dense family ${\mathcal{A}}$ of simply-connected two-dimensional domains with analytic boundaries such that, for each $\Omega\in {\mathcal{A}}$, the eigenfunction $\phi_{\sigma_j}$ in the domain $\Omega$ remains nonzero on a $j$-dependent ball of [$j$-independent]{} radius. This result addresses a question put forth under “Open Problem 10” in [@GiPo17].
The behavior of both the Steklov eigenvalues (see e.g. [@GiPo17; @GiPaPoSh; @LePaPoSh]) and eigenfunctions (see e.g. [@PoShTo; @GalkToth; @BeLi; @Zh16; @Ze15; @SoWaZh; @Sha; @HiLu]) have been a topic of recent interest. When $M$ has smooth boundary, the Steklov eigenfunctions $\phi_{\sigma_j}|_{\partial M}$ behave much like high energy Laplace eigenfunctions with eigenvalue $\sigma_j^2$. In particular, they oscillate at frequency $\sigma_j$. References [@PoShTo; @BeLi; @Zh16; @Ze15; @SoWaZh; @WaZh; @GeRF; @Zh15] study the nodal sets of $\phi_{\sigma_j}|_M$, giving both upper and lower bounds on its Hausdorff measure similar to those for Laplace eigenfunctions. In fact, most results regarding Steklov eigenfunctions in the interior of $M$ extract behavior similar to that of high energy Laplace eigenfunctions.
The purpose of this article is to show that, away from the boundary of $M$, Steklov eigenfunctions behave *very* differently than high energy Laplace eigenfunctions. Not only do they decay rapidly (see [@GalkToth; @HiLu]) but, at least for a dense class of analytic domains, they oscillate slowly over certain portions of the domain. Girouard–Polterovich [@GiPo17 Open Problem 10(i)] raise the question of whether nodal sets of Steklov eigenfunctions are dense at scale $\sigma_j^{-1}$ in $M$. One consequence of the results in the present paper is a negative answer to this question. We show that arbitrarily close to any simply-connected domain with analytic boundary $\Omega_0\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$, there is a domain $\Omega_1$ for which the nodal sets are *not* $\sigma_j^{-1}$ dense and, indeed, that there is a region within $\Omega_1$ where the nodal set density does not increase as $\sigma_j\to \infty$. Moreover, the Steklov eigenfunctions oscillate no faster than a fixed frequency in this region. These results are summarized in the following theorem.
\[t:nodal\] Let $\Omega_0\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a bounded simply-connected domain with analytic boundary, and let $k>0$ and ${\varepsilon}>0$ be given. Then there exist a set $\Omega_1\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ with analytic boundary given by $$\label{e:pert_dom}
\partial\Omega_1=\{ x+{\nu} g(x)\mid x\in \partial\Omega_0\},\qquad\qquad \|g\|_{C^k(\partial\Omega_0)}<{\varepsilon}$$ (where ${\nu}$ denotes the outward unit normal to $\partial\Omega_0$ and where $g$ is an analytic function defined on $\partial\Omega_0$), a point $x_0\in\Omega_1$ and numbers $0<r_1<r_0$, ($B(x_0, r_0)\subset \Omega_1$) such that: for each Steklov eigenvalue $\sigma$ for the domain $\Omega_1$ there exists a point $x_\sigma\in B(x_0,r_0)$ such that $B(x_\sigma, r_1)\subset B(x_0, r_0)$ and each Steklov eigenfunction $\phi_\sigma$ of eigenvalue $\sigma$ for the domain $\Omega_1$ satisfies $$|\phi_{\sigma}|>0\text{ on }B(x_\sigma, r_1)\subset \Omega_1.$$ Additionally, “$\phi_\sigma$ has bounded frequency on $B(x_0,r_0)$” (a precise statement follows in Theorem \[thm:main\]).
![Fixed-sign sets for Steklov eigenfunctions over the elliptical domain $\Omega = x^2+\frac{y^2}{1.01^2}=1$. The yellow and blue regions indicate the subsets over which the eigenfunctions are positive and negative, respectively. The left and right images correspond to the eigenvalues $\sigma_{20}=9.9502$ and $\sigma_{30}=14.9253$, respectively. For a circle the nodal lines coincide with a set of $j$ uniformly arranged radial lines from the center to the boundary: they are dense at scale $\sigma_j^{-1}=j^{-1}$ over the complete domain, including the origin. Under the barely-visible perturbation of the unit disc into the slightly elliptical domain $\Omega$, regions of asymptotically fixed size on which the eigenfunction does not change sign open-up within $\Omega$. Indeed, the nodal set corresponding to $\sigma_{30}$ (right image) shows such an opening, whereas the nodal set corresponding to $\sigma_{20}$ (left image) does not; cf. also Remark \[disclaimer\]. \[f:EllipseEigenvalue\]](EllipseEigenvalue20.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"} ![Fixed-sign sets for Steklov eigenfunctions over the elliptical domain $\Omega = x^2+\frac{y^2}{1.01^2}=1$. The yellow and blue regions indicate the subsets over which the eigenfunctions are positive and negative, respectively. The left and right images correspond to the eigenvalues $\sigma_{20}=9.9502$ and $\sigma_{30}=14.9253$, respectively. For a circle the nodal lines coincide with a set of $j$ uniformly arranged radial lines from the center to the boundary: they are dense at scale $\sigma_j^{-1}=j^{-1}$ over the complete domain, including the origin. Under the barely-visible perturbation of the unit disc into the slightly elliptical domain $\Omega$, regions of asymptotically fixed size on which the eigenfunction does not change sign open-up within $\Omega$. Indeed, the nodal set corresponding to $\sigma_{30}$ (right image) shows such an opening, whereas the nodal set corresponding to $\sigma_{20}$ (left image) does not; cf. also Remark \[disclaimer\]. \[f:EllipseEigenvalue\]](EllipseEigenvalue30.eps "fig:"){width=".45\textwidth"}
Theorem \[t:nodal\] is a consequence of [the more]{} precise results presented in Theorems \[thm:main\] and \[t:tunnel\] and Corollary \[c:dense\]. In particular, these results establish that, for each domain $\Omega$ in a dense class $\mathcal A$ of two-dimensional domains, an estimate holds for the truncation error in certain “mapped Fourier expansions” of the eigenfunctions $\phi_\sigma$ (i.e., Fourier expansions of $\phi_\sigma$ under a change of variables). [This estimate]{} is uniformly valid [over a subdomain of $\Omega$]{} for all eigenfunctions $\phi_\sigma$ [with $\sigma$ large enough]{}. To state these results we first introduce certain conventions and notations, and we review known facts and results from complex analysis.
In what follows, and throughout the reminder of this article, ${\mathbb{R}}^2$ is identified with the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$, $\Omega\subset \mathbb{C}$ denotes a bounded, simply-connected open set with analytic boundary, and $D:=\{z\in \mathbb{C}\mid |z|<1\}$ denotes the open unit disc in the complex plane. Under these assumptions it follows from the Riemann mapping theorem [@BeKr] that there is a smooth map $f:\overline{D}\to \mathbb{C}$ such that $f|_{D}:D\to \Omega$ is a biholomorphism and $|\partial_zf|>0$ on $\overline{D}$—that is to say, $f|_D:D\to \Omega$ is a biholomorphic conformal mapping of $\Omega$ up to and including $\partial\Omega$. [We call such a function $f$ a *mapping function for $\Omega$*.]{} Note that, denoting by $\partial_r$ and $\partial_\nu$ the radial derivative on the boundary of $D$ and the normal derivative on the boundary of $\Omega$, respectively, we have $\partial_r=|\partial_z f|\partial_\nu$ and $|\partial_zf|>0$. Thus, for $z\in \partial D$ the function $$\label{e:eigfn_circle}
u_{\sigma_j}:=\phi_{\sigma_j}\circ f$$ satisfies, $$\partial_r u_{\sigma_j}(z)=|\partial_zf(z)|\partial_\nu \phi_{\sigma_j}(f(z))=|\partial_zf(z)|\sigma_j \phi_{\sigma_j}(f(z)),$$ and, hence, the generalized Steklov eigenvalue problem $$\label{e:steklovConformal}
\begin{cases}
-\Delta u_{\sigma_j}=0&\text{in }D\\
\partial_r u_{\sigma_j}=\sigma_j |\partial_z f|u_{\sigma_j}&\text{on }\partial D.
\end{cases}$$
Finally we [introduce notation for the relevant]{} Fourier analysis. For $v\in C(\overline{D})$ we let $$\label{e:bfc}
\hat{v}(k)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} v(\cos \theta,\sin\theta)e^{-ik\theta}d\theta$$ denote the “boundary Fourier coefficients”, namely, the Fourier coefficients of the restriction $v|_{_{\partial D}}$ of $v$ to $\partial D$. Where notationally useful, we write $\mathcal{F}[v] = \hat{v}$.
\[d:tunnel\] We say that the Steklov problem on $\Omega$ satisfies the tunneling condition if there is $m_0>0$ and a mapping function $f$ for $\Omega$, such that for all $K>0$ there is $C_0>0$ satisfying for any $m$ $$|\hat{u}_{\sigma}(k)|\leq C_0^{|k-m|}\Big(\sum_{\ell=m-m_0}^{m+m_0}|\hat{u}_{\sigma}(\ell)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}},\qquad |k|\leq K\sigma.$$
Lemma \[l:lowerBound\] shows that any tunneling Steklov problem there exist $\sigma_0>0$ so that for each $m\in\mathbf{Z}$ there is a constant $C>0$ such that for $\sigma>\sigma_0$, $$\label{e:tunnelBelow}
e^{-C\sigma}\|\hat{u}\|_{\ell^2}\leq \Big(\sum_{k= m-m_0}^{m_0}|\hat{u}(k)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ This estimate and its connections with similar results in quantum mechanics motivate the “tunneling” terminology introduced in Definition \[d:tunnel\]. To explain this, recall that $u$ is an eigenfunction of the Dirichlet to Neumann map which is a pseudodifferential operator on $\partial\Omega$ with symbol $|\xi|_g$ where $g$ is the metric on $\partial\Omega$ [@Tayl2 Sec. 7.11, Vol 2]. Therefore, the classical problem corresponding to the Steklov problem is the Hamiltonian flow for the Hamiltonian $|\xi|_g$ on $T^*\partial\Omega$ at energy $|\xi|_g=\sigma$—which describes the motion of a free particle on $\partial\Omega$. The allowable energies for this classical problem are given by $\{|\xi|_g=\sigma\}$ which, in the Fourier series representation correspond to $\sigma = |\xi|_g\sim |k|$. Thus, the classically forbidden region is $\big|\sigma^{-1}|k|-1\big|>c>0$. Equation tells us that, in cases for which the Steklov problem on $\Omega$ is tunneling, Steklov eigenfunctions carry positive energy even in the classically forbidden region $\sigma^{-1}|k|\ll 1$, with an energy value that is no smaller than exponentially decaying in $\sigma$. (Using the estimates of [@GalkToth] one can also see that Steklov eigenfunctions carry [*at most*]{} exponentially small energy in the forbidden region.)
\[thm:main\] Assume that the Steklov problem on $\Omega$ is tunneling and let $\sigma$ denote a Steklov eigenvalue for the set $\Omega$. Let $$\label{e:delta_defs}
\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}:=u_{\sigma}|_{B(0,\delta)} = \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty \hat{u}_{\sigma_j}(k) r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta},\qquad \tilde{u}_{\sigma_j,\delta,m}:=\sum_{|k|< m} \hat{u}_{\sigma_j}(k) r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}.$$ Then, there exist a constant $c>0$ such that, for each integer $N>0$, there are constants $C_N$, $\sigma_0$, $\delta_0$, and $m_0>0$ so that for all $0<\delta<\delta_0$, $m>m_0$, and $ \sigma_j>\sigma_0$ the inequality $$\frac{\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} -\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{C^N(B(0,\delta))}}{\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}\|_{L^2(B(0,\delta))}}
\leq C_N (\delta^{m-N-m_0-1}+e^{-c\sigma})
\label{e:remainder}$$ holds.
Letting $\{\phi_{\sigma_j}\}_{j=1}^\infty$ denote an orthonormal basis of Steklov eigenfunctions and calling $u_{\sigma_j}=\phi_{\sigma_j}\circ f$, Theorem \[thm:main\] shows in particular that $$\label{e:finitely}
u_{\sigma_j}=\sum_{|k|<m}\hat{u}_{\sigma_j}(k)r^{|k|}e^{ik\sigma}+O\Big((r^{m-m_0-1}+e^{-c\sigma_j})\sqrt{\sum_{|k|<m} |\hat{u}_{\sigma_j}(k)|^2 \frac{r^{2k+1}}{2k+1}}\Big).$$ In other words, for $r$ small, $u_{\sigma_j}$ is well approximated by a function with finitely many Fourier modes. If there is $c>0$ such that $$|\hat{u}_{\sigma_j}(0)|\geq c\sqrt{\sum_{0<|k|<m}|\hat{u}_{\sigma_j}(k)|^2},$$ then we obtain $$u_{\sigma_j}=\hat{u}_{\sigma_j}(0) +O((r+e^{-c\sigma_j})|\hat{u}_{\sigma_j}(0)|)$$ and $u_{\sigma_j}$ is nearly constant on small balls centered around 0. In general, however, finitely many Fourier modes are necessary to capture the lowest-order asymptotics, as indicated in equation .
One of the main components of the proof of Theorem \[t:nodal\], in addition to Theorem \[thm:main\], is the construction of a large class of domains $\Omega$ for which the Steklov problem is tunneling. To this end, we introduce some additional definitions. A function $v\in C(D)$ will be said to be *boundary-band-limited* provided $\hat{v}(k) = 0$ except for a finite number of values of $k\in\mathbb{Z}$. We say that a mapping function $f$ is *boundary band limited conformal* (BBLC) if $|\partial_z f|$ is boundary band-limited. If in addition, $|\partial_z f||_{\partial D}$ is non-constant, we will write that $\Omega$ is BBLCN. Finally, we say the domain $\Omega$ is BBLC (BBLCN) if and only if a [BBLC (BBLCN) mapping function, $f:D\to \Omega$ exists]{}. We now present the main theorem of this paper.
\[t:tunnel\] Assume $\Omega$ is BBLCN. Then the Steklov problem on $\Omega$ is tunneling.
\[disclaimer\] It is not clear whether the elliptical and kite-shaped domains (equations and ) considered in Figures \[f:EllipseEigenvalue\], \[ellipses\_31-81\] and \[kites\_20-60\] satisfy the BBLCN condition or, more generally, whether they have tunneling Steklov problems (we have not as yet been able to establish that the tunneling condition holds for domains that are not BBLCN). However, domain-opening observations such as those displayed in Figure \[f:EllipseEigenvalue\] and Section \[s:numer\_res\], suggest that these domains may nevertheless be tunneling. This and other domain-opening observations provide support for Conjecture \[conj\] below. (Steklov eigenfunctions on a domain which satisfies the BBLCN condition, and, therefore, in view of Theorem \[t:tunnel\], is known to be tunneling, are displayed in Figure \[f:approx\].)
In view of Remark \[disclaimer\] we conjecture that every Steklov problem on an analytic domain is tunneling unless the Steklov domain $\Omega$ is a disc:
\[conj\] Let $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^2$ be a bounded, simply-connected domain with real analytic boundary that is not equal to $B(x,r)$ for any $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^2$, $r>0$. Then the Steklov problem on $\Omega$ is tunneling.
Outline of the paper {#outline-of-the-paper .unnumbered}
--------------------
This paper is organized as follows. Section \[s:approx\] shows that arbitrary analytic, bounded, simply-connected domains can be approximated arbitrarily closely by BBLCN domains. Then, Sections \[s:tunnel\] and \[s:fourier\] provide proofs for Theorems \[t:tunnel\] and \[thm:main\], respectively. The numerical methods used in this paper to produce accurate Steklov eigenvalues, eigenfunctions, and associated nodal sets are presented in Section \[s:numerical\]. Section \[s:numer\_res\], finally, illustrates the methods with numerical results for elliptical and kite-shaped domains.
Throughout this article we abuse notation slightly by allowing $C$ to denote a positive constant that may change from line to line but does not depend on any of the parameters in the problem. In addition $C_N$ is a positive constant that may change from line to line and depends only on the parameter $N$.
Approximation by tunneling domains {#s:approx}
==================================
This section shows that any analytic domain can be approximated arbitrarily closely (in a sense made precise in Corollary \[c:dense\]) by a BBLCN domain. To do this, first let $M\geq0$, $\alpha_i\in \mathbb{C}\setminus \overline{D}$ for $i=1,\dots,N$, and let $N_i\geq 1$, $i=1,\dots M$, and let us seek approximating BBLCN domains whose mappings $f:\overline{D}\to \mathbb{C}$ take the form $$f(z)=\int_0^z p^2(w)dw,\qquad p(z)= \prod_{i=1}^M (z-\alpha_i)^{N_i}.$$ In words: $f$ is the integral of the square of a polynomial with roots outside $\overline{D}$. It follows that $$\partial_z f=\prod_{i=1}^M(z-\alpha_i)^{2N_i},\qquad
|\partial_zf |=\prod_{i=1}^M (|z-\alpha_i|^{2})^{N}.$$ In particular, $$|\partial_z f|(e^{i\theta})=\prod_{i=1}^M(1-e^{i\theta}\overline{\alpha_i}-e^{-i\theta}\alpha_i+|\alpha_i|^2)^{N_i}$$ which manifestly shows that ${|\partial_z f|}$ is boundary-band-limited.
We next show that an arbitrary non-vanishing analytic function on $\overline{D}$ can be approximated by the square of a polynomial.
\[l:bandLimitedApprox\] Let $g:\overline{D}\to \mathbb{C}$ smooth with $g|_{D}$ analytic and $|g|>0$ on $\overline{D}$. Then, for any ${\varepsilon}_0>0$ and $k>0$, there are $M>0$, $\alpha_0$, $\{(\alpha_i,N_i)\}_{i=1}^M$ with $|\alpha_i|>1$, $i=1,\dots ,M$ such that $$\|g- \alpha_0\prod_{i=1}^M (z-\alpha_i)^{2N_i}\|_{C^k(\overline{D})}<{\varepsilon}_0.$$
Define $h:\overline{D}\to \mathbb{C}$ by $$h(z)=\int_0^z\frac{g'(w)}{g(w)}dw +\log(g(0))$$ Then, since $U$ is simply-connected and $|g|>0$ on $\overline{D}$, $h$ is analytic in $D$ with smooth extension to $\overline{D}$. In addition, $$w(z)=e^{\frac{1}{2}h(z)}$$ is an analytic function on $D$ such that $w^2(z)=g(z)$ and $w$ extends smoothly to $\overline{D}$. Then, for all ${\varepsilon}>0$, there is a polynomial $p_{\varepsilon}$ such that $$\|w(z)-p_{\varepsilon}(z)\|_{C^{k}(\overline{D})}<{\varepsilon}\min(\|w(z)\|_{C^{k}(\overline{D})},1)$$ In particular, since $|g|>c>0$ on $\overline{D}$, for $0<{\varepsilon}$ small enough, $p_{\varepsilon}$ has no zeros in $\overline{D}$. Hence, $$p_{\varepsilon}=\beta_0\prod_{i=1}^M(z-\beta_i)^{N_i}$$ for some $|\beta_0|>0$, $|\beta_i|>1$, $i=1,\dots, M$. Multiplying by $w+p_{\varepsilon}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\|g(z)-p^2_{\varepsilon}(z)\|_{C^k(\overline{D})}&=\|(w-p_{\varepsilon})(w+p_{\varepsilon})\|_{C^k(\overline{D})}\\
&\leq C_k\|(w-p_{\varepsilon})\|_{C^{k}(\overline{D})}\|(w+p_{\varepsilon})\|_{C^{k}(\overline{D})}\\
&\leq C_k{\varepsilon}(2+{\varepsilon})\|w\|_{C^{k}(\overline{D})}\end{aligned}$$ Choosing ${\varepsilon}=\frac{{\varepsilon}_0}{C_k}\min(\frac{1}{3\|w\|_{C^{k}(\overline{D})}},1)$ proves the result with $\alpha_0=\beta_0^2$ and $\alpha_i=\beta_i$.
This result can be used to approximate any analytic domain by a BBLCN domain:
\[c:dense\] For any analytic, bounded, simply-connected domain $\Omega$, $k>0$, and ${\varepsilon}_0>0$ there is a BBLCN domain $\Omega_{{\varepsilon}_0}$ and $g_{{\varepsilon}_0}\in C^\infty(\partial\Omega)$ such that with $\nu$ the outward unit normal to $\Omega$, $$\label{e:pert}
\partial\Omega_{{\varepsilon}_0}=\{ x+\nu g_{{\varepsilon}_0}(x)\mid x\in \partial\Omega\},\qquad \|g_{{\varepsilon}_0}\|_{C^k(\partial\Omega)}<{\varepsilon}_0.$$
Since $\Omega$ is analytic, there is $f:\overline{D}\to \mathbb{C}$ analytic such that $f|_{D}:D\to \Omega$ is a biholomorphism and $|\partial_z f|>0$ on $D$. Moreover, by [@BeKr], $\partial_zf$ has a smooth extension to $\overline{D}$. Then, applying Lemma \[l:bandLimitedApprox\] with $g=\partial_zf(z)$ gives $$p_{\varepsilon}=\alpha_0\prod_{i=1}^M(z-\alpha_i)^{N_i}$$ a polynomial with no roots in $\overline{D}$ such that $$\|\partial_zf(z)-p^2_{\varepsilon}(z)\|_{C^{\max(k,1)}(\overline{D})}<{\varepsilon}.$$ Note also that adjusting $p$ if necessary we may assume that the restriction of $|p_{\varepsilon}|$ to $\partial D$ is not constant. Then, defining $$\label{e:feps}
f_{\varepsilon}:=\int_0^z p^2_{\varepsilon}(w)dw+f(0)$$ we have $$\|f_{\varepsilon}-f\|_{C^{\max(k+1,2)}(\overline{D})}<{\varepsilon},\qquad \partial_zf_{\varepsilon}=p^2_{\varepsilon},$$ so that $\big|\partial_z f_{\varepsilon}\big||_{_{\partial D}}$ is non-constant and band limited. Moreover, since $f$ is a biholomorphism, for ${\varepsilon}>0$ small enough, $f_{\varepsilon}$ is also a biholomorphism. We next show that since $\|f_{\varepsilon}-f\|_{C^{\max(k+1,2)}(\overline{D})}<{\varepsilon}$, for ${\varepsilon}>0$ small enough the curve $$\partial\Omega_{\varepsilon}=\{f_{\varepsilon}(z)\mid |z|=1\}$$ can be expressed in the form . To do this let $$F(t,\theta,\omega,s)=f(e^{i\theta})-tf_{\varepsilon}(e^{i(\omega+\theta)})-(1-t)f(e^{i(\omega+\theta)})-sf'(e^{i\theta})e^{i\theta}$$ and note that $F(1,\theta,\omega,s)=0$ if and only if $$f_{\varepsilon}(e^{i(\omega+\theta)})=f(e^{i\theta})\pm s\nu(\theta).$$ Therefore, we aim to find $s=s(\theta)$ and $\omega=\omega(\theta)$ such that $F(1,\theta,\omega(\theta),s(\theta))=0$. Note that $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_sF&=-f'(e^{i\theta})e^{i\theta}\\
\partial_{\omega}F&= -ie^{i(\omega+\theta)}(f'(e^{i(\omega+\theta)})+t(f_{\varepsilon}'(e^{i(\omega+\theta)})-f'(e^{i(\omega+\theta)}))
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, $$\partial_{\omega}F=i\partial_sF+O({\varepsilon})+O(|\omega|).$$ Therefore, there is $\delta>0$, ${\varepsilon}_0>0$ such that for $0<{\varepsilon}<{\varepsilon}_0$, $|\omega_0|<\delta$, $t_0\in(-1,2)$, and $s_0\in[-1,1]$ if $F(t_0,\theta_0,\omega_0,s_0)=0$, then for $|\omega_0|<\delta$ and $|t-t_0|<\delta$, $\omega=\omega(t,\theta)$ and $s=s(t,s)$ are the unique solutions of $F(t,\theta,\omega,s)=0$. In particular, since $F(0,\theta,0,0)=0$, the solutions $s=s(t,\theta)$ and $\omega=\omega(t,\theta)$ can be continued as functions of $t$ as long as $|\omega(t,\theta)|$ remains small.
We next note that $$\begin{pmatrix} \partial_t \omega\\\partial_ts\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\partial_\omega F&\partial_sF\end{pmatrix}^{-1}\partial_tF=O(\|f_{\varepsilon}-f\|_{L^\infty})=O({\varepsilon}),$$ and, therefore, $$|\omega(t,\theta)|+|s(t,\theta)|\leq \int_0^{t}|\partial_t\omega(r,\theta)|+|\partial_ts(r,\theta)|dr\leq C t{\varepsilon}.$$ Hence for ${\varepsilon}$ small enough the solutions $\omega(t,\theta)$ and $s(t,\theta)$ continue to $t=1$ and satisfy $$|\omega(1,\theta)|+|s(1,\theta)|\leq C{\varepsilon}.$$ Again, using the implicit function theorem, this implies that $\omega(\theta):=\omega(1,\theta)$ and $s(\theta):=s(1,\theta)$ are $2\pi$-periodic. Differentiating $k$ times now yields $$|\partial_\theta^ks|\leq C_k{\varepsilon},$$ finishing the proof by setting $g_{{\varepsilon}_0}=\pm s$ and shrinking ${\varepsilon}>0$ as necessary. (Here the $\pm$ corresponds to whether $f(e^{i\theta})$ is positively ($-$) or negatively ($+$) oriented.)
\[r:fe\] Since the map $f_{\varepsilon}$ in equation may send 0 to a point $z_0$ close to the boundary, it is interesting to see how the Steklov eigenfunctions rearrange their nodal sets in such a way that Theorems \[t:nodal\] and \[thm:main\] are satisfied on the image of $f_{\varepsilon}$. To demonstrate this let $|a|<1$, consider the biholomorphic function $f(z):=\frac{z-a}{\bar{a}z-1}$, and let $f_{\varepsilon}$ denote the approximant of $f$ given by equation (\[e:feps\]) with $$\label{e:fe}
p_{\varepsilon}(z)=i \sqrt{1- |a|^2}\sum_{j=0}^N(\bar{a}w)^j\quad
\mbox{with $N=20$ and $a=0.8$.}$$ (This polynomial was obtained as the $N$-th order Taylor polynomial of $\sqrt{\partial_z f}$.) In this case, according to Theorems \[t:nodal\] and \[thm:main\], the Steklov eigenfunctions should be slowly oscillating in a $\sigma$ independent neighborhood of $z_0$. Figure \[f:approx\] displays corresponding Steklov eignfunction or various orders as well as a typical eigenfunction for the exact disc. Note the dramatic change that arises in the Steklov eigenfunctions from a barely visible boundary perturbation of the disc.
![\[f:approx\] Steklov eigenfunctions on the domain $\Omega$ whose mapping function, which is given by equation , maps the center of the disk to the point $z_0 = (0.8,0)$ (marked by red asterisks in the figures). The corresponding Steklov eigenvalues are given by $\sigma_{16}=7.9642$ (top left), $\sigma_{40}=19.8173$ (top right), and $\sigma_{60}=29.8197$ (bottom left). Note that, according to Corollary \[c:dense\] the set $\Omega$ is a BBLCN approximation to the disk. As predicted by Theorem \[thm:main\], oscillations avoid a region around $z_0$ for high $\sigma$. The bottom-right image displays a typical eigenfunction on the exact disc. Note the dramatic change that arises in the Steklov eigenfunctions from a barely visible boundary perturbation of the disc.](approxDisk16withMarker.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![\[f:approx\] Steklov eigenfunctions on the domain $\Omega$ whose mapping function, which is given by equation , maps the center of the disk to the point $z_0 = (0.8,0)$ (marked by red asterisks in the figures). The corresponding Steklov eigenvalues are given by $\sigma_{16}=7.9642$ (top left), $\sigma_{40}=19.8173$ (top right), and $\sigma_{60}=29.8197$ (bottom left). Note that, according to Corollary \[c:dense\] the set $\Omega$ is a BBLCN approximation to the disk. As predicted by Theorem \[thm:main\], oscillations avoid a region around $z_0$ for high $\sigma$. The bottom-right image displays a typical eigenfunction on the exact disc. Note the dramatic change that arises in the Steklov eigenfunctions from a barely visible boundary perturbation of the disc.](approxDisk40withMarker.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![\[f:approx\] Steklov eigenfunctions on the domain $\Omega$ whose mapping function, which is given by equation , maps the center of the disk to the point $z_0 = (0.8,0)$ (marked by red asterisks in the figures). The corresponding Steklov eigenvalues are given by $\sigma_{16}=7.9642$ (top left), $\sigma_{40}=19.8173$ (top right), and $\sigma_{60}=29.8197$ (bottom left). Note that, according to Corollary \[c:dense\] the set $\Omega$ is a BBLCN approximation to the disk. As predicted by Theorem \[thm:main\], oscillations avoid a region around $z_0$ for high $\sigma$. The bottom-right image displays a typical eigenfunction on the exact disc. Note the dramatic change that arises in the Steklov eigenfunctions from a barely visible boundary perturbation of the disc.](approxDisk60withMarker.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![\[f:approx\] Steklov eigenfunctions on the domain $\Omega$ whose mapping function, which is given by equation , maps the center of the disk to the point $z_0 = (0.8,0)$ (marked by red asterisks in the figures). The corresponding Steklov eigenvalues are given by $\sigma_{16}=7.9642$ (top left), $\sigma_{40}=19.8173$ (top right), and $\sigma_{60}=29.8197$ (bottom left). Note that, according to Corollary \[c:dense\] the set $\Omega$ is a BBLCN approximation to the disk. As predicted by Theorem \[thm:main\], oscillations avoid a region around $z_0$ for high $\sigma$. The bottom-right image displays a typical eigenfunction on the exact disc. Note the dramatic change that arises in the Steklov eigenfunctions from a barely visible boundary perturbation of the disc.](DiskEigenfunction16.eps "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
BBLCN domains and tunneling Steklov problems {#s:tunnel}
============================================
This section presents a proof of Theorem \[t:tunnel\]. In preparation for that proof, let $\Omega\subset \mathbb{C}$ be a BBLCN domain, and denote by $f$ the corresponding mapping function. Define $$\mathcal{F}\left[ \big|\partial_zf\big|\right](n):=a_n,\quad n\in\mathbb{Z} \quad\left( a_0:=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}|\partial_z f(e^{i\theta})|\,d\theta>0\right).$$ Since $\Omega$ is a BBLCN domain, the function $\big|\partial_z f\big||_{_{\partial D}}$ is band limited and $\big|\partial_z f\big||_{_{\partial D}}$ is not identically constant. It follows that $$m_0:=\sup \{|n|: |a_n|\neq 0\}$$ satisfies $1\leq m_0<\infty$.
Denoting by $\hat{u}(n)$ the boundary Fourier coefficients of an eigenfunction $u$, the corresponding boundary Fourier coefficients of $\partial_r u$ are given by $|n|\hat{u}(n)$. Thus, a solution to is uniquely determined as an $\ell^2$ solution to the equation $$\label{e:steklovFourier1}
|n|\hat{u}(n)=\sigma \mathcal{F} \left[u\big |\partial_z f\big |\right ](n)\quad n\in\mathbb{Z}.$$ In what follows we may, and do, assume that solutions $\hat{u}$ have $\ell^2$-norm equal to one.
Proof of Theorem \[t:tunnel\] {#proof-of-theoremttunnel .unnumbered}
-----------------------------
Since $$\mathcal{F}\left[ u\big|\partial_z f\big|\right]=\sum_{m} a_{m}\hat{u}(n-m),$$ it follows that can be re-expressed in the form $$\label{e:steklovFourier}
|n|\hat{u}(n)=\sum_m \sigma a_m\hat{u}(n-m).$$ From we obtain $$a_{-m_0}\hat{u}(n+m_0)=\frac{|n|}{\sigma}\hat{u}(n)-\sum_{m\neq -m_0}a_m\hat{u}(n-m),$$ and, then, for all $|n|\leq K\sigma $, $$\begin{aligned}
|\hat{u}(n+m_0)|&\leq |a_{-m_0}|^{-1}\Big(\frac{||n|-\sigma a_0|}{\sigma}|\hat{u}(n)|+\sum_{m\neq 0,-m_0}|a_m||\hat{u}(n-m)|\Big)\\
&\leq |a_{-m_0}|^{-1}\Big(\frac{||n|-\sigma a_0|}{\sigma}|\hat{u}(n)|+\sum_{\substack{m=-m_0+1\\m\neq 0}}^{m_0}|a_m||\hat{u}(n-m)|\Big)\\
&\leq |a_{-m_0}|^{-1}\max(K,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty})\sum_{k=n-m_0}^{n+m_0-1}|\hat{u}(k)|.\end{aligned}$$ The second inequality follows from the fact that $a_n\equiv 0$ for $|n|\geq m_0$, while the third one results from the relation $a_0>0$ and the positivity, $\sigma > 0$, of all nontrivial eigenvalues $\sigma$, which imply that $$||n|-\sigma a_0|\leq\max (|n|,\sigma|a_0|){\leq \sigma(\max(K,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty}))}.$$
Making an identical argument, but solving for $\hat{u}(n-m_0)$, and using that $|a_{m_0}|=|a_{-m_0}|\neq 0$, we have for all $|n|\leq K\sigma$, $$\label{e:est1}
\begin{aligned}
|\hat{u}(n+m_0)|&\leq |a_{m_0}|^{-1}\max(2,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty})\sum_{k=n-m_0}^{n+m_0-1}|\hat{u}(k)|,\\
|\hat{u}(n-m_0)|&\leq |a_{m_0}|^{-1}\max(2,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty})\sum_{k=n-m_0+1}^{n+m_0}\!\!\!\!\!\!|\hat{u}(k)|.
\end{aligned}$$
We now use equation to prove the first half of our tunneling estimate.
\[l:induct\] Let $m\in \mathbb{Z}$, $K>0$, and $$A_m:=\Big(\sum_{k=m-m_0}^{m+m_0}|\hat{u}(k)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$ Then, there exists $C_0>0$ so that for all $\sigma>0$ and for $-K\sigma \leq n+m\leq K\sigma$ we have $$\label{e:induct}
|\hat{u}(n+m)|\leq C_0^{|n|}A_m.$$
We will assume $m\geq 0$ since the other case follows similarly. The cases of $n=-m_0,\dots,m_0$ are clear if we take $C_0\geq 1$. Suppose holds for $-m_0\leq n\leq \ell$ with $m_0\leq \ell$. Then, by , $$\begin{aligned}
|\hat{u}(m+\ell+1)|&\leq |a_{m_0}|^{-1}\max(K,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty})\sum_{k=\ell-2m_0+1}^{\ell}|\hat{u}(k+m)|\\
&\leq |a_{m_0}|^{-1}\max(K,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty})\sum_{k=\ell-2m_0+1}^{\ell}C_0^{|k|}A\end{aligned}$$ [Now, if $m_0\leq \ell<2m_0$, then $$\begin{aligned}
|\hat{u}(m+\ell+1)|&\leq |a_{m_0}|^{-1}\max(K,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty})\Big(\sum_{k=0}^{\ell}C_0^{k}+\sum_{k=1}^{2m_0-\ell-1}C_0^k\Big)A\\
&\leq |a_{m_0}|^{-1}\max(K,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty})\Big(\frac{C_0^{\ell+1}-1+C_0^{2m_0-\ell+1}-C_0}{C_0-1}\Big)A\end{aligned}$$ In particular, taking $$C_0\geq 2|a_{m_0}|^{-1}\max(K,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty})+1$$ we have $$|\hat{u}(m+\ell+1)|\leq C_0^{\ell+1}A.$$ Next, if $2m_0\leq \ell$, then]{} $$\begin{aligned}
|\hat{u}(\ell+m+1)|&\leq |a_{m_0}|^{-1}\max(K,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty})A\frac{ C_0^{\ell+1}-C_0^{\ell-2m_0+1}}{C_0-1}\end{aligned}$$ Taking ${C_0\geq 2 |a_{m_0}|^{-1}\max(K,\|a_m\|_{\ell^\infty})+1}$ completes the proof for $-m_0\leq n\leq K\sigma-m$.
An almost identical argument gives the $-K\sigma-m \leq n\leq 0$ case.
Analysis of Tunneling Steklov Problems {#s:fourier}
======================================
The proof of Theorem \[thm:main\] now follows in two steps. First, we show that, for eigenfunctions of any tunneling Steklov problem, the boundary Fourier coefficients of low frequency contain a mass no smaller than exponential in $\sigma$. To finish the proof, we use the fact that the harmonic extension of $e^{in\theta}$ decays exactly as $r^{|n|}$. Examining the solution on the ball of radius $\delta>0$ for some $\delta$ small enough, it will be shown that the low frequencies dominate the behavior of $u$.
\[l:lowerBound\] Suppose that $\Omega$ has tunneling Steklov problem. Then there exist $\sigma_0>0$ so that for all $m>0$ there is $C>0$ such that for $\sigma>\sigma_0$, $$e^{-C\sigma}\|\hat{u}\|_{\ell^2}\leq \Big(\sum_{k= m-m_0}^{m_0}|\hat{u}(k)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}=:A_m.$$
First, note that by e.g. [@GalkToth Corollary 1.3], for $\sigma>3m$ there is $C>0$ so that $$\sum_{|k-m|\leq 2\sigma}|\hat{u}(k)|^2\geq\|\hat{u}\|_{\ell^2}^2(1-Ce^{-\sigma/C})).$$ By Lemma \[l:induct\] $$\sum_{|k-m|\leq 2\sigma}|\hat{u}(k)|^2\leq \sum_{0\leq k-m\leq 2\sigma} C_0^{2k} A_m^2+\sum_{-2\sigma \leq k-m<0}C_0^{2|k|}A_m^2\leq 2 \frac{2C_0^{4\sigma+2}-1}{C^2_0-1}A_m^2$$ In particular, $$\frac{C^2_0-1}{2(2C_0^{4\sigma+2}-1)}\|\hat{u}\|_{\ell^2}^2(1-Ce^{-C\sigma})\leq A_m^2=\sum_{k=-m_0}^{m_0}|\hat{u}(k)|^2.$$ Taking $\sigma_0$ large enough so that $Ce^{-C\sigma}\leq \frac{1}{2}$, finishes the proof.
In what follows we utilize the definitions for a given eigenvalue $\sigma_j = \sigma$, and, for that eigenvalue we denote $\hat{u}(k) = \hat{u}_{\sigma_j}(k) = \hat{u}_{\sigma}(k)$. Then, applying the relation $$\label{e:L2norm}
\int_{B(0,\delta)} |\sum_k b_k r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}|^2= \sum_k |b_k|^2\frac{2\pi \delta^{2|k|+{2}}}{2|k|+{2}},$$ which is valid for all sequences $\{b_k\}_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}\subset \mathbb{C}$, to the right-hand equation in , for $m\geq m_0$ we obtain $$\label{e:L2bound}\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|^2_{L^2}= \sum_{|k|\leq m}\frac{2\pi \delta^{2|k|+{2}}}{2k+{2}}|\hat{u}(k)|^2\geq 2\pi \frac{\delta^{2m_0+{2}}}{2m_0+{2}}\sum_{|k|\leq m_0}|\hat{u}(k)|^2=2\pi \frac{\delta^{2m_0+{2}}}{2m_0+{2}}A^2.$$
To estimate the error in approximating $u_{\sigma,\delta}$ by $\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}$, first note that $$\begin{aligned}
\Big\|\sum_{|k|\geq 2\sigma} \hat{u}(k)r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}\Big\|_{C^N(B(0,\delta))}&\leq \sum_{|k|\geq 2\sigma} |\hat{u}(k)|\cdot \|r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}\|_{C^N(B(0,\delta))}\\
&\leq \Big(\sum_{|k|\geq 2\sigma} |\hat{u}(k)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\sum_{|k|\geq 2\sigma} \|r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}\|^2_{C^N(B(0,\delta))}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\leq \Big(\sum_{|k|\geq 2\sigma} |\hat{u}(k)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Big(\sum_{|k|\geq 2\sigma} k^{2N}\delta^{2k-2N}\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}}\\
&\leq C_N\|\hat{u}\|_{\ell^2}\delta^{-N}{\sigma^N}\delta^{2\sigma}.\end{aligned}$$ Applying Lemma \[l:lowerBound\] with $m=0$, [and absorbing the $\sigma^N$ into the exponential factor]{} we then obtain $$\Big\|\sum_{|k|\geq 2\sigma} \hat{u}(k)r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}\Big\|_{C^N(B(0,\delta))}\leq C_N\delta^{-N}\delta^{2\sigma}e^{C\sigma}A$$ where $$A:=\Big(\sum_{k=-m_0}^{m_0}|\hat{u}(k)|^2\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
We can now estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\|\sum_{|k|\geq m} \hat{u}(k) r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}\|_{C^N(B(0,\delta))}&\leq \sum_{m\leq |k| < 2\sigma} \|\hat{u}(k) r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}\|_{C^N(B(0,\delta))} +\|\sum_{|k|\geq 2\sigma} \hat{u}(k) r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}\|_{C^N(B(0,\delta))}\\
&\leq \sum_{m\leq |k|< 2\sigma} |\hat{u}(k)|\cdot \| r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}\|_{C^N(B(0,\delta))} +C_N\delta^{-N}\delta^{2\sigma}e^{C\sigma}A\\\end{aligned}$$ Thus, using the definition of tunneling (Definition \[d:tunnel\]), we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\|\sum_{|k|\geq m} \hat{u}(k) r^{|k|}e^{ik\theta}\|_{C^N(B(0,\delta))}
&\leq C_N\delta^{m-N}A\sum_{m\leq |k|< 2\sigma} C_0^{|k|}|k|^N\delta ^{|k|-m}+C_N\delta^{-N}\delta^{2\sigma}e^{C\sigma}A\\
&\leq C_N\delta^{m-N} A+C_N\delta^{-N}\delta^{2\sigma}e^{C\sigma}A\end{aligned}$$ provided that $\delta<\frac{1}{2}C_0^{-1}$. Therefore, using , $$\frac{\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} -\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{C^N(B(0,\delta))}}{\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}\|_{L^2(B(0,\delta))}} \leq C_N\delta^{m-N-m_0-1}+C_N\delta^{2\sigma-N-m_0-1}e^{C\sigma}.$$ Thus, choosing $\delta>0$ such that $\delta < e^{-2C}$ and taking $\sigma_0>N{+m_0+1}$ the claim follows.
We can now present a proof of Theorem \[t:nodal\].
From Corollary \[c:dense\] we know that there exists a tunneling domain $\Omega_1\subset\mathbb{C}$ satisfying for the given value $\varepsilon >0$. Let $\sigma_0$ be as in Theorem \[thm:main\]. Clearly, it suffices to prove the statement of the theorem for $\sigma> \sigma_0$, since for $\sigma\leq \sigma_0$ the statement follows from the fact that there are finitely many Steklov eigenvalues below $\sigma_0$ and that $\psi_{\sigma}$ cannot vanish in any open set. Therefore, we may and do assume $\sigma > \sigma_0$ along with the other assumptions in Theorem \[thm:main\], so that, in particular, inequality holds. In what follows we write $$\label{Lpdelta-notation}
L^2(B(0,\delta)) = L^2_\delta\quad\mbox{and}\quad L^\infty(B(0,\delta)) = L^\infty_\delta$$
Fixing $m\geq m_0+2$, and letting $\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}$ and $\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}$ be given by (with $u_{\sigma}$ related to $\phi_\sigma$ via ) we note that $$\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^\infty_\delta}\geq \frac{\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^2_\delta}}{\sqrt{\pi} \delta}.$$
It follows that there exists $x_0\in B(0,\delta)$ such that $$\label{e:bigness}
|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}(x_0)|\geq \frac{\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^2_\delta}}{\sqrt{\pi} \delta}.$$ Now, since $\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{C^1}\leq C_{m,\delta}\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^2}$, it follows from that there is $r_{m,\delta}\in\mathbb{R}$, $0< r_{m,\delta}<\delta$ (in particular, independent of $\sigma$) such that $$\label{e:strict_mv}|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}(x)|>\frac{\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^2_\delta}}{2\sqrt{\pi} \delta},\qquad x\in B(x_0,r_{m,\delta}).$$ But, since $m\geq m_0+2$, the estimate with $N=0$ yields $$\label{e:m-estimate}
|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}(x)|\leq |\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}(x)| + |\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}(x)-\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}(x)| \leq C_0(\delta+e^{-c\sigma}) \|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} \|_{L^2_\delta} + |\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}(x)|$$ and $$\label{e:m-L2-estimate}
\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} \|_{L^2_\delta}
\leq
\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^2_\delta} + \|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} - \tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^2_\delta} \leq \|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^2_\delta} + \sqrt{\pi}\delta C_0(\delta+e^{-c\sigma}) \|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} \|_{L^2_\delta}.$$ (To establish the rightmost inequality in the relation $\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} -
\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^2_\delta}\leq
\sqrt{\pi}\delta\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} -
\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^\infty_\delta}$ was used before the inequality was applied.) From we obtain $$\label{e:m-lower-L2}
\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^2_\delta}\geq \|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} \|_{L^2_\delta} -
\sqrt{\pi}\delta C_0(\delta+e^{-c\sigma}) \|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} \|_{L^2_\delta}.$$
It follows from , and that $$\label{e:m-inf-estimate}
C_0(\delta+e^{-c\sigma}) \|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} \|_{L^2_\delta} + |\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}(x)|>\frac{\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta,m}\|_{L^2_\delta}}{2\sqrt{\pi} \delta} \geq \frac{\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}\|_{L^2_\delta}}{2\sqrt{\pi} \delta}-
\frac{C_0}{2}(\delta+e^{-c\sigma}) \|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta} \|_{L^2_\delta},\quad x\in B(x_0,r_{m,\delta}),$$ and, therefore $$\label{e:m-inf-estimate_2}
|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}(x)|> \|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}\|_{L^2_\delta}\left(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi} \delta}-
\frac{3C_0}{2}(\delta+e^{-c\sigma}) \right),
\qquad x\in B(x_0,r_{m,\delta}).$$ Taking $\delta_1$ sufficiently small and $\delta\leq\delta_1$ the inequality $$\frac{3C_0}{2}(\delta+e^{-c\sigma_0})<\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}\delta}$$ holds, and it therefore follows that for a certain constant $D>0$ we have $$|u_{\sigma,\delta}(x)|>\frac{D\|\tilde{u}_{\sigma,\delta}\|_{L^2_\delta}}{\delta}\quad\mbox{for}\quad x\in B(x_0,r_{m,\delta})$$ provided $\delta<\delta_1$. In particular, $$|\phi_{\sigma}(x)|>0,\qquad x\in f(B(x_0,r_{m,\delta})).$$ Since the derivative of $f$ never vanishes, for $\delta <\delta_1$ and for a certain $E>0$ there is a ball ${\mathcal{B}}$ of radius $Er_{m,\delta}$ such that $\phi_{\sigma}$ does not vanish on ${\mathcal{B}}$. The proof is now complete.
![The function $\lambda$ for an ellipse (left) and a kite-shaped domain (right).\[sigmas\]](sigmas.PNG){width=".45\textwidth"}
Numerical Formulation {#s:numerical}
=====================
Integral representation
-----------------------
Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^2$ denote a domain with, say, a $C^2$ boundary, and let $$S[\phi](x) := \int \limits_{\partial \Omega} G(x,y) \phi(y) dS(y),\quad x\in\mathbb{R}^2 ,\quad G(x,y) = -\frac{1}{2\pi}\log|x-y|,$$ denote the Single Layer Potential (SLP) for a given density $\phi:\partial \Omega\to \mathbb{R}$ in a certain Banach space $H$ of functions. Both Sobolev and continuous spaces $H$ of functions lead to well developed Fredholm theories in this context [@Kress2010; @mclean2000strongly]. It is useful to recall that, as shown e.g. in the aforementioned references, the limiting values of the potential $S$ and its normal derivative on $\partial\Omega$ can be expressed in terms of well known “jump conditions” that involve the single and double layer boundary integral operators $$\mathcal{S}[\phi](x):= \int_{\partial \Omega} G(x,y)\phi(y) ds(y) \quad
\quad\mbox{and}\quad \mathcal{T}[\phi](x):= \int_{\partial \Omega}
\frac{\partial G(x,y)}{\partial {\nu}(x)}\phi(y)ds(y),\quad
x\in\partial\Omega,$$ respectively.
In view of the jump conditions for the SLP [@Kress2010], use of the representation $$\label{e:S}
u(x) = S[\phi](x),\quad x\in\Omega,$$ for the eigenfunction $u$, the Steklov boundary condition in equation gives rise to the generalized eigenvalue problem $$\label{e:gen_eig_sing}
(\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{I}+\mathcal{T})\left[ \phi\right]= {\sigma}\, \mathcal{S}[\phi] \quad\mbox{for}\quad x \in \partial \Omega.$$ Unfortunately, however, the single layer operator $\mathcal{S}$ on the right side of this equation is not always invertible. In order to avoid singular right-hand sides and the associated potential sensitivity to round-off errors, in what follows we utilize the Kress potential $$\label{e:S0}
u(x) = S_0[\phi](x) = \int \limits_{\partial \Omega} G(x,y)
\left(\phi(y)-\overline{\phi}\right) dS(y) + \overline{\phi},\quad x \in\Omega$$ (where $\overline{\phi}$ denotes the average of $\phi$ over $\partial\Omega$), which leads to the modified eigenvalue equation [@akhmetgaliyev2016thesis] $$\label{e:gen_eig_reg}
(\frac{1}{2}\mathcal{I}+\mathcal{T})\left[ \phi - \overline{\phi}\right]= {\sigma}\left(\mathcal{S}[\phi-\overline{\phi}]+ \overline{\phi} \right)\quad\mbox{for}\quad x \in \partial \Omega.$$ The right-hand operator in this equation is invertible [@Kress2010 Thm. 7.41], as desired. For either formulation, the evaluation of a given eigenfunction $u$ requires evaluation of the SLP, in accordance with either or , for the solution $\phi$ of the corresponding generalized eigenvalue problem or , respectively, at all required points $x\in \Omega$.
[Note that for a given harmonic function $u$ in $\Omega$, $\phi$ in and that in are *not* the same. ]{}
Fourier expansion and exponential decay
---------------------------------------
In terms of a given $2\pi$-periodic parametrization $C(t)$ of $\partial \Omega$, the Steklov eigenfunction $u$ corresponding to a given solution $(\phi,{\sigma})$ of the regularized eigenvalue problem , which is given by the single layer expression , can be expressed, for a given point $x = (x_1,x_2)\in\Omega$, $$\label{u_param}
u(x_1,x_2) =
\overline{\phi}{+}\frac{1}{{4}\pi} \int \limits_0^{2\pi}
\log \left[ \left( x_1 - C_1(t) \right)^2 + \left( x_2 -C_2(t) \right)^2 \right] \left[\phi\left(C(t)\right) - \overline{\phi} \right] \left| \dot{C}(t) \right| dt,$$ where $C(t)=(C_1(t),C_2(t))$ and where $\overline{\phi}$ denotes the average of $\phi$ over the curve $\partial\Omega$. Unfortunately, a direct use of this expression does not capture important elements in the eigenfunction within $\Omega$, such as the nodal sets, since, for analytic domains, the eigenfunctions decay exponentially fast within $\Omega$ as the frequency increases [@PoShTo; @GalkToth]. In regions where the actual values of the eigenfunction may be significantly below machine precision the expression must be inaccurate: this expression can only achieve the exponentially small values via the cancellations that occur as the the solution $\phi$ becomes more and more oscillatory. But such cancellations cannot take place numerically below the level of machine precision. In order to capture the decay explicitly within the numerical algorithm we proceed in a manner related to the construction used in [@PoShTo].
To accurately obtain the exponentially decaying values of the Steklov eigenfunction we proceed as follows. We first consider the Fourier expansion $$\label{e:four_exp}
\left[\phi\left(C(t)\right) - \overline{\phi}\, \right]\left|
\dot{C}(t) \right| = \sum_{\substack{n\in \mathbb{Z}\\ n\ne 0}} A_n
e^{int}.$$ of the product $\left[\phi(C(t))-\overline{\phi}\,\right]\left| \dot{C}(t) \right|$; note that, as is easily checked, the $n=0$ term in the Fourier expansion is indeed equal to zero. Inserting this expansion in we obtain $$u(x_1,x_2) = \overline{\phi}+\sum_{\substack{n\in \mathbb{Z}\\ n\ne 0}} A_n
B_n^0(x_1,x_2),\quad \mbox{where}$$ $$B_n^0(x_1,x_2) =
-\frac{1}{{4}\pi} \int \limits_0^{2\pi}
\log \left[ \left( x_1 - C_1(t) \right)^2 + \left( x_2 -C_2(t) \right)^2 \right]
e^{int}dt.$$ Then, assuming an analytic boundary, as is relevant in the context of this paper, and further assuming, for simplicity, that $C(t)$ is in fact an entire function of $t$ (as are, for example, all parametrizations $C(t)$ given by vector Fourier series containing finitely many terms), we introduce, for $x=(x_1,x_2)\in\Omega$, the quantities $${\lambda}(x) = \sup \left \{ s\geq 0 : x\neq C(t+ ir)\mbox{ for all
$r$ with $|r|\leq s$ and for all $t \in [0,2\pi]$}\right\}$$ and $$\label{e:log-comp}
B_n(x_1,x_2,s) = -\frac{1}{{4}\pi} \int \limits_0^{2\pi} \log \left[
\left( x_1 - C_1(t+is{\operatorname{sgn}}(ns) ) \right)^2 + \left( x_2 -C_2(t+is{\operatorname{sgn}}(ns) ) \right)^2
\right] e^{int}dt.$$ Using Cauchy’s Theorem for $x=(x_1,x_2)\in\Omega$ and any $s\in\mathbb{R}$ satisfying $|s| \leq {\lambda}(x)$, we obtain $$\label{e:cauchy_coeffs}
B_n^0(x_1,x_2)=e^{-|ns|} B_n(x_1,x_2,s),$$ and, thus, letting $s = \alpha{\lambda}(x)$ for any $\alpha\in\mathbb{R}$ satisfying $|\alpha|\leq 1$, the eigenfunction $u$ is given by $$\label{eig_sigma}
u(x_1,x_2) = \overline{\phi}+\sum_{\substack{n\in \mathbb{Z}\\ n\ne
0}} A_n e^{-|n\alpha| {\lambda}(x_1,x_2)} B_n(x_1,x_2,\alpha {\lambda}(x_1,x_2))$$
\[l:Bn\] There is $C>0$ such that for all $n>0$, $$|B_n(x_1,x_2,\lambda(x_1,x_2))|\leq \frac{C}{1+|n|}.$$ Moreover, there is $c>0$ and a sequence $\{n_k\}_{k=1}^\infty$ with $|n_k|\to \infty$ such that $$\label{e:asympForm}
|B_{n_k} ( x_1,x_2,{\lambda}(x_1,x_2) ) |\geq \frac{c}{n_k}.$$
A proof of Lemma \[l:Bn\] is given in Appendix \[a:lemma\]. It follows from Lemma \[l:Bn\] that equation optimally captures the exponential decay of the $B_n$ terms as $\sigma\to\infty$. Note that this setup does not capture the exponential decay of the coefficients $A_n$ below machine precision away from $|n|\sim\sigma$, and, therefore, the accuracy of the resulting interior eigenfunction reconstructions does not exceed that accuracy level. But the function $\lambda(x_1,x_2)$ does capture the exponential decay and the geometrical character of the eigenfunction as long as the (spatially constant) coefficients $A_n$ for low $n$ remain above machine precision.
![Density-plots (first and third rows) and fixed-sign sets (second and forth rows) for Steklov eigenfunctions over the elliptical domain . The eigenfunctions of orders $57$ and $81$ demonstrate the onset of the asymptotic character. In particular, regions of asymptotically fixed size open up. \[ellipses\_31-81\]](ellipses_31-81.PNG){width=".65\textwidth"}
![Density-plots (first row) and fixed-sign sets (second rows) for Steklov eigenfunctions over the kite-shaped domain . \[kites\_20-60\] ](kites_20-80.PNG){width=".65\textwidth"}
For general curves $C(t)$ no closed form expressions exist for the function ${\lambda}(x)$, and a numerical algorithm must be used for the evaluation of this quantity, as part of a numerical implementation of the eigenfunction expression . In our implementation the function ${\lambda}$ was evaluated via an application of Newton’s method to the nonlinear equation $$h(z)=(x_1-C_1(z))^2+(x_2-C_2(z))^2=0.$$ Explicit expressions can be obtained for circles and ellipses, however:
1. For a circle of radius 1: $${\lambda}(x_1,x_2) = -\log \left( \sqrt{x_1^2 + x_2^2}\right) .$$
2. For an ellipse of semiaxes $a>b$: $$\label{sigma_ell}
{\lambda}(x_1,x_2) = \mathrm{arcosh}\left( \frac{a}{\sqrt{a^2-b^2} }\right) - \mathrm{Re}\left\{ \mathrm{arcosh} \left( \frac{x_1+ix_2}{\sqrt{a^2-b^2}}\right) \right\}.$$
The derivation of the expression is outlined in Appendix \[app\].
Exponential decay and verification of Cauchy’s theorem\[verification\]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tables \[table:ellipse\] and \[table:kite\] demonstrate the validity of equation (since in both cases the results in the second and third columns closely agree with each other for $n\leq 50$), as well as the exponential decay of the exact coefficients $B_n^0$—as born by the results in the third column of these tables. The disagreement observed for $n>50$ is caused by the lack of precision of the results in the second column beyond machine accuracy, a problem that is eliminated in the third column via an application of the relation .
$n$ $|B_n^0(x_1,x_2)|$ $|e^{-n0.8{\lambda}}B_n(x_1,x_2,0.8{\lambda})|$ Absolute $B_n^0$ error Relative $B_n^0$ error
----- -------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------
1 5.62e-03 5.62e-03 3.82e-16 6.79e-14
10 2.29e-06 2.29e-06 4.39e-17 1.91e-11
50 6.40e-16 6.57e-16 3.85e-17 5.86e-02
100 3.05e-17 1.30e-28 3.05e-17 2.35e+11
150 1.33e-16 5.95e-41 1.33e-16 2.23e+24
200 2.65e-16 6.58e-53 2.65e-16 4.02e+36
: Verification of the Cauchy-theorem-based identity for the domain $\Omega$ bounded by the elliptical curve with $a=2$ and $b=1$. \[table:ellipse\]
$n$ $|B_n^0(x_1,x_2)|$ $|e^{-n0.8{\lambda}}B_n(x_1,x_2,0.8{\lambda})|$ Absolute $B_n^0$ error Relative $B_n^0$ error
----- -------------------- ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------
1 5.83e-03 5.83e-03 4.25e-16 7.29e-14
10 5.97e-06 5.97e-06 7.18e-18 1.20e-12
50 2.33e-14 2.34e-14 3.32e-17 1.42e-03
100 1.14e-16 3.05e-25 1.14e-16 3.75e+08
150 1.27e-16 6.78e-36 1.27e-16 1.88e+19
200 2.42e-16 3.05e-45 2.42e-16 7.93e+28
: Same as Figure but for the kite-shaped domain $\Omega$ bounded by the curve .\[table:kite\]
Numerical Results {#s:numer_res}
=================
Figures \[ellipses\_31-81\] and \[kites\_20-60\] present density plots and fixed-sign sets for Steklov eigenfunctions over domains bounded by the elliptical and kite-shaped curves parametrized by the vector functions $$\label{ellipt_domain}
C(t) = ((a\cos(t),b\sin(t))\quad (0\leq t <2\pi)$$ with $a=2$ and $b=1$, and $$\label{kite_domain}
C(t) = (\cos(t) + 0.65 \cos (2t) - 0.65,1.5 \sin(t))\quad (0\leq t <2\pi),$$ respectively. These figures demonstrate, in particular, domain-opening and non-density of nodal sets as discussed in Remark \[disclaimer\].\
\
[Acknowledgements.]{} Thanks to Agustin Fernandez Lado for writing the code numerical Steklov-eigenfunction solver and for providing the derivation presented in Appendix \[app\]. Thanks also to Jared Wunsch for suggesting part of the proof of Lemma \[l:Bn\] The authors are grateful to the American Institute of Mathematics where this research began. J.G. is grateful to the National Science Foundation for support under the Mathematical Sciences Postdoctoral Research Fellowship DMS-1502661 and under DMS-1900434. O.B. gratefully acknowledges support by NSF, AFOSR and DARPA through contracts DMS-1411876, FA9550-15-1-0043 and HR00111720035, and the NSSEFF Vannevar Bush Fellowship under contract number N00014-16-1-2808.\
\
Function ${\lambda}(x)$ For an ellipse of semiaxes $a>b$\[app\]
===============================================================
Let $\gamma=\sqrt{a^2-b^2}$ and $\mu_0 = \mathrm{arcosh}(a/\gamma)$. Using elliptical coordinates with foci $(\pm \gamma,0)$ to represent the point $x = (x_1,x_2)$, so that $x_1=\gamma\cosh(\mu)\cos(\tau)$ and $x_2 =\gamma\sinh(\mu)\sin(\tau)$, and letting the boundary of the ellipse be given by $C_1(t)=\gamma\cosh(\mu_0)\cos(t)$, $C_2(t)=\gamma\sinh(\mu_0)\sin(t)$, in view of the relations $x_1+ix_2 = \gamma\cosh(\mu+i\tau)$ and $C_1(t)+iC_2(t) = \gamma\cosh(\mu_0+it)$ we obtain $$\begin{split}
(x_1-C_1(t+is))^2+&(x_2-C_2(t+is))^2 = \gamma^2 \left|\cosh ( \mu + i \tau )-\cosh(\mu_0+i(t+is)) \right|^2 \\
&= 4 \gamma^2 \left| \sinh \frac{\mu+\mu_0+i(\tau+(t+is))}{2} \right|^2 \left| \sinh \frac{\mu-\mu_0+i(\tau-(t+is))}{2} \right|^2.
\end{split}$$ It follows that the left-hand side of this equation vanishes for some value of $t$ if and only if either $s = (\mu_0 - \mu)$ or $s = (\mu_0 + \mu)$. Thus, ${\lambda}(x)$ equals the smallest of these two positive numbers, namely ${\lambda}(x) = (\mu_0 - \mu)$, which is equivalent to the desired relation .
Proof of Lemma \[l:Bn\] {#a:lemma}
=======================
First, let $$h(z,x_1,x_2):=(x_1-C_1(z))^2+(x_2-C_2(z))^2.$$ Then, for $|{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}z|<\lambda(x_1,x_2)$, the expression $$\log h(z):=\int_0^z\frac{h'(s)}{h(s)}ds+\log h(0)$$ defines the principal branch of $\log h(z)$—which is, then, an analytic function in the strip $|{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}z|<\lambda$. On $\pm {{\operatorname{Im}\,}}z=\lambda$, we define $$\log h(z):=\lim_{{\varepsilon}\to 0^+}h(z\mp i{\varepsilon}).$$
\[l:jump\] Let $h(z)$ denote an analytic function defined on an open neighborhood of the set $\{z:|{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}z|\leq \lambda\}$ which does not vanish for $|{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}z|< \lambda$, but which vanishes to order $k$ at $z_0=t_0+ i\lambda$. Then, $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}_1\to 0^+}{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log h(z_0+{\varepsilon}_1)-\lim_{{\varepsilon}_2 \to 0^+}{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}h(z_0-{\varepsilon}_2)= k\pi .$$ Similarly, if $h$ vanishes to order $k$ at $z_0=t_0-i\lambda$, $$\lim_{{\varepsilon}_1\to 0^+}{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log h(z_0+{\varepsilon}_1)-\lim_{{\varepsilon}_2 \to 0^+}{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}h(z_0-{\varepsilon}_2)=- k\pi .$$
Note that for ${\varepsilon}>0$ small enough $\{h(z)=0\}\cap \{|z-z_0|<{\varepsilon}\}=z_0$. Therefore $$\log h(z_0+{\varepsilon}_1)-\log h(z_0-{\varepsilon}_2)=\int_{\Gamma}\frac{h'(z)}{h(z)}dz$$ where $\Gamma$ is any contour starting at $z_0-{\varepsilon}_2$, ending at $z_0+{\varepsilon}_1$, and lying in $$\{{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}z\leq \lambda\}\cap B(z_0,{\varepsilon}).$$ In particular, let $$\Gamma_1=\{ z_0+{\varepsilon}_2e^{it}\mid t\in [\pi,2\pi]\},\qquad \Gamma_2:=\{ z_0 +(1-t){\varepsilon}_2+t{\varepsilon}_1\}$$ and $\Gamma=\Gamma_1\cup \Gamma_2$. Then, since $$\frac{h'(z)}{h(z)}= \frac{k}{z-z_0}(1+O(|z-z_0|)),$$ $$\log h(z_0+{\varepsilon}_1)-\log h(z_0-{\varepsilon}_2)= k\pi i +\log {\varepsilon}_1 - \log {\varepsilon}_2+O(|{\varepsilon}_1-{\varepsilon}_2|)+O({\varepsilon}_2)$$ Letting ${\varepsilon}_1$ and ${\varepsilon}_2$ tend to zero completes the proof for the case $z_0=t_0+i\lambda$. The proof for $z_0=t_0-i\lambda$ follows by substituting $z$ by $-z$.
\[l:integrate\] Let $h(z,x_1,x_2)$ denote an analytic function on $|{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}z|\leq \lambda$ which vanishes to order $k$ at $z_0=t_0+ i\lambda$. Then for $\chi\in C_c^\infty(S^1)$ supported in a sufficiently small neighborhood of $t_0$, with $\chi\equiv 1$ near $t_0$, we have $$\int_{S^1} \chi(t)\log h(t+i\lambda)e^{int}dt=-\frac{2\pi
k}{|n|}e^{int_0} +O(n^{-2})\quad \mbox{for $n>0$}.$$ Similarly if $ h$ vanishes to order $k$ at $z_0=t_0-i\lambda$, we have $$\int_{S^1} \chi(t)\log h(t-i\lambda)e^{int}dt=-\frac{2\pi
k}{|n|}e^{int_0} +O(n^{-2})\quad \mbox{for $n<0$}.$$
We consider the first case, the second follows similarly.
Selecting $\chi(t)$ with sufficiently small support we ensure that, within the support of $\chi$, $h(t+i\lambda)$ vanishes only at $t=t_0$. We then have $$\label{e:chi_int_1}
\int \chi(t)\log [h(t+i\lambda)]e^{int}dt=\int\chi(t)\left( \log |h(t+i\lambda)|+i{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log[h(t+i\lambda))]\right)e^{int}dt$$ and $$\label{e:chi_int_2}
\int \chi(t)\log |h(t+i\lambda)|e^{int}dt=\int\chi(t)\left( k\log |t-t_0|+\log |t-t_0|^{-k}|h(t+i\lambda)|\right)e^{int}dt.$$ Since $|t-t_0|^{-k}|h(t+i\lambda)|$ is smooth and bounded away from zero on the support of $\chi$, the second term in is $O(n^{-\infty})$.
Taking real parts in the asymptotic formula [@bender2013advanced p. 381] we obtain $$\label{e:logInt}
\int_{-1}^1\log |t|e^{ixt}dt= -\frac{\pi}{|x|}+O(x^{-2}),\qquad x\to \infty.$$ Then, using together with the fact that $\log 1=0$ we may approximate the first term on the right-hand side of by $$\int\chi(t)\log |h(t+i\lambda)|e^{int}dt= -\pi ke^{int_0}\frac{1}{|n|}+O(n^{-2}),$$
Let us now estimate the second term on the right-hand side of . We have $$\begin{aligned}
&\int\chi(t)i{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log[h(t+i\lambda))]e^{int}dt\\
&=\int_{0}^{t_0}i\chi(t){{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log [h(t+i\lambda))]e^{int}dt+\int_{t_0}^{2\pi}i\chi(t){{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log[h(t+i\lambda))]e^{int}dt\\
&=-n^{-1}\Big(\int_{0}^{t_0}\partial_t(\chi(t){{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log [h(t+i\lambda)])e^{int}dt+\int_{t_0}^{2\pi}\partial_t(\chi(t){{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log [h(+-i\lambda)])e^{int}dt\Big)\\
&\qquad -n^{-1}(e^{int_0}(\lim_{t\to t_0^+}{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log [h(t+i\lambda)])-\lim_{t\to t_0^-}{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log[h(t+i\lambda)])\\
&=-n^{-1}(e^{int_0}(\lim_{t\to t_0^+}{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log [h(t+i\lambda)])-\lim_{t\to t_0^-}{{\operatorname{Im}\,}}\log[h(t+i\lambda)])+O(n^{-2})\\
&=-k\pi n^{-1}e^{int_0}+O(|n|^{-2})\end{aligned}$$ where in the last equality Lemma \[l:jump\] was used.
We may now complete the proof of Lemma \[l:Bn\]. Let $0\leq t_1<t_2<\dots <t_M<2\pi$ denote the zeroes of $h(t+i\lambda)$ as a function of $t$, and let $k_j$ ($0\leq j\leq M$) denote the vanishing order at $t=t_j$. Then, by Lemma \[l:integrate\], for $\chi_j$ supported close enough to $t_j$ with $\chi_j\equiv 1$ near $t_j$, and $n>0$, $$\int \chi_j(t)\log h(t+i\lambda)e^{int}dt= -\frac{2\pi k_je^{int_j}}{|n|}+O(n^{-2}).$$ By shrinking the support of $\chi_j$, we may assume that ${{\operatorname{supp\,}}}\chi_j\cap \chi_\ell=\emptyset$ for $\ell\neq j$. Then, since $\chi_j\equiv 1$ near $t_j$, $(1-\sum_j \chi_j(t)))\log h(t+i\lambda)\in C^\infty(S^1)$ and hence $$\int (1-\sum_j \chi_j(t)))\log h(t+i\lambda)e^{int}dt=O(n^{-\infty}).$$ Thus in view of equation we obtain $$B_n(x_1,x_2,\lambda(x_1,x_2)) = \int \log h(t+i\lambda)e^{int}dt=-\frac{2\pi}{|n|}\sum_{j=1}^M k_je^{int_j}+O(n^{-2})$$
Proceeding by contradiction, assume that $$\label{e:toContradict}
\limsup_{n\to +\infty }n|B_n(x_1,x_2,\lambda(x_1,x_2))|=0.$$ Then in particular, $$\lim_{n\to +\infty} \sum_{j=1}^Mk_je^{int_j}=0.$$ But we note that $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{N\to \infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}\Big|\sum_{j=1}^Mk_je^{int_j}\Big|^2&
=\sum_{j=1}^Mk_j^2+\lim_{N\to \infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\neq \ell}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}k_jk_\ell e^{in(t_j-t_\ell)}\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^Mk_j^2+\lim_{N\to \infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j\neq \ell}k_jk_\ell\frac{1-e^{iN(t_j-t_\ell)}}{1-e^{i(t_j-t_\ell)}}=\sum_{j=1}^Mk_j^2>0.\end{aligned}$$ Recalling that $$\limsup_{N\to \infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}a_n\leq \limsup_{n\to \infty} a_n$$ we obtain $$\lim_{n\to \infty} \sum_{j=1}^Mk_je^{int_j}\neq 0.$$ which contradicts .
If $h(t+i\lambda)$ does not vanish anywhere, then $h(t-i\lambda)$ vanishes at some $0\leq t_1<t_2<\dots <t_M<2\pi$ and we may repeat the argument this time considering $$B_n(x_1,x_2,\lambda(x_1,x_2))=\int \log h(t-i\lambda) e^{int}dt,\qquad n<0.$$ and taking the limit as $n\to -\infty$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
In the 1980’s, Belavin and Drinfeld classified solutions $r$ of the classical Yang-Baxter equation (CYBE) for simple Lie algebras $\mathfrak g$ satisfying $0 \neq r + r_{21} \in (S^2
\mathfrak{g})^{\mathfrak{g}}$ [@BD]. They proved that all such solutions fall into finitely many continuous families and introduced combinatorial objects to label these families, Belavin-Drinfeld triples. In 1993, Gerstenhaber, Giaquinto, and Schack attempted to quantize such solutions for Lie algebras $\mathfrak{sl}(n).$ As a result, they formulated a conjecture stating that certain explicitly given elements $R \in Mat_n(\mathbb C) \otimes Mat_n(\mathbb C)$ satisfy the quantum Yang-Baxter equation (QYBE) and the Hecke relation [@GGS]. Specifically, the conjecture assigns a family of such elements $R$ to any Belavin-Drinfeld triple of type $A_{n-1}$. Following a suggestion from Gerstenhaber and Giaquinto, we propose an alternate form for $R$, given by $R_J = q^{r^0} J^{-1} R_s J_{21}
q^{r^0}$, for a suitable twist $J$ and a diagonal matrix $r^0$, where $R_s$ is the standard Drinfeld-Jimbo solution of the QYBE. We formulate the “twist conjecture”, which states that $R_J =
R_{\text{GGS}}$ and that $R_J$ satisfies the QYBE. Since $R_J$ by construction satisfies the Hecke relation, this conjecture implies the GGS conjecture. We check the twist conjecture by computer for $n \leq
12$ and show that it is true modulo $\hbar^3$. We provide combinatorial formulas for coefficients in the matrices $R_J,
R_{\text{GGS}}$ and prove both conjectures in the [*orthogonal generalized disjoint case*]{}—where $\Gamma_1 = \bigcup_i \Gamma_1^{i}$ with $\Gamma_1^{i} \perp \Gamma_1^{j}, i \neq j$, $\tau \Gamma_1^{i}
\cap \Gamma_1 \subset \Gamma_1^{i+1}$, and $\tau^j \Gamma_1^{i} \perp
\Gamma_1^{i}, \forall i,j \geq 1$. We also prove the twist conjecture in the [*disjoint case*]{}, $\Gamma_1 \cap \Gamma_2 = \emptyset$. Finally, we prove the twist conjecture for the Cremmer-Gervais triple and discuss cases in which it is known that $R_J = R_{\text{GGS}}$.
---
[**On the GGS Conjecture**]{}
12 pt
[**Travis Schedler**]{}
Main Results
============
We begin this section by introducing Belavin-Drinfeld triples. We present the GGS conjecture, which is motivated by calculating possible quantizations of $r$ modulo $\hbar^3$. Next, we proceed to formulate the twist conjecture and give the remarkably similar combinatorial descriptions of the twist and the GGS $R$-matrix. Finally, we summarize our main results, namely the computer verification of the twist conjecture, its proof modulo $\hbar^3$, and a complete proof of the twist conjecture in the disjoint, orthogonal generalized disjoint, and Cremmer-Gervais cases.
Belavin-Drinfeld triples
------------------------
Let $(e_i), 1 \leq i \leq n,$ be a basis for $\mathbb C^n$. Set $\Gamma = \{e_i - e_{i+1}: 1 \leq i \leq n-1\}$. We will use the notation $\alpha_i \equiv e_i - e_{i+1}$. Let $( , )$ denote the inner product on $\mathbb C^n$ having $(e_i)$ as an orthonormal basis.
[@BD] A Belavin-Drinfeld triple of type $A_{n-1}$ is a triple $(\tau, \Gamma_1, \Gamma_2)$ where\
$\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2 \subset \Gamma$ and $\tau: \Gamma_1 \rightarrow \Gamma_2$ is a bijection, satisfying two conditions:
\(a) $\forall \alpha, \beta
\in \Gamma_1$, $(\tau \alpha,\tau \beta) = (\alpha, \beta)$.
\(b) $\tau$ is nilpotent: $\forall \alpha \in \Gamma_1, \exists k
\in \mathbb N$ such that $\tau^k \alpha \notin \Gamma_1$.
Let $\mathfrak g = \mathfrak{gl}(n)$ be the Lie algebra of $n \times
n$ matrices. (Although $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$ is not simple, solutions correspond to those in $\mathfrak{sl}(n)$, and it will simplify computations. For the same reason, we state the GGS and twist conjectures in $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$.) Set $\mathfrak h \subset
\mathfrak g$ to be the subset of diagonal matrices. Elements of $\mathbb C^n$ define linear functions on $\mathfrak h$ by $\bigl
( \sum_i \lambda_i e_i \bigr) \bigl( \sum_i a_i\: e_{ii} \bigr)=
\sum_i \lambda_i a_i$. Let $P = \sum_{1 \leq i,j \leq n} e_{ij}
\otimes e_{ji}$ be the Casimir element for $\mathfrak g$ as well as the permutation matrix, and let $P^0=\sum_i e_{ii} \o e_{ii}$ be the projection of $P$ to $\mathfrak h \otimes \mathfrak h$.
For any Belavin-Drinfeld triple, consider the following equation for $r^0 \in \mathfrak h \wedge \mathfrak h$:
$$\begin{gathered}
%\label{tr01}
%r^0_{12} = - r^0_{21}. \\
\label{tr02} \forall \alpha \in \Gamma_1,
\bigl[(\alpha - \tau \alpha) \otimes 1 \bigr]r^0 = \frac{1}{2}
\bigl[(\alpha + \tau \alpha) \otimes 1\bigr] P^0.\end{gathered}$$
Belavin and Drinfeld showed that solutions $r \in \mathfrak{g} \o
\mathfrak g$ of the CYBE satisfying $r + r^{21} = P$, up to isomorphism, are given by a discrete datum (the Belavin-Drinfeld triple) and a continuous datum (a solution $r^0 \in \h \wedge \h$ of ). We now describe this classification. For $\alpha =
e_i - e_j$, set $e_\alpha \equiv e_{ij}$, and say $\alpha > 0$ if $i <
j$, and otherwise $\alpha < 0$. Define $|\alpha| = |j - i|$. For any $Y \subset \Gamma$, set $\tilde Y = \{v \in \text{Span}(Y) \mid v =
e_i - e_j, v > 0\}$; in particular we will use $\tilde \Gamma_1,
\tilde \Gamma_2$. We extend $\tau$ additively to a map $\tilde
\Gamma_1 \rightarrow \tilde \Gamma_2$, i.e. $\tau(\alpha+\beta)=\tau
\alpha +\tau \beta$. Whenever $\tau^k \alpha = \beta$ for $k \geq 1$, we say $\alpha \prec \beta$. Clearly $\prec$ is a partial ordering on $\tilde \Gamma$. Finally, for any $\beta = \tau^k \alpha$, $\alpha=
e_j - e_i, \beta = e_k - e_{k+i-j}, j < i-1,$ we say $\tau^k$ reverses orientation on $\alpha$ if $\tau \alpha_j = \alpha_{k+i-j-1}$ and $\tau^k$ preserves orientation on $\alpha$ if $\tau \alpha_j =
\alpha_k$. In the reversing case, write $\alpha \prec^{\leftarrow}
\beta$ and $\text{sign}(\alpha,\beta) = (-1)^{1-|\alpha|}$; in the preserving case write $\alpha \prec^\rightarrow \beta,
\text{sign}(\alpha,\beta) = 1$. We set $\text{sign}(\alpha,\beta) = 1$ when $j+1=i$. Set $x \wedge y \equiv x \o y - y \o x$ for $x,y \in
Mat_n(\C)$ and $z = \sum_{i,j,k,l} z_{ik}^{jl} e_{ij} \o e_{kl}$ for $z \in Mat_n(\C) \o Mat_n(\C)$. Then we define
$$a = \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta} \text{sign}(\alpha,\beta)\: e_{-\alpha}
\wedge e_{\beta}, \quad r_s = \frac{1}{2} \sum_i e_{ii} \o e_{ii} +
\sum_{\alpha > 0} e_{-\alpha} \o e_{\alpha}, \quad r = r^0 + a +
r_s, \label{r}$$
where $r_s \in \mathfrak{g} \o \mathfrak{g}$ is the standard solution of the CYBE satisfying $r_s + r_s^{21} = P$, and $r$ is the solution corresponding to the data $((\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\tau), r^0)$. It follows from [@BD] that any solution $\tilde r \in \mathfrak{g},
\tilde r+\tilde r_{21} = P$ is equivalent to such a solution $r$ under an automorphism of $\mathfrak{g}$.
The GGS conjecture
------------------
The GGS conjecture proposes a hypothetical quantization of the matrix $r$ given in , given by a matrix $R \in Mat_n(\C) \o
Mat_n(\C)$ conjectured to satisfy the quantum Yang-Baxter equation (QYBE), $R_{12} R_{13} R_{23} = R_{23} R_{13} R_{12}$, and the Hecke relation, $(PR - q)(PR+q^{-1}) = 0$. This may be formulated and justified as follows (which is more or less the original motivation).
If we write $R \equiv 1 + 2 \hbar r + 4 \hbar^2 s
\pmod{\hbar^3}$, where $q \equiv e^\hbar$, then we can consider the constraints imposed by the QYBE and the Hecke relation modulo $\hbar^3$. One may easily check that QYBE becomes the CYBE for $r$, while the Hecke relation becomes the condition $s + s_{21} = r^2$. Thus, there is a unique choice of $s$ that is symmetric, namely $\frac{1}{2} r^2 =
\frac{1}{2} ((r^0)^2 + a r^0 + r^0 a + \epsilon)$ where $$\label{eps}
\epsilon = ar_s + r_s a + a^2.$$
\[ggs1\] There exist unique polynomials $P_{i,j,k,l}$ of the form $x q^y (q-q^{-1})^z, x,y \in \C, z \in \{0,1\}$ such that $\sum_{i,j,k,l} P_{i,j,k,l} e_{ij} \o e_{kl} \equiv 1 + 2\hbar r
+2 \hbar^2 r^2 \pmod{\hbar^3}$.
[*Proof.*]{} The proof is easy.
Define $R_{\text{GGS}} = \sum_{i,j,k,l} P_{i,j,k,l} e_{ij} \o e_{kl}$, with the $P_{i,j,k,l}$ uniquely determined by Proposition \[ggs1\]. The matrix $R_{\text{GGS}}$ is called the GGS R-matrix.
Define the following matrices:
$$\tilde a = \sum_{i,j,k,l} a_{ik}^{jl} q^{a_{ik}^{jl} \epsilon_{ik}^{jl}}
e_{ij} \o e_{kl},
\quad \bar R_{\text{GGS}} = R_s + (q-q^{-1}) \tilde a,$$
where $R_s = q \sum_{i} e_{ii} \otimes e_{ii} +
\sum_{i \neq j} e_{ii} \otimes e_{jj} + (q - q^{-1}) \sum_{i>j} e_{ij}
\otimes e_{ji}$ is the standard Drinfeld-Jimbo solution to the QYBE.
The matrix $R_{\text{GGS}} = q^{r^0} \bar R_{\text{GGS}}
q^{r^0}$.
[*Proof.*]{} This is clear.
We see that $R_{\text{GGS}} \equiv q^{2r} \pmod{\hbar^3}$, although $R_{\text{GGS}} \neq q^{2r}$ in general.
[**“the GGS conjecture” [@GGS]**]{} \[ggs\]
I. The matrix $R_{\text{GGS}}$ satisfies the QYBE.
II\. The matrix $R_{\text{GGS}}$ satisfies the Hecke relation.
We will sometimes refer separately to the two parts as Conjectures \[ggs\].I and \[ggs\].II.
\[or0\] It is sufficient to check the QYBE for one $r^0$ since the space of homogeneous solutions to is exactly the space $\Lambda^2(\mathfrak{l})$ where $\mathfrak{l} \subset \mathfrak{h}$ is the space of symmetries of the Belavin-Drinfeld triple, i.e. $(x,\alpha)
= (x, \tau \alpha)$ for any $x \in \mathfrak{l}, \alpha \in \Gamma_1$. It is easy to see that $x \in \mathfrak{l}$ implies $[1 \o x + x \o 1,
R_{\text{GGS}}] = 0$, and it follows for any $y \in \Lambda^2(\mathfrak{l})$ that $q^y R_{\text{GGS}} q^y$ satisfies the QYBE iff $R_{\text{GGS}}$ does. The same holds for $R_J$ as defined in the following section.
Now, we describe our new results on the GGS conjecture.
\[ggscomp\] (i) The GGS conjecture is true for $n \leq 12$. (ii) The GGS conjecture is true modulo $\hbar^3$.
[*Proof.*]{} (i) This has been verified by the author through computer programs detailed in [@S]. The programs check the QYBE and Hecke relation directly using one choice of $r^0$. One may check that this is sufficient to prove GGS for any $r^0$.
\(ii) This is obvious from construction.
We see that the strangest matrix in the definition of $R_{\text{GGS}}$ is $\epsilon$. Here we give a simple combinatorial formula for this unusual matrix. For $i<j, k < l$, we say that $e_i - e_j \lessdot e_k
- e_l$ iff $j = k$, and similarly define $\gtrdot$. Let $[\text{statement}]=1$ if “statement” is true and $0$ if “statement” is false.
\[fep\] We may rewrite $\epsilon$ as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{fe}
\epsilon = \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta} \text{sign}(\alpha,\beta)\bigl[
-\frac{1}{2} [\alpha \lessdot \beta] - \frac{1}{2}[\beta \lessdot
\alpha] - [\exists \gamma, \alpha \prec \gamma \prec \beta, \alpha
\lessdot \gamma] \\ - [\exists \gamma, \alpha \prec \gamma \prec
\beta, \alpha \gtrdot \gamma] + [\alpha \prec^{\leftarrow} \beta] (1 -
|\alpha|) \bigr] (\eab + e_{-\alpha} \o e_{\beta})\end{gathered}$$
[*Proof.*]{} Given in Section 2.
\[gcge\] For a given $n$, there are exactly $\phi(n)$ triples ($\phi$ is the Euler $\phi$-function) in which $|\Gamma_1| + 1 = |\Gamma|$ [@GG]. These are are called [*generalized Cremmer-Gervais*]{} triples. These are indexed by $m
\in \Z^+$, where $\text{gcd}(n,m) = 1$, and given by $\Gamma_1 =
\Gamma \setminus \{\alpha_{n-m}\}$, $\Gamma_2 = \Gamma \setminus
\{\alpha_m\}$, and $\tau(\alpha_i) = \alpha_{\text{Res}(i+m)}$, where $\Res$ gives the residue modulo $n$ in $\{1,\ldots,n\}$. For these triples, there is a unique $r^0$ with first component having trace 0, which is given by $(r^0)^{ii}_{ii} = 0, \forall i$, and $(r^0)_{ij}^{ij} = \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{n}\text{Res}(\frac{j-1}{m})$ (this is easy to verify directly and is also given in [@GG]). With this $r^0$, $R_{\text{GGS}}$ has a very nice combinatorial formula, which was conjectured by Giaquinto and checked in some cases. We now state and prove this formula. As in [@GH], define $e_{-\alpha} \wedge_c e_\beta = q^{-c} e_{-\alpha} \otimes e_{\beta} -
q^{c} e_{\beta} \otimes e_{-\alpha}$. Let $O(\alpha,\beta) = l$ when $\tau^l \alpha = \beta$.
$R_{\text{GGS}}$ is given as follows: $$\label{gcgr}
R_{\text{GGS}} = q^{r^0} R_s q^{r^0} + \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta} (q -
q^{-1}) e_{-\alpha} \wedge_{\frac{-2O(\alpha,\beta)}{n}} e_\beta.$$
[*Proof*]{}. See Appendix B.
Our formulation is from [@GH], correcting misprints. The original formulation in [@GGS] is somewhat different. We will write $x_{q^{-1}}$ to denote the matrix $x$ with $q^{-1}$ substituted for $q$. Define $(x \o y)^T = x^T \o y^T$ where $x^T$ is the transpose of $x$, for $x, y \in Mat_n(\C)$. Then, the original form of $R_{\text{GGS}}$ can be written as follows: $$R = q^{-r^0} \bigl( R_s + (q^{-1} - q) \tilde a_{q^{-1}}^T
\bigr) q^{-r^0}.$$ Denoting $R$ as this matrix and $R_{\text{GGS}}$ as given before, we have $R_{\text{GGS}} -
R^T_{q^{-1}} = q^{r^0} (q - q^{-1}) P q^{r^0}$\
$= (q -
q^{-1}) P$. Thus, $R_{\text{GGS}}$ satisfies the Hecke relation iff $R$ satisfies the Hecke relation. In this case, we have $P
R^T_{q^{-1}} = (P R_{\text{GGS}})^{-1}$, so $R^T_{q^{-1}} =
(R_{\text{GGS}}^{-1})_{21}$, and thus $R$ satisfies the QYBE iff $R_{\text{GGS}}$ does. Thus, the two formulations are equivalent.
The twist conjecture {#j1}
--------------------
In [@EK], it is proved that any quasitriangular structure as defined in Section 1.1 has a quantization which is a twist of the standard quasitrangular Hopf algebra $U_q(\mathfrak{gl}(n))$. In [@H] (see also [@ER]), such a twist is constructed for the [*disjoint*]{} case, $\Gamma_1 \cap \Gamma_2 = \emptyset$ (another twist is given in Appendix \[gda\]). Thus, in the $n$-dimensional representation, there should exist $J \in Mat_n(\C) \o Mat_n(\C)$ so that $R_J = q^{r^0} J^{-1} R_s J_{21} q^{r^0}$ satisfies the QYBE and Hecke relation. Further, it is especially nice to look for [*triangular*]{} twists: twists where $J = 1 + N$ and $N = \sum_{\alpha,
\beta \in \tilde \Gamma} N_{\alpha,\beta} \eab$. In this section we give an explicit $J$ of this form designed so that $R_J \equiv
R_{\text{GGS}} \pmod{\hbar^3}$ and conjecture that $R_J$ satisfies the QYBE and $R_J = R_{\text{GGS}}$. To find this interesting twist, the author found the Gauss decomposition $\bar R_{\text{GGS}} = J^{-1} R_s
J_{21}$ (which is necessarily unique, if it exists) for all triples $n
\leq 12$.
First, we will define some useful notation. Given a matrix $$x = \sum_{\alpha, \beta > 0} N^+(\alpha, \beta) e_{\beta}
\otimes e_{-\alpha} + \sum_{\alpha, \beta > 0} N^-(\alpha, \beta)
e_{-\alpha} \otimes e_{\beta} + D,$$ where $D = \sum_i D_i \otimes D'_i$ with $D_i, D'_i$ diagonal, denote $$\begin{gathered}
x_+ \equiv \sum_{\alpha, \beta > 0} N^+(\alpha, \beta) e_{\beta}
\otimes e_{-\alpha} + \frac{1}{2} D, \quad x_- \equiv \sum_{\alpha,
\beta > 0} N^-(\alpha, \beta) e_{-\alpha} \otimes e_{\beta} +
\frac{1}{2} D, \\ x_{\alpha,\beta} = N^+(\alpha, \beta), \quad
x_{-\beta,-\alpha} = N^-(\alpha,\beta).\end{gathered}$$
Now, we proceed to define $J$. Set $X = \{ (\alpha, \beta) \in \tilde
\Gamma_1 \times \tilde \Gamma_2 \mid \alpha \prec \beta \}$ and $X^i
= \{ (\alpha, \beta) \in X \mid \tau^i(\alpha) = \beta \}$ so that $X
= \cup X^i$. Given any total ordering $<$ on a set $Y$, we will use $\displaystyle \sideset{}{^<}\prod_{x \in Y}$ to denote a product over all elements of $Y$, left to right, under the order $<$.
Define the following matrices, products taken left to right, with $K_{\alpha, \beta} \in \C$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{taid}
A^{i} = (q - q^{-1}) \sum_{{\beta = \tau^i(\alpha)}} \text{sign}(\alpha,
\beta) q^{K_{\alpha, \beta}} e_{\beta} \otimes e_{-\alpha}\\ \label{jd}
J^{i} = 1 + A^{i}, \quad J = \prod_{i = 1}^d
J^{i}, \quad \bar R_J = J^{-1} R_s
J_{21}, \quad R_J = q^{r^0} \bar R_J q^{r^0}.\end{gathered}$$
There exists an ordering $<$ on $X$, such that $J$ and $J^{-1}$ are given by the formulas $$\begin{gathered}
\label{jprod}
J = \sideset{}{^<}\prod_{(\alpha, \beta) \in X} \bigl( 1 + \sab \qh q^{\kab} \eab \bigr), \\
\label{jiprod} J^{-1} = \sideset{}{^>}\prod_{(\alpha, \beta) \in X} \bigl( 1 -
\sab \qh q^{\kab} \eab \bigr).\end{gathered}$$
[*Proof*]{}. Indeed, each $X^p$ may be ordered as follows: set $\beta
= e_i - e_j, \beta' = e_k - e_l$. Then if $i > k$, $(\alpha, \beta) <
(\alpha', \beta')$. If $i = k$ and $j > l$ then $(\alpha, \beta) <
(\alpha', \beta')$. Then, it is clear that $\sideset{}{^<}\prod_{\pab
\in X^i} \bigl( 1 + \sab \qh q^{\kab} \eab \bigr) = J^i$ because, upon expansion, all products $(\eab) (e_{\beta'} \otimes e_{-\alpha'})$ vanish. Then, all that is needed is to extend $<$ to an ordering on $X$ given by $X_i < X_j$ whenever $i < j$. $\quad \square$
The product formula for $J$ is especially natural in light of the formula for the universal $R$-matrix given in [@KhT]. In Appendix A, the importance of the ordering by powers of $\tau$ is demonstrated in the construction of a twist ${\cal J} \in
U_q(\mathfrak{gl}(n)) \o U_q(\mathfrak{gl}(n))$ corresponding to $J$ for the simplest case where $\tau^2$ is defined (i.e. $\Gamma_1 \cap
\Gamma_2 \neq \emptyset$). This is the orthogonal generalized disjoint case.
\[nkt\] (i) There exist unique half-integer $\kab$ such that\
$\frac{d^2}{d\hbar^2} \biggl|_{\hbar=0}
\bigl[\bar R_{J} - (\bar R_J)_{21}\bigr]_{\alpha,\beta} = 0,
\forall \alpha \prec \beta.$
\(ii) These $\kab$ are given by the combinatorial formula
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{fk}
K_{\alpha,\beta} = \frac{1}{2} [\alpha \lessdot \beta, \alpha \prec
\beta] - \frac{1}{2} [\alpha \gtrdot \beta, \alpha \prec \beta] +
[\exists \gamma \mid \alpha \prec \gamma \prec \beta, \alpha \lessdot
\gamma] \\ - [\exists \gamma \mid \alpha \prec \gamma \prec \beta,
\alpha \gtrdot \gamma] + [\alpha \prec^{\leftarrow}
\beta](1-|\alpha|).\end{gathered}$$
\(iii) For these $\kab$, and no others, one has $R_J \equiv R_{\text{GGS}}
\pmod{\hbar^3}$.
[*Proof.*]{} (i) This is clear upon expanding $R_J$ modulo $\hbar^3$. (See Section 2 for details.)
(ii), (iii) Proved in Section 2.
[**“the twist conjecture”**]{} \[jconj\] Taking $\kab$ as in ,
I. The matrix $R_J$ satisfies the QYBE.
II\. The matrix $R_J$ coincides with $R_{\text{GGS}}$.
The two parts of the twist conjecture are analogous to those of the GGS conjecture in the following way. Conjecture \[jconj\].II is a strengthened version of \[ggs\].II, while Conjecture \[jconj\].I is equivalent to \[ggs\].I modulo \[jconj\].II.
\[comp\] i) The twist conjecture holds for $n \leq 12$. ii) The twist conjecture is true modulo $\hbar^3$.
[*Proof.*]{} (i) Given Theorem \[ggscomp\], it is sufficient to check $J^{-1} \bar R_{\text{GGS}} J_{21} = \bar R_J$ for all triples, $n \leq 12$, which has been carried out directly by computer.
\(ii) Conjecture \[jconj\].I mod $\hbar^3$ is obvious from construction, and Conjecture \[jconj\].II is true mod $\hbar^3$ as a consequence of Theorem \[nkt\].
The generalized disjoint and Cremmer-Gervais triples {#it}
----------------------------------------------------
\[gdd\] A triple $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau)$ is said to be [*generalized disjoint*]{} if $\Gamma_1 = \bigcup_{i=1}^{m}
\Gamma_1^i$ where $\Gamma_1^i \perp \Gamma_1^j, i \neq j$ and $\tau \Gamma_1^i \cap \Gamma_1 \subset \Gamma_1^{i+1}, i < m,$ and $\tau \Gamma_1^m \cap \Gamma_1 = \emptyset$. If, in fact, $\tau \Gamma_1^i \perp \Gamma_1^j, j \neq i+1$, and $\tau \Gamma_1^m \perp
\Gamma_1$, then the triple is said to be orthogonal generalized disjoint.
The case $\Gamma_1 = \{\alpha_i \mid i \not \equiv 0 \pmod 3,
i < n-3\}$, $\tau \alpha_i = \alpha_{i+3}$ is orthogonal generalized disjoint.
\[tdg\] (i) The twist conjecture is true in the disjoint case. (ii) The twist conjecture is true in the orthogonal generalized disjoint case.
[*Proof.*]{} See Sections \[ds\], \[gds\], and Appendices \[da\], \[gda\]. Note that the twist $\cal J$ used in the disjoint case was first constructed by T. Hodges in [@H].
The twist conjecture is true for the Cremmer-Gervais triples $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau)$ and $(\Gamma_2,\Gamma_1,\tau^{-1})$ where $\Gamma_1 = \{\alpha_1, \ldots,\alpha_{n-2}\}, \Gamma_2 =
\{\alpha_2,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1}\}, \tau \alpha_i =
\alpha_{i+1}$.
[*Proof.*]{} In Section \[crgs\], we prove $R_J = R_{\text{GGS}}$. On the other hand, it is known that $R_{\text{GGS}}$ satisfies the QYBE in this case [@H2].
In fact, one may check $R_J=R_{\text{GGS}}$ when $\tau$ is replaced by the map $\tau^k$ for $k \in \Z \setminus \{0\}$. Combining this with the result on generalized disjoint triples and a generalization of the union arguments in the following section, one may conclude that $R_J =
R_{\text{GGS}}$ whenever $\Gamma_1 = \bigcup \Gamma_1^{(i)}$ where $\Gamma_1^{(i)} \perp \Gamma_1^{(j)}, i \neq j$, and $\tau
\Gamma_1^{(i)} \cap \Gamma_1^{(j)} = \emptyset$ whenever $i > j$. In particular, this includes the case when $\tau$ sends everything in the same direction–i.e., $\tau(\alpha_i) = \alpha_j$ implies $j > i$ for all $i$ (or $i < j$ for all $i$). (The proof is omitted).
Maximal triples and unions
--------------------------
In this subsection, we summarize reductions of the twist and GGS conjectures which are proved in the following two subsections.
\[md\] [@GGS] We say that $(\Gamma_1',\Gamma_2',\tau') < (\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\tau)$ if $\Gamma_1' \subset \Gamma_1$ and $\tau' = \tau \bigl|_{\Gamma_1'}$.
The following theorem reduces the twist and GGS conjectures to the case of maximal triples.
\[mt\] Suppose $(\Gamma_1',\Gamma_2',\tau') < (\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\tau)$ are Belavin-Drinfeld triples. Then if the twist or GGS conjecture holds for the larger triple, it also holds for the smaller one.
[*Proof.*]{} See Section \[ms\].
\[ud\] Define $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau) = \bigcup (\Gamma_1^{(i)}, \Gamma_2^{(i)}, \tau^{(i)})$ by $\Gamma_1 = \bigcup \Gamma_1^{(i)}, \Gamma_2 = \bigcup
\Gamma_2^{(i)}$, with $\tau: \Gamma_1 \rightarrow \Gamma_2$ given by $\tau\bigl|_{\Gamma_1^{(i)}} = \tau^{(i)}$. Call a union [*orthogonal*]{} if $\Gamma_1^{(i)} \perp \Gamma_1^{(j)}$ and $\Gamma_2^{(i)} \perp \Gamma_2^{(j)}$. Furthermore, an orthogonal union is termed [*$\tau$-orthogonal*]{} if, in addition, $\Gamma_2^{(i)} \cap \Gamma_1 \subset \Gamma_1^{(i)}, \forall i$.
It is easy to check that an orthogonal union of Belavin-Drinfeld triples always defines a Belavin-Drinfeld triple (one must check that $\tau$ is nilpotent and a graph isomorphism for the union). A triple that is a $\tau$-orthogonal union of two nonempty triples is called [*decomposable*]{}; otherwise it is [*indecomposable*]{}. The following theorem reduces the twist and GGS conjectures to the case of indecomposable triples.
\[ut\] If $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau)$ is a $\tau$-orthogonal union of $(\Gamma_1^{(i)}, \Gamma_2^{(i)}, \tau^{(i)})$, then the twist or GGS conjecture holds for the union iff it holds for each triple $(\Gamma_1^{(i)}, \Gamma_2^{(i)},
\tau^{(i)})$.
[*Proof.*]{} See Section \[us\].
Maximal triples {#ms}
---------------
In this section, by Giaquinto’s suggestion, we investigate the notion of maximal triples as defined in Definition \[md\] with the goal of proving Theorem \[mt\]. We will assume throughout this section that $(\Gamma_1', \Gamma_2', \tau')
< (\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau)$. Define $G, H, X$ for $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau)$ as in Section 2.1, 2.2 and similarly $G', H', X'$ for $(\Gamma_1', \Gamma_2', \tau')$. We begin with an important result.
\[mp1\] If $\sum_{k=1}^m \bigl( \tau \alpha_{i_k} - \alpha_{i_k} \bigr) =
\sum_{k=1}^m \bigl( \tau \alpha_{j_k} - \alpha_{j_k} \bigr)$ then $\exists \rho \in S_m$, a permutation, such that $i_k = j_{\rho(k)},
\forall k$.
[*Proof.*]{} Suppose that $\not \exists \rho \in S_m$ such that $i_k
= j_{\rho(k)}, \forall k$. Then, let $\alpha_l \in \Gamma_1$ be a maximal simple root under the ordering $\prec$ so that $\tau \alpha_l
- \alpha_l$ does not appear the same number of times in the sequences $(i_k), (j_k)$. Then, $0 = \sum_{k=1}^m \bigl( \tau \alpha_{j_k} -
\tau \alpha_{i_k} - \alpha_{j_k} + \alpha_{i_k} \bigr) = p \tau
\alpha_l + \sum_k \alpha_{o_k}$ where $p \neq 0$ and $\tau \alpha_l
\neq \alpha_{o_k}$ for any $k$. This is a contradiction.$\quad
\square$
Define $H = \{\sum_{i=1}^{m} \tau \alpha_{k_i} - \alpha_{k_i} \mid
\alpha_{k_i} \in \Gamma_1, m \geq 2 \}$, and $G = \{ e_{\alpha} \o
e_{\beta} \mid \alpha+\beta \in H$. Clearly $(R_J)_+, (R_J)_- \in
\text{Span}_{\C[q,q^{-1}]} (G)$, and moreover, $G \subset \tilde
\Gamma_1 \times (\tilde \Gamma_2)^T \cup (\tilde \Gamma_2)^T \times
\tilde \Gamma_1$ where $T$ takes the transpose of any element. Furthermore, let $V_0 \subset Mat_n(\C) \o Mat_n(\C)$ be the space of zero weight in the representation $\g \o \g$ of $\g$. Elements will be said to have zero weight. Then, we may define the following:
For any element $x \in H$, define $i_\tau(x) = m$ if $x =
\sum_{k=1}^m \bigl( \tau \alpha_{i_k} - \alpha_{i_k} \bigr)$. $m$ is called the [*$\tau$-index*]{} of $x$. Similarly define $i_\tau (e_{\alpha} \o e_{\beta}) \equiv i_\tau(\alpha+\beta)$ when $e_{\alpha} \o e_{\beta} \in G$.
Clearly $i_\tau(x+y) = i_\tau(x)+ i_\tau(y)$ for $x,y \in H$ and $i_\tau(xy) = i_\tau(x) + i_\tau(y)$ for $x,y \in G$ and $xy \neq 0$. Note that if $|\tau^k \alpha|=|\alpha|$, then $i_\tau(\tau^k \alpha-\alpha) = k|\alpha|$. This concept of index over $H$ and $G$ will come in handy in section 5.
\[mp\] Suppose $(\alpha, \beta) \in X \setminus X'$ and $y \in G$. Then $\{\eab, e_{-\alpha} \otimes e_{\beta}, (\eab)y,$\
$(e_{-\alpha} \otimes e_{\beta})y, y(\eab), y(e_{-\alpha} \otimes
e_{\beta}\} \cap G' = \emptyset$.
[*Proof.*]{} Since $(\alpha, \beta) \notin X'$, it follows that $\beta-\alpha \notin H'$, and hence $\beta-\alpha + H \cap H' = \emptyset$.
Denote by $K_{\alpha,\beta}$ and $K'_{\alpha,\beta}$ the appropriate $K$-coefficients for the two triples, and by $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon'$ the appropriate $\epsilon$-matrices.
\[mm\] (i) If $(\alpha, \beta) \in X'$, then $K_{\alpha,\beta} = K'_{\alpha,\beta}$.
Now suppose $e_{\alpha} \o e_{\beta} \in G'$. Then (ii) $\epsilon_{\alpha, \beta} = \epsilon'_{\alpha, \beta}$, hence
\(iii) $(R_J)_{\alpha, \beta} = (R'_J)_{\alpha, \beta}, \quad$ (iv) $(R_J)_{-\beta,-\alpha} = (R'_J)_{-\beta, -\alpha}$,
\(v) $(R_{\text{GGS}})_{\alpha, \beta} = (R'_{\text{GGS}})_{\alpha, \beta},
\quad$ and (vi) $(R_{\text{GGS}})_{-\beta, -\alpha} = (R'_{\text{GGS}})_{-\beta, -\alpha}.$
[*Proof.*]{} The proposition shows that terms from $G \setminus G'$ do not affect terms in $G'$ when expanding and the matrices $\epsilon, R_J, R_{\text{GGS}}$. Note that this result also follows from the combinatorial formulas , (which are derived independently).
[*Proof of Theorem \[mt\].*]{} (i) Choose $r^0$ to satisfy equation for the triple $(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\tau)$. Clearly the equations for $(\Gamma_1',\Gamma_2',\tau)$ are a subset of these, and by Remark \[or0\], it is sufficient to consider only this $r^0$. With this $r^0$, define $\bar R_J, \bar
R_{\text{GGS}}$ corresponding to $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau)$ and $\bar R'_J, \bar R'_{\text{GGS}}$ corresponding to $(\Gamma'_1,
\Gamma'_2, \tau)$.
Construct $f \in
\mathfrak{h}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau \alpha_k f & = \alpha_k f, \quad \alpha_k \in \Gamma_1 \setminus \Gamma_1', \\
\tau \alpha_k f & = 1 + \alpha_k f, \alpha_k \in \Gamma_1'.\end{aligned}$$
Then, we see that $e^{ft} \otimes e^{ft} e_{\tau \alpha} \otimes
e_{-\alpha} e^{-ft} \otimes e^{-ft} = e^t e_{\tau \alpha} \otimes
e_{-\alpha}$ whenever $\alpha \in \Gamma_1 \setminus \Gamma_1'$, and $e_{\tau \alpha} \otimes e_{-\alpha}$ otherwise (that is, when $\alpha
\in \tilde \Gamma_1'$). This obviously holds as well for $e_{-\alpha}
\otimes e_{\tau \alpha}$. Clearly, if one takes any term $x$ of zero weight, congugation by $e^{ft} \otimes
e^{ft}$ leaves the term unaltered. This implies that $(e^{ft} \otimes
e^{ft}) x (e^{-ft} \otimes e^{-ft}) = e^{kt} x$ for $k \in Z^+$ whenever $x \in G \setminus G'$, but $k=0$ when $x \in G' \cup V_0$. It follows from Proposition \[mp\] that $\underset{t \rightarrow
-\infty}{\text{lim}} e^{ft} \otimes e^{ft} \bar R_J e^{-ft} \otimes
e^{-ft} = \bar R_J'$ and\
$\underset{t \rightarrow -\infty}{\text{lim}}
e^{ft} \otimes e^{ft} \bar R_{\text{GGS}} e^{-ft} \otimes e^{-ft} =
\bar R'_{\text{GGS}}$. This clearly implies the theorem.
Unions of triples {#us}
-----------------
In this section, we investigate unions as defined in Definition \[ud\] with the goal of proving Theorem \[ut\]. We will see in Lemma \[ul2\], in fact, that the matrices $R_{\text{GGS}}$ and $R_J$ for the $\tau$-orthogonal union follows directly from those for each triple.
Since it is clear that a union of triples is larger than each piece under the ordering of the previous sections, we may pick $r^0$ to satisfy for the union which includes all equations for each smaller triple. Fix some such $r^0$, which will be sufficient by Remark \[or0\] to make statements about the conjectures. We use the notation $R^{(i)}_{\text{GGS}}$ and $R^{(i)}_J$ for the respective $R$ matrices. Set $R'_s \equiv q^{\tilde r^0} R_s q^{\tilde r^0}$. In addition, set $S^a_b \equiv R^a_b - R'_s$ for any such subscripts $b$ and superscripts $a$, and similarly $\bar S^a_b \equiv \bar R^a_b -
R_s$. We will use $H, G$ as defined in Section 2.2, and define $H^{(i)}, G^{(i)}$ for the respective subtriples. Finally, define $V_k^{(i)} = \{e_{\alpha} \mid \alpha \in \tilde \Gamma_k^{(i)} \cup
\tilde \Gamma_2^{(i)} \}$ for $k \in \{1,2\}$, and let $V^{(i)} =
\{e_{\alpha} \mid \alpha \in (\tilde \Gamma_1 + \tilde \Gamma_2) \cap
\Gamma \}$.
\[ul\] Suppose that $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau)$ is a $\tau$-orthogonal union of $(\Gamma_1^{(i)},
\Gamma_2^{(i)})$. Then $V_k^{(i)} V_k^{(j)} = \emptyset$ for $i \neq j,
k \in \{1,2\}$, and $V_1^{(i)} (V_2^{(j)})^T = (V_2^{(j)})^T V_1^{(i)} =
\emptyset$ for $i \neq j$, where $T$ takes the transpose of each element. Hence one has $(G^{(i)})_{ab} X (G^{(j)})_{cd} = \emptyset$ for $a,b,c,d \in
\{1,2,3\}, a \neq b, c \neq d$ and any $X \in V_0 \o V_0 \o V_0$.
[*Proof.*]{} Indeed, the first two assertions follow from the facts $\Gamma_1^{(i)} \perp \Gamma_1^{(j)}, i \neq j$, and $\Gamma_1^{(i)} \cap
\Gamma_2^{(j)} = \emptyset, i \neq j$. The remainder follows since $G^a_b V_0, V_0 G^a_b \subset \text{Span}(G^a_b)$. $\quad \square$
\[ul2\] Suppose that $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau)$ is a $\tau$-orthogonal union of $(\Gamma_1^{(i)}, \Gamma_2^{(i)})$. Then $S_t = \sum_i S^{(i)}_t$ for $t \in \{\text{GGS}, J\}$.
[*Proof.*]{} Clearly any element of $G$ is of the form $(\eab)_{ab}$ for $\{a,b\} = \{1,2\}$ and $\alpha \in \tilde \Gamma_1, \beta \in
\tilde \Gamma_2$. It is clear that $\tilde \Gamma_1 = \sqcup_i \tilde
\Gamma_1^{(i)}$ where $\sqcup$ denotes a disjoint union. Since we also have $\tilde \Gamma_2^{(i)} \cap \tilde \Gamma_1^{(j)} = 0$ for $i
\neq j$, it follows that $G = \sqcup_i G^{(i)}$. Hence, $S_t =
\sum_i S^{(i)}_t$ for $t \in \{\text{GGS}, J\}$.
If $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau)$ is a $\tau$-orthogonal union of $(\Gamma_1^{(i)}, \Gamma_2^{(i)})$, then any part of the twist or GGS conjecture holds for each triple $(\Gamma_1^{(i)},
\Gamma_2^{(i)}, \tau^{(i)})$ iff the same part of the twist or GGS conjecture holds for the union.
[*Proof.*]{} By Lemma \[ul\], we have $(S_t^{(i)})_{ab} X
(S_t^{(j)})_{cd} = 0$ for $a,b,c,d \in \{1,2,3\}, a \neq b, c \neq d,$ and any $X \in \text{End}(Mat_n(\C) \o Mat_n(\C) \o Mat_n(\C))$, one may consider the QYBE separately in $V_0 \o V_0 \o V_0$ and in $V^{(i)} \o V^{(i)} \o V^{(i)}$ for each $i$, and one may consider the Hecke relation and $R_J = R_{\text{GGS}}$ separately in $V_0 \o V_0,
V^{(i)} \o V^{(i)}$. The $V_0$ components clearly only involve $R_s$ so are satisfied, while each $V^{(i)}$ component holds iff the respective equation holds for the $i$-th subtriple. Finally, the respective equation holds for the union iff it holds in each component, and each component yields the same equation considered in the union and in the appropriate subtriple by Lemma \[ul2\]. The theorem follows from these observations.
Complete description of $K_{\alpha,\beta}$
==========================================
In this section we prove Proposition \[fep\] and Theorem \[nkt\] by first deducing from $\frac{d^2}{d\hbar^2} \bigl|_{\hbar=0} \bar
R_{\text{GGS}}$ and then applying the development to prove the equivalence of and for $\epsilon$. To do this, we will rely on important bijections between different ways the product of two terms in $aP,Pa,a^2$ can arise, where corresponding pairs cancel in the expansion.
\[ch3\] There exist unique $\kab$ such that $\frac{d^2}{d\hbar^2}
(R_J - (R_J)_{21})_{\alpha,\beta} = 0, \alpha \prec \beta$. These are given by the formula $$\label{nk}
K_{\alpha,\beta} = \text{sign}(\alpha,\beta) \biggl[ \sum_{i \geq
j} a_+^{i} a_+^{j} - \sum_{i < j} a_+^{i} a_+^{j} + a_+ P_- +
a_- P_+ + P_+ a_+ + a_+ a_- - a_- a_+ \biggr]_{\alpha,\beta}.$$ With these $K_{\alpha,\beta}$, the condition that $R_J \equiv R_{\text{GGS}}
\pmod{\hbar^3}$ reduces to showing the equivalence of and , and that $\kab = \epsilon_{\alpha,\beta} = 0$ when $\alpha \not \prec \beta$, in this case defining $\kab$ by for all $\alpha,\beta \in \tilde \Gamma$.
[*Proof.*]{} We expand $\bar R_J$ modulo $\hbar^3$ as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{rjh3}
\bar R_J \equiv \biggl[ \sideset{}{^>}\prod_{\pab \in X} \bigl( 1 -
2\: \text{sign}(\alpha, \beta) \hbar(1 + K_{\alpha,\beta} \hbar)\:
e_\beta \otimes e_{-\alpha} \bigr) \biggr] \biggl[ 1 +
\frac{\hbar^2}{2} \sum_{i} e_{ii} \otimes e_{ii} + 2 \hbar P_- \biggr]
\\ \biggl [ \sideset{}{^<}\prod_{\pab \in X} \bigl( 1 + 2\:
\text{sign}(\alpha, \beta)\hbar(1 + K_{\alpha,\beta} \hbar)\:
e_{-\alpha} \otimes e_{\beta} \bigr) \biggr] \equiv 1 + 2\hbar \biggl
[ P_- + \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta} \text{sign}(\alpha, \beta)\:
e_{-\alpha} \wedge e_\beta \biggr] \\ + \hbar^2 \biggl[ \frac{1}{2}
\sum_i e_{ii} \otimes e_{ii} + 2 \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta} K_{\alpha,
\beta}\: \text{sign}(\alpha, \beta)\: e_{-\alpha} \wedge e_{\beta} + 4
a_+ P_- + 4 P_- a_- + 4 a_+ a_- \\ + 4 \sum_{i \geq j} a_+^{i} a_+^{j}
+ 4 \sum_{i < j} a_-^{i} a_-^{j} \biggr] \pmod {\hbar^3}.\end{gathered}$$
If we skew-symmetrize the second order terms in by the substitution $x \mapsto x - x_{21}$, follows as a necessary and sufficient condition for $\frac{d^2}{\hbar^2}\bigl|_{\hbar = 0} \bigl[ \bar R_{J} - (\bar
R_{J})_{21}\bigr]_{\alpha,\beta} = 0.$
It is clear that $R_J \equiv R_{\text{GGS}} \equiv 1+2\hbar r \pmod{\hbar^3}$, so in particular by the comments in Section 1.2, this implies $\frac{1}{2}(R_J + (R_J)_{21}) \equiv R_{\text{GGS}} \equiv 1 + \hbar P + 2 \hbar^2 s \pmod{\hbar^3}$. All that remains, then, is to show that and are equivalent, and that $\epsilon_{\alpha,\beta} = \epsilon_{-\beta,-\alpha} = 0$ when $\alpha \not \prec \beta$ and the same for $K_{\alpha,\beta}$ in .
Take positive roots $\alpha, \beta$, $|\alpha| = |\beta|, \alpha \neq
\beta$. Set $\alpha = e_i - e_j$, $\beta = e_k - e_l$. Then, say that $\alpha < \beta$ if $i < k$, and in this case, $\alpha \lessdot
\beta$ if $j = k$, $\alpha\: \overline{<}\: \beta$ if $j > k$, and $\alpha \ll \beta$ if $j < k$ (we repeat the definition of $\lessdot$ given in Section 1 for completeness.) We will use $\alpha > \beta$ if $\beta < \alpha$, and similarly, $\gtrdot, \overline{>} ,$ and $\gg$ are the reverse directions of $\lessdot, \overline{<},$ and $\ll$, respectively. With these definitions, we will take $x^{<} =
\sum_{\alpha < \beta} \bigl(x_{\alpha,\beta}\: \eab +
x_{-\beta,-\alpha}\: e_{-\alpha} \otimes e_{\beta} \bigr)$ and similarly for the other defined relations.
\[bkl\] We may rewrite as follows: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{bk}
K_{\alpha,\beta} = \text{sign}(\alpha,\beta) \biggl[ \frac{1}{2}
\bigl(a_+^{\gtrdot} - a_+^{\lessdot} \bigr) + a_+^{\overline{>}} P - P
a_+^{\overline{<}} + \sum_{\alpha' \prec^\leftarrow \beta'}
\text{sign}(\alpha', \beta') (1 - |\alpha'|)\: e_{\beta'} \otimes
e_{-\alpha'} \\ + \sum_{i < j} \bigl( a_+^{j} a_+^{i} - a_+^{i}
a_+^{j} \bigr) +a_+ a_- - a_- a_+ \biggr]_{\alpha, \beta}.\end{gathered}$$
[*Proof.*]{} First, we expand $a_+ P_- + a_- P_+ + P_+ a_+$: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{ap}
\bigl( a_+ P_- + a_- P_+ + P_+ a_+ \bigr)_+ = \biggl[a_+^{\overline{>}} P +
\frac{1}{2} a_+^{\gtrdot} + a_-^{<} P + P a_+^{\ll} +
\frac{1}{2} a_+^{\lessdot}\biggr]_+ = \\
\biggr[ \frac{1}{2} \bigl(
a_+^{\lessdot} + a_+^{\gtrdot} \bigr) + a_+^{\overline{>}} P - P
a_+^{<} + P a_+^{\ll} \biggr]_+ =
\frac{1}{2} \bigl(a_+^{\gtrdot} - a_+^{\lessdot} \bigr) +
a_+^{\overline{>}} P - P a_+^{\overline{<}}.\end{gathered}$$
Now we simplify $\sum_{i} (a_+^{i})^2$. $\sum_{i} (a_+^{i})^2 =
\sum_{\alpha \prec \beta, \alpha' \prec \beta'} \text{sign}(\alpha,
\beta) \text{sign}(\alpha', \beta')\: e_{\beta} e_{\beta'} \otimes
e_{-\alpha} e_{-\alpha'}$. For $\alpha, \alpha' \in \tilde \Gamma_1$, $\tau^i(\alpha) = \beta, \tau^i(\alpha') = \beta'$, one sees that $e_{\beta} e_{\beta'} = e_{\beta + \beta'}$ and $e_{-\alpha}
e_{-\alpha'} = e_{-\alpha - \alpha'}$ iff\
$\alpha+\alpha' \in
\tilde \Gamma_1$ and $\tau^i(\alpha+\alpha') = \beta+\beta'$, reversing order. Thus, since in this case\
$\text{sign}(\alpha, \beta)
\text{sign}(\alpha', \beta') = -\text{sign}(\alpha + \alpha', \beta +
\beta')$,
$$\label{a2}
\sum_{i} (a_+^{i})^2 = -\sum_{\alpha \prec^\leftarrow \beta} \text{sign}(\alpha, \beta) (|\alpha| - 1)\: e_{\beta} \otimes e_{-\alpha}.$$
It is clear that and imply the proposition. $\quad \square$
Now, we proceed to show the equivalence of and by canceling most terms in the expansion of pairwise. Define the following sets:
$$\begin{gathered}
M_1 = \{ ((\alpha, \tau^x \alpha), (\beta, \tau^y \beta)) \in X
\times X \mid \alpha \gtrdot \beta, \tau^x \alpha \lessdot \tau^y
\beta, x > y\}, \\
M_2 = \{ ((\alpha, \tau^x \alpha), (\beta, \tau^y
\beta)) \in X \times X \mid \alpha \gtrdot \beta, \tau^x \alpha
\lessdot \tau^y \beta, x < y\}, \\
M_3 = \{ ((e_x - e_y, e_u-e_v),
(e_{v'} - e_v, e_x - e_{x'})) \in X \times X \mid x' < y, u < v'\}, \\
M_4 = \{ ((e_x - e_y, e_u-e_v), (e_u - e_{u'}, e_{y'} - e_y)) \in
X \times X \mid x < y', u' < v\}, \\
M_5 = \{(\alpha,\beta) \in X \mid \alpha \overline{>} \beta\}, \\
M_6 = \{(\alpha,\beta) \in X \mid \alpha \overline{<} \beta\}.\end{gathered}$$
Clearly these are defined so that the following hold:
$$\begin{gathered}
\sum_{i < j} a_+^j a_+^i =
\sum_{((\alpha,\beta), (\gamma,\delta)) \in M_1} a_{\alpha,\beta}
a_{\gamma,\delta} e_{\beta+\delta} \o e_{-\alpha-\delta}, \\
\sum_{i < j} a_+^i a_+^j =
\sum_{((\alpha,\beta), (\gamma,\delta)) \in M_2} a_{\alpha,\beta}
a_{\gamma,\delta} e_{\beta+\delta} \o e_{-\alpha-\delta}, \\
(a_+ a_-)_+ = \sum_{((\alpha,\beta),(\gamma,\delta)) \in M_3} a_{\alpha,\beta}
a_{-\delta,-\gamma} e_{\alpha-\delta} \o e_{\beta-\gamma}, \end{gathered}$$
$$\begin{gathered}
(a_- a_+)_+ = \sum_{((\alpha,\beta),(\gamma,\delta)) \in M_4} a_{-\delta,-\gamma}
a_{\alpha,\beta} e_{\alpha-\delta} \o e_{\beta-\gamma}, \\
a_+^{\overline{>}} P = \sum_{(\alpha,\beta) \in M_5} a_{\alpha,\beta} \eab P, \quad
P a_+^{\overline{<}} = \sum_{\alpha,\beta \in M_6} a_{\alpha,\beta} P \eab.\end{gathered}$$
Now we define subsets $M_i' \subset M_i$, set $M_i'' = M_i \setminus M_i'$, and bijections $f: M_1' \rightarrow M_3', g: M_2' \rightarrow M_4', f': M_1''
\rightarrow M_5', g': M_2'' \rightarrow M_6'$ which allow pairwise cancellation, leaving us to expand by only those terms in $M_3'',M_4'',M_5'',M_6''$, which will lead directly to . Define $M_i'$ as follows:
$$\begin{gathered}
M_1' = \{ ((\alpha, \tau^x \alpha), (\beta, \tau^y \beta)) \in M_1
\mid x-y \nmid y \}, \\
M_2' = \{ ((\alpha, \tau^x \alpha), (\beta,
\tau^y \beta)) \in M_2 \mid y-x \nmid x \}, \\
M_3' = \{ ((e_x -
e_y, e_u-e_v), (e_{v'} - e_v, e_x - e_{x'})) \in M_3 \mid (y-x')
\nmid (y-x) \}, \\
M_4' = \{ ((e_x - e_y, e_u-e_v), (e_u - e_{u'},
e_{y'} - e_y)) \in M_4 \mid (y'-x) \nmid (y-x)\}, \\
M_5' = \{(e_x - e_y,e_u - e_v) \in M_5 \mid
x-u \nmid y-x \}, \\
M_6' = \{(e_x - e_y, e_u - e_v) \in M_6 \mid u-x \nmid y-x \}.\end{gathered}$$
Now, we construct bijections $f,g,f',g'$. We begin with $f$. Take $((\alpha, \tau^x \alpha), (\beta, \tau^y \beta)) \in M_1'.$ Suppose $y = p(x-y) + q$ where $p,q \in \N$ and $0 < q < x-y$. Then $\alpha
\gtrdot \beta \gtrdot \tau^{x-y}(\alpha+\beta) \gtrdot \cdots \gtrdot
\tau^{p(x-y)}(\alpha+\beta) \gtrdot \tau^{(p+1)(x-y)} \alpha$. Then,
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{fdef}
f((\alpha, \tau^x \alpha),
(\beta, \tau^y \beta)) = \bigl[\bigl(
(1+\tau^{x-y}+\ldots+\tau^{p(x-y)})(\alpha+\beta)+\tau^{(p+1)(x-y)} \alpha,
\\
(\tau^q+\tau^{q+(x-y)}+\ldots+\tau^y)(\alpha+\beta)+\tau^x \alpha \bigr),
\bigl(
(\tau^{q}+\ldots+\tau^{q+(p-1)(x-y)})(\alpha+\beta)+\tau^y \alpha,
\\
(\tau^{x-y} + \ldots + \tau^{p(x-y)})(\alpha+\beta)+\tau^{(p+1)(x-y)} \alpha
\bigr)\bigr] \in M_3'.\end{gathered}$$
Similarly, if $((\alpha, \tau^x \alpha), (\beta, \tau^y \beta)) \in
M_2',$ one sets $x = p(y-x) + q$, $0 < q < x-y$, notices $\beta
\lessdot \alpha \lessdot \tau^{y-x}(\alpha+\beta) \lessdot \cdots
\lessdot \tau^{p(y-x)}(\alpha+\beta) \lessdot \tau^{(p+1)(x-y)}
\beta$, and is able to define
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{gdef}
g((\alpha, \tau^x \alpha),
(\beta, \tau^y \beta)) = \bigl[\bigl(
(1+\tau^{y-x}+\ldots+\tau^{p(y-x)})(\alpha+\beta)+\tau^{(p+1)(y-x)} \beta,
\\
(\tau^q+\tau^{q+(y-x)}+\ldots+\tau^x)(\alpha+\beta)+\tau^y \beta \bigr),
\bigl(
(\tau^{q}+\ldots+\tau^{q+(p-1)(y-x)})(\alpha+\beta)+\tau^x \beta,
\\
(\tau^{y-x} + \ldots + \tau^{p(y-x)})(\alpha+\beta)+\tau^{(p+1)(y-x)} \beta
\bigr)\bigr] \in M_4'.\end{gathered}$$
Next, we define $f'$ and $g'$:
$$\begin{gathered}
f'((e_j - e_i,e_a - e_{a+i-j}),(e_k - e_j,e_{a+i-j} - e_{a+i-k})) =
(e_{a+i-k} - e_i,e_a - e_k) \in M_5'', \\
g'((e_j - e_i, e_a - e_{a+i-j}),(e_k-e_j, e_{a+i-j}-e_{a+i-k})) = (e_k - e_a, e_i - e_{a+i-k}) \in M_6''.\end{gathered}$$
\[mcl\] (i) $f: M_1' \rightarrow M_3'$ is bijective. Given any $((\alpha,\beta),(\gamma,\delta)) \in M_1'$, and\
$f((\alpha,\beta),(\gamma,\delta)) =
((\alpha',\beta'),(\gamma',\delta')) \in M_3'$, one has $a_{\alpha,\beta} a_{\gamma,\delta} + a_{\alpha',\beta'}
a_{-\delta',-\gamma'} = 0$.
\(ii) $g: M_2' \rightarrow M_4'$ is bijective. Given any $((\alpha,\beta),(\gamma,\delta)) \in M_2'$, and $g((\alpha,\beta),(\gamma,\delta)) =
((\alpha',\beta'),(\gamma',\delta')) \in M_4'$, one has $a_{\alpha,\beta} a_{\gamma,\delta} + a_{\alpha',\beta'}
a_{-\delta',-\gamma'} = 0$.
\(iii) $f': M_1'' \rightarrow M_5'$ is bijective. Given any $((\alpha,\beta),(\gamma,\delta)) \in M_1''$, and $f'((\alpha,\beta),(\gamma,\delta)) = (\alpha',\beta') \in M_5'$, one has $a_{\alpha,\beta} a_{\gamma,\delta} + a_{\alpha',\beta'} = 0$.
\(iv) $g': M_2'' \rightarrow M_6'$ is bijective. Given any $((\alpha,\beta),(\gamma,\delta)) \in M_2''$, and $g'((\alpha,\beta),(\gamma,\delta)) = (\alpha',\beta') \in M_5'$, one has $a_{\alpha,\beta} a_{\gamma,\delta} + a_{\alpha',\beta'} = 0$.
[*Proof.*]{} (i) Take any $((e_x - e_y, e_u-e_v), (e_{v'} - e_v, e_x -
e_{x'})) \in M'_3$. We find its inverse under $f$ and verify the identity. Suppose $\tau^r (e_x-e_y) = e_u - e_v, \tau^s
(e_{v'}-e_v) = e_x - e_{x'}.$ Clearly $\tau^r$ preserves orientation on $e_x-e_y$.
Suppose $\tau^s$ reverses orientation on $e_{v'}-e_v$. In this case, nilpotency of $\tau$ shows that $x'-x \leq y-x'$, so $y-x' \nmid x'-x$ implies $x'-x < y-x'$. Then, one sees that $\tau^{2r+s}(e_{y-(x'-x)}-e_{y}) = e_u-e_{u+(x'-x)}$, while $\tau^r(e_x'-e_{y-(x'-x)}) = e_{u+(x'-x)}-e_{u+(y-x')}$. It is easy to check that $f((e_{y-(x'-x)}-e_y,e_u-e_{u+(x'-x)}),
(e_{x'-e_{y-(x'-x)}},e_{u+(x'-x)}-e_{u+(y-x')}))=((e_x-e_y,e_u-e_v),(e_{v'}-e_v, e_x - e_{x'}))$ as desired. Furthermore, we see that $\tau^{2r+s}, \tau^s$ reverse orientation while $\tau^r$ preserves orientation, so the desired identity follows.
Now, suppose $\tau^s$ preserves orientation on $e_{v'} - e_v$. Then, $\tau^{r+s}(\alpha_i)
= \alpha_{i-(y-x')}$ for $x+y-x' \leq i \leq y$. Then, suppose $x'-x = p(y-x') + q$, $0 < q < y-x'$. In this case, $\tau^{(p+1)(r+s)+r}(e_{y-q}-e_y)=(e_u-e_{u+q})$ and $\tau^{p(r+s)+r}(e_{x'}-e_{y-q})=(e_{u+q}-e_{v'})$. One may check $f((e_{y-q}-e_y,e_u-e_{u+q}),(e_{x'}-e_{y-q},
e_{u+q}-e_{v'})) = ((e_x -
e_y, e_u-e_v), (e_{v'} - e_v, e_x - e_{x'}))$, as desired. Since $\tau^{r}, \tau^s$ both preserve orientation, the desired identity follows.
\(ii) This follows exactly as in (i).
\(iii) Take any $(e_x - e_y, e_u - e_v) \in M_5'$. We find its inverse under $f'$ and verify the identity. Indeed, suppose $\tau^r(e_x-e_y)
= e_u-e_v$ and $y-x = p(x-u) + q$ for $0 < q < x-u$. Then, $\tau^{(p+1)r}(e_{y-q} - e_y) = e_u - e_{u+q}$, and $\tau^{pr}(e_v - e_{y-q})
= e_{u+q} - e_x$, so that $f'((e_{y-q}-e_y),(e_u-e_{u+q})) = ((e_v-e_{y-q}),
(e_{u+q} - e_x))$. Furthermore, $\tau^r$ preserves orientation on $e_x - e_y$ so the identity is verified.
\(iv) This follows exactly as in (iii).
\(i) Formula is equivalent to . (ii) Formula for $\epsilon$ is equivalent to .
[*Proof.*]{} (i) Given any $\tau^z \alpha = \beta$, it is clear that $\exists ((\gamma,\delta),(\gamma',\delta')) \in M_3''$ with $\gamma-\delta' = \alpha, \delta-\gamma' = \beta$ iff $\exists t, 0 <
t < z, t \nmid z$ such that $\tau^t \alpha \lessdot \alpha$. In this case it is easy to see (along similar lines as (i) in the proof of Lemma \[mcl\]) that $a_{\gamma,\delta} a_{-\delta',-\gamma'} =
-\text{sign}(\gamma',\delta')= -\text{sign}(\alpha,\beta)$. Similarly, given any $\tau^z \alpha = \beta$, $\exists ((\gamma,
\delta),(\gamma',\delta')) \in M_4''$ such that $\gamma'-\delta =
\alpha, \delta'-\gamma = \beta$ iff $\exists t, 0 < t < z, t \nmid z$ such that $\tau^t \alpha \gtrdot \alpha$. In this case, $a_{-\delta,-\gamma} a_{\gamma',\delta'} = -\text{sign}(\gamma,\delta)
= -\text{sign}(\alpha,\beta)$. Next, we find that $M_5'' = \{ (\alpha,
\tau^{tk} \alpha) \mid t,k \in \Z^+, \tau^t \alpha \lessdot \beta \}$ and $M_6'' = \{ (\alpha, \tau^{tk} \alpha) \mid t,k \in \Z^+, \tau^t
\alpha \gtrdot \beta \}$, and it is clear that all terms in $a_+^{\overline{>}}, a_+^{\overline{<}}$ appear with coefficient $-1$. Hence, combining Lemma \[mcl\] with , we obtain precisely .
\(ii) Indeed, using $r_s = P + P_- - P_+$ we find $\epsilon_+ =
a_+ a_+ + a_+ a_- + a_- a_+ + P a_+^{\overline{<}} +
a_+^{\overline{>}} P + \frac{1}{2} \bigl( a_+^{\lessdot} +
a_+^{\gtrdot} \bigr)$. Then, we see as in Lemma \[bkl\] that $\sum_i (a_+^{i})^2 = \sum_{\alpha \prec^{\leftarrow} \beta}
(1-|\alpha|) \text{sign}(\alpha,\beta)$, so $(a_+
a_+)_{\alpha,\beta} = [\alpha \prec^{\leftarrow}
\beta](-1)^{1-|\alpha|}(1-|\alpha|) + \sum_{i < j} (a_+^i a_+^j +
a_+^j a_+^i)$. Hence, follows from the observations in (i).
Proposition \[fep\] and Theorem \[nkt\] are proved.
The disjoint case and its generalization
========================================
The disjoint case {#ds}
-----------------
This section is devoted to proving the following theorem:
\[dt\] If $\Gamma_1 \cap \Gamma_2 = \emptyset$, then $R_{\text{GGS}} = R_J$.
[*Proof.*]{} We will assume $\Gamma_1 \cap \Gamma_2 = \emptyset$ throughout this section. The first observation to make in this case is that, since $\tau^2 =
0$, $J = J^{1} = 1 + A^1 = 1 + (q - q^{-1})
\sum_{\alpha \prec \beta}
\text{sign}(\alpha, \beta) q^{K_{\alpha,\beta}}\: e_\beta \otimes
e_{-\alpha}$. Set $A=A^1$.
Let $\alpha \perp \beta$ denote either $\alpha \ll \beta$ or $\beta
\ll \alpha$ (this is [**not**]{} the same as $(\alpha,\beta) = 0$). Using , the form of $K_{\alpha, \beta}$ in the disjoint case is summarized in the following table:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$K_{\alpha,\beta}$ $\alpha \prec^\rightarrow \beta$ $\alpha
\prec^\leftarrow \beta$
------------------------ ---------------------------------- --------------------------
$\alpha \perp \beta$ 0 $1 - |\alpha|$
$\alpha $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{3}{2} - |\alpha|$
\lessdot \beta$
$\alpha \gtrdot \beta$ $-\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2} -
|\alpha|$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
8 pt Table 4.1: $K_{\alpha, \beta}$ in the disjoint case.
Also, $\epsilon$ is summarized as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\epsilon_{\alpha,\beta}$ $\alpha \prec^\rightarrow \beta$ $\alpha
\prec^\leftarrow \beta$
--------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------------------------
$\alpha \perp \beta$ 0 $(-1)^{1-|\alpha|} (1-|\alpha|)$
$\alpha $-\frac{1}{2}$ $(-1)^{1-|\alpha|}(\frac{1}{2}-|\alpha|)$
\lessdot \beta$
$\alpha \gtrdot \beta$ $-\frac{1}{2}$ $(-1)^{1-|\alpha|}(\frac{1}{2}-|\alpha|)$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
8 pt Table 4.2: $\epsilon$ in the disjoint case.
Set $B = J^{-1} - 1$. Then, the following lemma describes $\bar R_J$:
\[brjd\] (i) $B$ is given by a sum $\sum_{\alpha \in \tilde \Gamma_1} B_{\alpha,\tau \alpha}\:
e_{\tau \alpha} \otimes e_{-\alpha}$.
\(ii) $\bar R_J$ is given by the following equation: $$\label{jdds}
\bar R_J = R_s + B + A_{21} + (q-1)B^{\gtrdot} + (q^{-1}-1)A_{21}^{\lessdot}$$
[*Proof.*]{} (i) Note that $e_{-\alpha} e_{-\beta} = e_{-\alpha-\beta}$, $e_{\tau \alpha} e_{\tau \beta} = e_{\tau \alpha + \tau \beta} = e_{\tau(\alpha + \beta)}$, for $\alpha, \beta \in \tilde \Gamma_1$. Thus, when $B$ is expanded, all terms will remain of this type.
\(ii) It is clear that $\bar R_J = (1 + B)R_s(1 + A_{21}) = R_s + B R_s
+ R_s A_{21} + B R_s A_{21}$. Since $e_{\beta} e_{-\alpha} =
e_{-\alpha} e_{\beta} = 0$ for all $\beta \in \tilde \Gamma_2, \alpha \in
\tilde \Gamma_1$, we see that $B R_s A_{21} = (q - q^{-1}) B \bigl(
\sum_{\alpha > 0} e_{-\alpha} \otimes e_{\alpha} \bigr) A_{21}$. Also, $B \bigl( \sum_{\alpha > 0} e_{-\alpha} \otimes e_{\alpha}
\bigr) = PB^{<}_{21}$ and $\bigl( \sum_{\alpha > 0} e_{-\alpha}
\otimes e_{\alpha} \bigr) A_{21} = P(A_{21}^< - A_{21}^\lessdot)$. So,
$$\begin{gathered}
\bar R_J = R_s + B R_s + R_s A_{21} + (q - q^{-1}) P B^{<}_{21}
A_{21} \\ = R_s + (q - q^{-1}) P\biggl( B^{<}_{21} + A_{21}^{<}
- A_{21}^{\lessdot} + B^{<}_{21} A_{21}^{<} \biggr) + B +
A_{21} + (q-1)(B^{\gtrdot} + A_{21}^{\lessdot}).\end{gathered}$$
Since $B^{<}_{21} + A_{21}^{<} + B^{<}_{21} A_{21}^{<} =
(1 + A_{21}^{<})(1 + B^{<}_{21}) - 1 = 0$, we find:
$$\begin{gathered}
\bar R_J = R_s - (q - q^{-1}) P A_{21}^{\lessdot} + B +
A_{21} + (q-1)(B^{\gtrdot} + A_{21}^{
\lessdot}) \\ = R_s + B + A_{21} + (q-1)B^{\gtrdot}
+ (q^{-1}-1)A_{21}^{\lessdot}.\end{gathered}$$
The lemma is proved.$\quad \square$
Now, we compute $B$ using , in which $(\alpha, \beta) > (\alpha', \beta')$ whenever\
$(e_{\beta} \otimes e_{-\alpha})
(e_{\beta'} \otimes e_{-\alpha'}) \neq 0$. Define $L_{\alpha,
\beta}$ as follows: $$L_{\alpha, \beta} =
\begin{cases}
0 & \text{if}\ \alpha \perp \beta, \\
\frac{1}{2} & \text{if}\ \alpha \lessdot \beta, \\
-\frac{1}{2} & \text{if}\ \alpha \gtrdot \beta.
\end{cases}$$
\(i) If $\alpha \prec^{\rightarrow} \beta$, then $B_{\alpha, \beta} = -A_{\alpha, \beta} = -(q - q^{-1}) q^{K_{\alpha,\beta}}$.
\(ii) If $\alpha \prec^{\leftarrow} \beta$, then $B_{\alpha, \beta} = -\text{sign}(\alpha, \beta) (q - q^{-1})
q^{|\alpha|-1+L_{\alpha,\beta}}$.
[*Proof.*]{} (i) Clearly, if $\alpha
\prec^\rightarrow \beta$, then $B_{\alpha,\beta} =
-(q - q^{-1}) q^{K_{\alpha,\beta}}$ since\
$(e_{\beta'} \otimes e_{-\alpha'})(e_{\beta''} \otimes e_{-\alpha''})
\neq 0$ only if $\alpha' \prec^\leftarrow \beta'$, $\alpha''
\prec^\leftarrow \beta''$, and in this case $\alpha'+\alpha''
\prec^\leftarrow \beta' + \beta''$.
\(ii) We prove the lemma inductively. If $|\alpha| = 1$, (ii) is clear. Otherwise, assume (ii) holds for $|\alpha| \leq p$. We will prove the result for $|\alpha| = p+1$.
Suppose $\alpha = e_i - e_{i+p+1}$, $\beta = e_j - e_{j+p+1}$, and $\tau(\alpha_{i+k}) = \alpha_{j+p-k}$, $0 \leq k \leq p$. Then, by , we may write $$\begin{gathered}
B_{\alpha, \beta} = -\text{sign}(\alpha, \beta) (q - q^{-1})
q^{K_{\alpha,\beta}} - \sum_{l = 1}^p A_{e_i - e_{i+l},
e_{j+p+1-l}-e_{j+p+1}} B_{e_{i+l}-e_{i+p+1},e_j-e_{j+p+1-l}} \\ =
-\sab \qh q^{\kab} - \sum_{l=1}^p \sab \qh^2
q^{p+1-2l+L_{\alpha,\beta}} \\ = -\sab \qh q^{L_{\alpha,\beta}}
\biggl[ q^{-p} + \sum_{l=1}^p \qh q^{p-2l+1} \biggr] = -\sab \qh
q^{p+L_{\alpha,\beta}}. \quad\square\end{gathered}$$
Using $e_{-\alpha} \wedge_c e_\beta$ as in Example \[gcge\], becomes $$\label{rjdf}
\bar R_J = R_s + (q - q^{-1}) \biggl[ \sum_{\alpha \prec^\rightarrow \beta}
e_{-\alpha} \wedge_{-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha, \beta)} e_{\beta} + \sum_{\alpha \prec^\leftarrow \beta} (-1)^{|\alpha|-1} e_{-\alpha}
\wedge_{-\frac{1}{2}(\alpha, \beta)+|\alpha|-1} e_{\beta} \biggr].$$
All that remains is to show equivalence of $\bar
R_{\text{GGS}}$. First we write $\bar R_{\text{GGS}}$:
$$\label{rggs}
\bar R_{\text{GGS}} = R_s + (q - q^{-1}) \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta}
\text{sign}(\alpha, \beta) e_{-\alpha} \wedge_{-\text{sign}(\alpha, \beta)\epsilon_{\alpha,\beta}} e_{\beta}$$
Combining with Table 4.2, we obtain . This proves that $\bar R_{\text{GGS}} = \bar R_J$ and hence that $R_{\text{GGS}} = R_J$ in the case $\Gamma_1 \cap \Gamma_2
= \emptyset$. The proof is finished.$\quad \square$
The generalized disjoint case {#gds}
-----------------------------
In fact, the results we have obtained extend easily to the [*generalized disjoint*]{} case:
A triple $(\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2, \tau)$ is said to be [*generalized disjoint*]{} if $\Gamma_1 = \bigcup_{i=1}^{m}
\Gamma_1^i$ where $\Gamma_1^i \perp \Gamma_1^j, i \neq j$ and $\tau(\Gamma_1^i) \cap \Gamma_1 \subset \Gamma_1^{i+1}, i < m,$ while $\tau \Gamma_1^m \subset \Gamma_2$.
\[gdt\] For any generalized disjoint triple, $R_J = R_{\text{GGS}}$.
[*Proof.*]{} Note first by , that $K_{\alpha,\beta}$ and $\epsilon_{\alpha,\beta}$ are as given in Tables 4.1, 4.2, respectively. As in the disjoint case, we have the following main property:
If $(e_{-\alpha} \o e_{\tau^x \alpha})
(e_{-\beta} \o e_{\tau^y \beta})_{ab} \neq 0$, for $\{a,b\} =
\{1,2\}$, then $(a,b)=(1,2)$, $x = y$, and $\tau^x$ reverses orientation on $\alpha+\beta$.
[*Proof.*]{} Suppose $(a,b)=(2,1)$. Then $\{\tau^x \alpha, \beta\} \subset
\tilde \Gamma_1^i$ for some $i$. But then, $\alpha \in \Gamma_1^j, \tau^y
\beta \in \Gamma_1^k$ for $j < i < k$, so $e_{-\alpha} e_{\tau^y \beta} = 0$, a contradiction. So, $(a,b)=(1,2)$. Now, this implies that $\{\alpha, \beta\}
\subset \Gamma_1^i, \{\tau^x \alpha, \tau^y \alpha\} \subset \Gamma_1^j$ for some $i < j$. Then $x=y=j-i.\quad \square$
Because of this fact, we may set $J^{ij}$ to be the $J$-matrix corresponding to the disjoint triple $(\Gamma_1^i,\tau \Gamma_1^{j-1},
\tau^{j-i})$, and similarly define $\bar R_J^{ij},
R_{\text{GGS}}^{ij}$, and $A^{ij} = J^{ij} - 1$, so that $A^{ij} X
A^{kl} = 0$ whenever $(i,j) \neq (k,l)$. Thus, $J = \prod_{i < j}
J^{ij} = 1 + \sum_{i < j} A^{ij}$, and $A^{ij} X A^{kl} = 0$ whenever $i \neq j$. Hence, $\bar R_J = R_s + \sum_{i,j} \bar (R_J^{ij}-R_s) =
R_s + \sum_{i,j} (\bar R_{\text{GGS}}^{ij}-R_s) = \bar R_{\text{GGS}}.
\quad\square$
In the appendix we prove the twist conjecture and hence the GGS conjecture in the orthogonal generalized disjoint case (defined in Section \[it\]) by demonstrating that $R_J$ satisfies the QYBE.
The Cremmer-Gervais triple {#crgs}
==========================
In this section we prove $R_J = R_{\text{GGS}}$ in the Cremmer-Gervais case, and hence the twist conjecture since the GGS conjecture is proved in this case (for example, see [@H2].)
For the Cremmer-Gervais triple $(\{\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{n-1}\},\{\alpha_2,\ldots,
\alpha_n\}, \tau)$,\
$\tau \alpha_i = \alpha_{i+1}$, one has $R_J = R_{\text{GGS}}$.
[*Proof.*]{} Note first from , that $K_{\alpha,\beta} = \frac{1}{2}[\alpha \lessdot \beta] + [\alpha \ll
\beta]$, and $\epsilon_{\alpha,\beta} = -K_{\alpha,\beta}$. Next, note that $(e_{-\alpha} \o e_{\tau^x \alpha})(e_{-\beta} \o e_{\tau^y
\beta})_{ab} \neq 0$ for $\{a,b\} = \{1,2\}$ iff $(a,b) = (1,2)$ and $y = x+|\alpha|+|\beta|$. Hence, considering the product form , we find that $J^{-1} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta}
q^{K_{\alpha,\beta}} (q^{-1} - q) \eab$. Furthermore, if we set $B =
J^{-1} - 1, A = J - 1$, we see that
$$\begin{gathered}
\label{cgrj}
\bar R_J =
J^{-1} R_s J_{21} = R_s + B + A_{21} + (q-1) A_{21}^{\lessdot}
+ (q-q^{-1}) P A_{21}^{\ll} \\ + (q-q^{-1}) P B_{21} +
(q-q^{-1}) P B_{21} A_{21} + B A_{21}.\end{gathered}$$
Since, in addition, $(e_{\beta} \o e_{-\alpha})_{ab} \in G$ for $\alpha,\beta > 0, \{a,b\} = \{1,2\}$ iff $\alpha \prec \beta$, we may infer that $(\bar R_J)_+ = (\bar R_{\text{GGS}})_+$. Thus, it suffices to show $(\bar R_J)_{-\beta,-\alpha} = (\bar
R_{\text{GGS}})_{-\beta,-\alpha}$ whenever $\alpha \prec \beta$ (equivalently, $\alpha < \beta$.) We proceed inductively on the index under $\tau$. Suppose this is true for all $\alpha' \prec \beta'$ where $i_\tau(\beta'-\alpha') < i_\tau(\beta-\alpha)$. Since, with respect to the ordering in , $(e_{-\alpha} \o
e_{\beta})(e_{-\alpha'} \o e_{\beta'}) \neq 0$ only when $(\alpha,\beta)
< (\alpha',\beta')$, we may rewrite using our inductive hypothesis as $$\begin{gathered}
\label{icg}
(\bar R_J)_{-\beta,-\alpha} = (q-q^{-1}) \bigl[
q^{K_{\alpha,\beta}+[\alpha
\lessdot \beta]} + [\alpha \overline{<} \beta] q +
(P B_{21})_{-\beta,-\alpha} \\ + \bigl(\bar R_{\text{GGS}}
\sum_{\alpha \prec \beta} q^{K_{\alpha,\beta}} (e_{-\alpha} \o e_\beta)
\bigl)_{-\beta,-\alpha} \bigr].\end{gathered}$$
When we write out the sum above, we will add it in pairs corresponding to the bijections $f,g$ defined in Section 3; this will make the sum cancel. We separately consider the cases $\alpha \overline{<} \beta,
\alpha \lessdot \beta, \alpha \ll \beta$.
First suppose $\alpha \overline{<} \beta$. Set $\alpha = e_j - e_i,
\beta = e_k - e_{i+k-j}$ where $j < k < i < i+k-j$. Then $(R_{\text{GGS}})_{-\beta, -\alpha} = q-q^{-1}$. By , we may write
$$\begin{gathered}
(\bar R_J)_{-\beta,-\alpha} = (q-q^{-1}) \bigl[ 1 + q - q + \sum_{l = j+1}^k
\bigl((q-q^{-1})(e_{il} \o e_{k,i+k-l})q (e_{lj} \o e_{i+k-l,i+k-j}) \\ - q(q-q^{-1})(e_{i,i+l-j} \o e_{k,k-l+j})q^0(e_{i+l-j,j} \o e_{k-l+j,i+k-j}) \bigr)_{-\beta,-\alpha} \bigl] = q-q^{-1}.\end{gathered}$$
Now, suppose $\alpha \lessdot \beta$. In this case, set $\alpha = e_j - e_i,
\beta = e_i - e_{2i-j}$. Now, becomes
$$\begin{gathered}
(\bar R_J)_{-\beta,-\alpha} = (q-q^{-1})\bigl[ q^{3/2} - q^{1/2}(q - q^{-1})
+ \sum_{l = i+1}^j \bigl( q^{-1/2}(q - q^{-1}) (e_{il} \o e_{i,2i-l}) q (e_{lj}
\o e_{2i-l,2i-j}) \\ - q^{1/2}(q-q^{-1}) (e_{i,2i-l} \o e_{i,l}) q^0 (e_{2i-l,j}
\o e_{l,2i-j}) \bigr)_{-\beta,-\alpha} \bigl] = q^{-1/2}(q - q^{-1}).\end{gathered}$$
Finally, suppose $\alpha \ll \beta$. In this case, $\alpha = e_j - e_i,
\beta = e_k - e_{i+k-j}$ where $j < i < k < i+k-j$, and we write
$$\begin{gathered}
(\bar R_J)_{-\beta,-\alpha} = (q-q^{-1}) \bigl[ q - (q - q^{-1}) +
\sum_{l = j+1}^k
\bigl(q^{-1}(q-q^{-1})(e_{il} \o e_{k,i+k-l})q (e_{lj} \o e_{i+k-l,i+k-j}) \\ - (q-q^{-1})(e_{i,i+l-j} \o e_{k,k-l+j})q^0(e_{i+l-j,j} \o e_{k-l+j,i+k-j}) \bigr)_{-\beta,-\alpha} \bigl] = q^{-1}(q-q^{-1}).\end{gathered}$$
The proof is finished.
Acknowledgements
================
I would like to thank Pavel Etingof for introducing me to this problem and advising me. I would also like to thank the Harvard College Research Program for their support. Finally, I am indebted to Gerstenhaber, Giaquinto, and Hodges for valuable discussions and for sharing some unpublished results.
Proof that $R_J$ satisfies the QYBE in special cases
====================================================
The disjoint case, by P.Etingof and T.Schedler {#da}
----------------------------------------------
12 pt
In this subsection we will prove Theorem \[tdg\].i by showing that $R_J$ satisfies the QYBE for disjoint triples (i.e. $\Gamma_1\cap
\Gamma_2=\emptyset$). We note that in the case when $\Gamma_1$ is orthogonal to $\Gamma_2$, this was done (using the same method) by T.Hodges. This is sufficient given Theorem \[dt\].
Let $U_\hbar(\mathfrak{sl}(n))$ be the quantum universal enveloping algebra generated by $E_{\alpha_i}, F_{\alpha_i}$, $H_{\alpha_i}$, $\alpha_i \in \Gamma,$ under the relations $$\begin{gathered}
\label{ur1}
[H_{\alpha_i},E_{\alpha_j}] = (\alpha_i,\alpha_j) E_{\alpha_j},
[H_{\alpha_i},F_{\alpha_j}] = -(\alpha_i,\alpha_j) F_i,
[H_{\alpha_i},H_{\alpha_j}] = 0, \\ [E_{\alpha_i},F_{\alpha_j}] =
\delta_{ij} \frac{q^{H_{\alpha_i}} - q^{-H_{\alpha_i}}}{q - q^{-1}},\\
E_{\alpha_i}^2 E_{\alpha_{i \pm 1}} - (q + q^{-1})E_{\alpha_i}
E_{\alpha_{i \pm 1}} E_{\alpha_i} + E_{\alpha_{i \pm 1}}
E_{\alpha_i}^2 = 0,\\ F_{\alpha_i}^2 F_{\alpha_{i \pm 1}} - (q +
q^{-1})F_{\alpha_i} F_{\alpha_{i \pm 1}} F_{\alpha_i} + F_{\alpha_{i
\pm 1}} F_{\alpha_i}^2 = 0,\end{gathered}$$ where the coproduct, counit, and antipode are given by $$\begin{gathered}
\label{ur2}
\Delta(E_{\alpha_i}) = E_{\alpha_i} \o q^{H_{\alpha_i}} + 1 \o E_{\alpha_i}, \Delta(F_{\alpha_i}) = F_{\alpha_i} \o 1 +
q^{H_{\alpha_i}} \o F_{\alpha_i},\\
\Delta(H_{\alpha_i}) = H_{\alpha_i} \o 1 + 1 \o H_{\alpha_i}, \epsilon(F_{\alpha_i})=\epsilon(E_{\alpha_i})=\epsilon(H_{\alpha_i}) = 0, \\
S(E_{\alpha_i}) = -E_{\alpha_i} q^{H_{\alpha_i}}, S(F_{\alpha_i}) = -q^{H_{\alpha_i}} F_{\alpha_i}, S(H_{\alpha_i}) = - H_{\alpha_i}.\end{gathered}$$
We will use the representation $\phi: U_\hbar(\mathfrak{sl}(n))
\rightarrow Mat_n(\C)$ by $\phi(E_{\alpha_i}) = e_{i,i+1},
\phi(F_{\alpha_i}) = e_{i+1,i}$, and $\phi(H_{\alpha_i}) = e_{ii} -
e_{i+1,i+1}$.
Now, we recall the results of Hodges [@H] using the notation of [@ER]. Fix a disjoint Belavin-Drinfeld triple $(\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2,\tau)$. Let $\h_i$ be the subpaces of $\h$ spanned by $e_{\alpha_k}, \alpha_k \in \Gamma_i$. Let $U_i$ be the Hopf subalgebras of $U_\hbar(\mathfrak{sl}(n))$ generated by $E_{\alpha_k}, F_{\alpha_k}, H_{\alpha_k}, \alpha_k \in \Gamma_i$. Define $f_{\tau}: U_1 \rightarrow U_2$ by $f_{\tau}(E_{\alpha_i}) =
E_{\tau \alpha_i}, f_{\tau} F_{\alpha_i} = F_{\tau \alpha_i}, f_\tau
H_{\alpha_i} = H_{\tau \alpha_i}$. It is clear that $f_\tau$ is an isomorphism of Hopf subalgebras. Let $g_\tau: \phi(U_1) \rightarrow
\phi(U_2)$ be the homomorphism descending from $f_\tau$.
Define $Z=(g_\tau \o 1) \Omega_{\h_1}$ where $\Omega_{\mathfrak{t}}$ denotes the Casimir element of the usual bilinear form on a nondegenerate subspace $\mathfrak{t} \subset \h$. Let $T\in \h\o\h$ be a solution of the following equations: $$\label{te}
(x\o 1,T)=(1\o\tau(x),T)=0,\quad (\tau(x)\o 1+1\o x,Z-T)=0.$$ for any $x\in \h_1$. Define $${\cal J}=q^T{\cal J}_0,\quad
{\cal J}_0=1+\sum_{\alpha \prec \beta}(q-q^{-1})(-q^{-1})^{C_{\alpha}
(|\alpha|-1)}
e_{\beta}\o e_{-\alpha},$$ where $C_\alpha=1$ if $\alpha \prec^{\leftarrow} \beta$ and $0$ if $\alpha \prec^{\rightarrow} \beta$.
The following proposition can be deduced from the results of [@H].
\[dtp\] The element $R_{{\cal J}} \equiv {\cal J}^{-1}R_s{\cal J}_{21}\in Mat_n(\C)\o Mat_n(\C)$ satisfies the Hecke relation and the quantum Yang-Baxter equation.
[*Proof.*]{} Define $$\label{jp}
{\cal J}'=q^{T-Z}(\tau\o 1)(\phi \o \phi)(\mathbb R)$$ where $\mathbb R$ is the universal $R$-matrix of the Hopf subalgebra $U_1$. By Proposition 4.1 of [@ER], $({\cal J}')^{-1}R_s({\cal
J}')_{21}$ satisfies the Hecke relation and the quantum Yang-Baxter equation, so it is enough to show that ${\cal J}$ coincides with ${\cal J}'$. This can be deduced from an explicit formula for the universal $R$-matrix $\mathbb R$. We use the formula given in [@KhT] and evaluate it in the representation as follows:
$$\label{er}
(\phi \o \phi)\bigl((f_\tau\o 1)(\mathbb R)\bigr)=
\bigl( 1+\sum_{\alpha \prec \beta}(q-q^{-1})(-q^{-1})^{[\alpha \prec^\leftarrow \beta]
(|\alpha|-1)}
e_{\beta}\o e_{-\alpha} \bigr) q^Z.$$
Here we take our normal ordering to be given by left to right on the Dynkin diagram (for simple roots). The additional powers of $-q^{-1}$ in the reversing case appear because in [@KhT], $E_{\alpha+\beta}
= E_{\alpha} E_{\beta} - q^{(\alpha,\beta)} E_{\beta} E_{\alpha},$ and so $\phi(E_{\tau \alpha}) = (-q^{-1})^{|\alpha|-1} e_{\tau \alpha}$ when $\tau$ reverses order on $\alpha$, while $\phi(E_{\tau \alpha})
= e_{\tau \alpha}$ when $\tau$ preserves order on $\alpha$.
All that remains is to show $[q^Z, (\phi \o \phi)({\cal J}_0)] = 0.$ Observe that $\sum_i e_{ii} \o e_{ii} = \Omega_h = \Omega_{h_1} + \Omega_{h_1^\perp}$ so that $[\Omega_{h_1}, (\phi \o \phi) (\R)] = 0$. This finishes the proof.
We denote the usual inner product on $(\h_1 \oplus \h_2)$ by $I(x,y)$, so that we may define the bilinear form $B(x,y) \equiv (x, \tau y)$ defined on $(\h_1 \oplus \h_2) \o \h_1$. Similarly define $B^T(x,y) =
(\tau x, y)$ on $\h_1 \o (\h_1 \oplus \h_2)$. Since $\h_1+\h_2$ has a nondegenerate inner product, any element of $(\h_1\oplus \h_2)^{\o 2}$ can be regarded as a bilinear form on $\h_1\oplus \h_2$, by $X\mapsto
F_X(a,b)=(a\o b,X)$. Thus such an element can be written as a 2 by 2 matrix whose ij-th entry is a form on $\h_i\o \h_j$. We will use such notation below.
There exists a unique solution $T$ of the equations in $(\h_1\oplus \h_2)^{\o 2}$. This solution has the form $$T=\left(\matrix 0&0\\ I+B&0\endmatrix\right).$$
[*Proof.*]{} The proof is by a direct computation.$\quad \square$
Now let us compute $R_{{\cal J}}$. We have $$\label{a1}
R_{{\cal J}}=
{\cal J}_0^{-1}q^{-T}R_sq^{T_{21}}({\cal J}_0)_{21}.$$ Using the fact that $$\label{s2cr}
q^XR_sq^{-X}=R_s, X\in S^2\h$$ one transforms to $$R_{{\cal J}}=
{\cal J}_0^{-1}q^{T_{21}}R_sq^{-T}({\cal J}_0)_{21}.$$ It is clear that $T_{21}$ commutes with ${\cal J}_0$, since both components commute separately, thus $$R_{{\cal J}}=
q^{T_{21}}{\cal J}_0^{-1}R_s({\cal J}_0)_{21}q^{-T}.$$ Let $J$ be as defined in and , using Table 1. Then $J=q^Y{\cal J}_0q^{-Y}$, where $Y=\frac{1}{2}\sum
e_{ii}\o e_{ii}$. Thus, using again, we get $$R_{{\cal J}}=
q^{T_{21}-Y} J^{-1}R_s J_{21}q^{-T+Y}.$$ Setting $R_J = q^{r^0} J^{-1} R_s J_{21} q^{r^0}$, we get $$R_{{\cal J}}=
q^{T_{21}-Y-r^0} R_J q^{-T+Y-r^0},$$ Write $Y$ as $Y_0+Y'$, where $Y_0\in (\h_1\oplus \h_2)^{\o 2}$, $Y'\in
((\h_1\oplus \h_2)^\perp)^{\o 2}$. It is clear that $q^{Y'}$ commutes with $R_J$, so we obtain $$R_{\cal J} = q^{T_{21}-Y_0-r^0}R_J q^{-T+Y_0-r^0}.$$ It is easy to see that $Y_0=\frac{1}{2}
\left(\matrix I&I\\ I&I\endmatrix\right)$, and $r^0$ can be chosen to be the element of $(\h_1\oplus \h_2)^{\o 2}$ given by the matrix $\left(\matrix 0&\frac{1}{2}(I+B^T)\\
-\frac{1}{2}(I+B)& 0\endmatrix\right)$. Therefore, $R_{\cal J} = q^{-U} R_J q^U$, where $U=\left(\matrix I/2&-B^T/2\\ -B/2&I/2\endmatrix\right)$.
Let $W=\left(\matrix I/2&B^T/2\\ B/2&I/2\endmatrix\right)$. Then $W\in
S^2K$, where $K$ is the Lie algebra of symmetries of $R_J$, i.e. $K =
\{x \in Mat_n(\C) \mid [1 \o x + x \o 1,R_J] = 0\}$. Therefore, $q^WR_Jq^{-W}=(D\o D)R_J(D^{-1}\o D^{-1})$ for a suitable diagonal matrix $D$. So in order to finish the proof of the twist conjecture, it suffices to show that $q^{U+W}R_{{\cal J}}q^{-U-W}$ is a solution of the Yang-Baxter equation.
Note that $U+W=\left(\matrix I&0\\ 0&I\endmatrix\right)$ and therefore $U+W \in S^2(\h_2^\perp) \oplus S^2(\h_1^\perp)$. Thus, the twist conjecture follows from the following lemma.
Let $X$ be an element of $S^2(\h_1\oplus\h_2)$ which is orthogonal to $\h_1\o \h_2$. Then $q^XR_Jq^{-X}
=(D\o D)J(D^{-1}\o D^{-1})$ for a suitable diagonal matrix $D$.
[*Proof.*]{} We can write $X$ as $X_1+X_2$, where $X_1$ is orthogonal to $\h_1$ in both components and $X_2$ to $\h_2$. It suffices to prove the lemma for each of them separately. Let us do it for $X_1$, for $X_2$ the proof is analogous.
Let $E_\alpha=e_{\tau \alpha}\o e_{-\alpha}$. It is clear that $q^{X_1}E_\alpha q^{-X_1}=\lambda(\alpha)E_\alpha$ for some eigenvalue $\lambda(\alpha)$. All we need to show is that $\lambda(\alpha+\beta)$, when it is defined, equals $\lambda(\alpha)\lambda(\beta)$.
We may assume that $\alpha\ \lessdot \beta$, i.e. $\alpha$ is to the left of $\beta$. If $\tau$ reverses orientation on $\alpha+\beta$, i.e. $\alpha+\beta \prec^{\leftarrow} \tau(\alpha+\beta)$, then the statement is clear since $E_{\alpha+\beta}=E_\beta E_\alpha$. If not, we have $E_{\alpha+\beta}^{t_2}=E_\alpha^{t_2}E_\beta^{t_2}$ ($t_2$ is transposition in the second component). Thus, using that the second component of $X_1$ commutes with $e_\alpha, e_\beta$, we get $$(q^{X_1}E_{\alpha+\beta}q^{-X_1})^{t_2}=
q^{X_1}E_\alpha^{t_2}E_\beta^{t_2}q^{-X_1}=
\lambda(\alpha)\lambda(\beta)E_\alpha^{t_2}E_\beta^{t_2}=
\lambda(\alpha)\lambda(\beta)E_{\alpha+\beta}^{t_2}.$$ This implies the lemma. $\quad \square$
The orthogonal generalized disjoint case {#gda}
----------------------------------------
In this subsection we prove Theorem \[tdg\].ii by showing $R_J$ satisfies the QYBE in the orthogonal generalized disjoint case, defined in Definition \[gdd\]. This is sufficient due to Theorem \[gdt\].
Set $\h_{kl} =
\text{Span}(H_{\alpha_i} \mid \alpha_i \in \Gamma_1^k, \tau^{l-1}
\alpha_i \in \Gamma_1)$. We also consider $U_{kl}$, the Hopf subalgebra of $U_\hbar(\mathfrak{sl}(n))$ generated by $E_{\alpha_i},
F_{\alpha_i}, H_{\alpha_i},$ for $\alpha_i \in \h_{kl}$, and $U'_{kl}$, the Hopf subalgebra of $U_\hbar(\mathfrak{sl}(n))$ generated by $E_{\tau^l \alpha_i}, F_{\tau^l \alpha_i}, H_{\tau^l \alpha_i}$. Define the map $f_{\tau^l}: U_{kl} \rightarrow U'_{kl}$ by $f_{\tau^l}(E_{\alpha_i}) = E_{\tau^l \alpha_i},
f_{\tau^l} F_{\alpha_i} = F_{\tau^l \alpha_i}, f_{\tau^l} H_{\alpha_i}
= H_{\tau^l \alpha_i}$. Then it is easy to check that $f_{\tau^l}$ is a Hopf algebra isomorphism. Also, define the map $g_{\tau^l}: \phi(U_{kl}) \rightarrow
\phi(U'_{kl})$ to be the homorphism descending from $f_{\tau^l}$.
Now, define $\R^{kl} = (f_{\tau^l} \o 1)(\R')^{kl}$ where $(\R')^{kl}$ is the universal $R$-matrix of $U_{kl}$. Now, we define the twist ${\cal
J}$ by ${\cal J} = \prod_{i = 1}^{m} \prod_{j = 1}^{m+1-i} \R^{j,j+i}$. Recall from [@ER] the definition of a twist:
${\cal J} \in U_q(\mathfrak{sl}(n))$ is a twist if ${\cal J} \equiv 1 \pmod \hbar, (\epsilon \o 1) {\cal J} = (1 \o \epsilon) {\cal J} = 1,$ and $(\Delta \o 1) ({\cal J}) {\cal J}_{12} = (1 \o \Delta) ({\cal J}) {\cal J}_{23}$. In addition, a twist is triangular if ${\cal J} \in U_{\geq 0} \o U_{\leq 0}$, where $U_{\geq 0}, U_{\leq 0}
\subset U_\hbar(\mathfrak{sl}(n))$ are the Hopf subalgebras generated by the $E_{\alpha_i}, H_{\alpha_i}$, and by the $F_{\alpha_i}, H_{\alpha_i}$, respectively.
${\cal J}$ is a triangular twist.
[*Proof.*]{} It is obvious that ${\cal J} \equiv 1 \pmod \hbar$, $(\epsilon \o 1) {\cal J} = (1 \o \epsilon) {\cal J} = 1$, and that $\cal
J$ is triangular. It thus suffices to prove $(\Delta \o 1) ({\cal J})
{\cal J}_{23} = (1 \o \Delta) ({\cal J}) {\cal J}_{12}$. By construction, one easily sees that $[\R^{kl}_{ab}, \R^{k' l'}_{a' b'}] =
0$ for $1 \leq a < b \leq 3, 1 \leq k < l \leq m+1$ and similarly for $a',b',k',l'$ in the event that $\{(a,k),(b,l)\} \cap
\{(a',k'),(b',l')\} = \emptyset$. Furthermore, since $\R$ satisfies the QYBE, where $\R$ is the universal $R$-matrix of any Hopf subalgebra of $U_h(\mathfrak{sl}(n))$, we find $\R^{ij}_{12} \R^{ik}_{13}
\R^{jk}_{23} = \R^{jk}_{23} \R^{ik}_{13} \R^{ij}_{12}$ for $i < j < k$. Thus, the theorem follows from the following combinatorial lemma:
Let G be a semigroup generated by the set $T=\{r_{ij}^{ab}, 1 \leq i < j \leq 3, 1 \leq a < b \leq n\}$ for a given $n \in Z^+$. Consider the relations $$\begin{gathered}
\label{gr1}
r_{ij}^{ab} r_{kl}^{cd} = r_{kl}^{cd} r_{ij}^{ab}, \quad \{(i,a),(j,b)\} \cap
\{(k,c), (l,d)\} = \emptyset \\ \label{gr2}
r_{12}^{ab} r_{13}^{ac} r_{23}^{bc} = r_{23}^{bc} r_{13}^{ac} r_{12}^{ab},
\quad 1 \leq a < b < c \leq n.\end{gathered}$$ Then, if $G$ satisfies relations , , it also satisfies the relation $$\label{gr3}
\biggl( \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \prod_{j=1}^{n-i} r_{13}^{j,i+j} r_{12}^{j,i+j} \biggr)
\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \prod_{j=1}^{n-i} r_{23}^{j,i+j} =
\biggl( \prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \prod_{j=1}^{n-i} r_{13}^{j,i+j} r_{23}^{j,i+j} \biggr)
\prod_{i=1}^{n-1} \prod_{j=1}^{n-i} r_{12}^{j,i+j}.$$
[*Proof.*]{} Let $F$ be the free semigroup generated by the set $T$ as above, and let $Y$ be the set of relations ,. Note that in each side of , every generator of $G$ appears exactly once. Let $H \subset F$ be the set of such elements of $F$, so that for any element $X \in H$, we can say $r_1 <_X r_2$ for generators $r_1, r_2$ if $r_1$ appears to the left of $r_2$ in $X$. Let $L,R$ denote the left and right hand sides of , respectively, considered as elements of $H$. Note that both $L$ and $R$ satisfy $$\label{pr1}
r_{13}^{ab} <_X r_{12}^{ac}, r_{13}^{ef} <_X r_{23}^{df}, \quad b \leq c, d \leq e$$ when one replaces $X$ with $L,R$. Again replacing $X$ with $L,R$ we find that $$\label{pr2}
r_{12}^{ab} <_X r_{13}^{ac} <_X r_{23}^{bc}\quad \text{or}\quad r_{23}^{bc} <_X r_{13}^{ac} <_X r_{12}^{ab}, \quad 1 \leq a < b < c \leq n.$$ Finally, consider the property $$\label{pr3}
r_{ij}^{ab} <_X r_{ij}^{cd} \Leftrightarrow r_{ij}^{ab} <_L r_{ij}^{cd}, \text{whenever}\ a = c\ \text{or}\ b=d.$$ Obviously $L$ satisfies , and it is easy to see that $R$ does as well. Let $K \subset H$ be the set of elements of $H$ satisfying , , . Define a function $f: K \rightarrow \Z^+$ by $f(X) = |\{(a,b,c) \in \Z^3| 1 \leq a < b <
c \leq n, r_{12}^{ab} <_X r_{13}^{ac} <_X r_{23}^{bc}\}|.$ We claim that $|K/Y| = 1$, that is, the image of $K$ is just one element in the natural map $F \rightarrow F/Y=G$. To show this, first note that if $X \in K$ satisfies $f(X) = 0$, then for all pairs of generators $r_1,
r_2 \in T$ that do not appear in , $r_1 <_X r_2 \Leftrightarrow
r_1 <_L r_2$. This follows from , , and $f(X)=0$. Thus, $f(X)=0 \Rightarrow X \equiv L \pmod Y$. Now, we show that given $f(X) = m$, $\exists Z \in H$ such that $X \equiv Z
\pmod Y$ and $f(Z) = m-1$, whenever $m \in \Z^+$. Indeed, take a triple $(a,b,c)$ so that $r_{23}^{bc} <_X r_{13}^{ac} <_X
r_{12}^{ab}$, and so that for any other triple $(a',b',c')$ satisfying this property, $b'-a' \geq b-a$, and if $a = a', b = b'$, then $c' <
c$. Clearly there exists such a triple.
Now, consider terms $r \in T$ with $r_{23}^{bc} <_X r <_X r_{13}^{ac}$. We will consider all cases when $r$ does not commute with $r_{23}^{bc}$ or $r_{13}^{ac}$ under . There are two possibilities: (i) $r=r_{23}^{dc}$. Now, implies $d < b$, and implies $a < d$. But this contradicts our choice of $a,b,c$. (ii) $r =
r_{13}^{dc}$. Here implies $d>a$, and implies $d<b$. This contradicts our choice of $a,b,c$. Hence, $X \equiv X'
\pmod Y$ where $r_{23}^{bc}$ appears next to $r_{13}^{ac}$, and $f(X')=m$.
Now, consider terms $r \in T$ with $r_{13}^{ac} <_{X'} r <_{X'} r_{12}^{ab}$ that don’t commute with $r_{12}^{ab}$. Contradictions will be made with our choice of $a,b,c$. There are four possibilities. (i) $r=r_{12}^{ad}$: implies $d < b$, contradiction. (ii) $r=r_{12}^{db}$: implies $a < d$, contradiction. (iii) $r=r_{13}^{ad}$: implies $c < d$, contradiction. (iv) $r=r_{23}^{bd}$: implies $c < d$, contradiction. Hence, $X' \equiv X'' \pmod Y$ where the terms $r_{23}^{bc},r_{13}^{ac},r_{12}^{ab}$ appear consecutively, and $X'' \equiv Z \pmod Y$ where Z differs from $X''$ by swapping $r_{23}^{bc},r_{12}^{ab}$. Since $f(Z)=m-1$, the proof is finished. $\quad\square$
The element ${\cal J}_{21}^{-1} {\cal R} {\cal J}$ satisfies the QYBE, where $\cal R$ is the universal $R$-matrix for $U_h(\mathfrak{sl}(n))$. Hence, $(\phi \o \phi)({\cal J})^{-1} R_s (\phi \o \phi)({\cal J})_{21}$ satisfies the QYBE.
[*Proof.*]{} This is clear since $q^{-\frac{1}{n}} (R_s)_{21} =
(\phi \o \phi)({\cal R})$ (which is an easy consequence of the formula in [@KhT]).
For a suitable $r^0$ and some $x \in S^2 \h$, $J q^{-r^0} = q^x (\phi \o \phi)({\cal J})$.
[*Proof.*]{} First, we explicitly evaluate $(\phi \o \phi) (\R^{kl})$ using the formulas in [@KhT]. Indeed, we may write $$(\phi \o \phi)(\R^{kl}) = \sum_{\alpha \in \tilde
\Gamma_k \cap \tau^{-l} \tilde \Gamma} (-q^{-1})^{[\alpha
\prec^{\leftarrow} \beta](|\alpha| - 1)} e_{\tau^l \alpha} \o
e_{-\alpha} q^{Z^{kl}},$$ where $Z^{kl} = (g_{\tau^l} \o 1) \Omega_{\h_{kl}}$ where $\Omega_{\h_{kl}}$ is the Casimir element for the space $\h_{kl}$ with the usual bilinear form. The coefficients $(-q^{-1})^{[\alpha
\prec^{\leftarrow} \beta](|\alpha| - 1)}$ follow easily from the fact that $E_{\alpha+\beta} = E_{\alpha} E_{\beta} - q^{(\alpha,\beta)}
E_{\beta} E_{\alpha}$ (as defined in [@KhT]) upon evaluation in $Mat_n(\C) \o Mat_n(\C)$, since different terms vanish in the reversing and non-reversing cases. Note that $(\phi \o \phi) (\R^{kl})_{\alpha,
\tau^l \alpha} = J_{\alpha, \tau^\alpha}$ for $\alpha \in \tilde
\Gamma_k \cap \tau^{-l} \tilde \Gamma$. It remains to reconcile the extra terms, $q^{-r^0}$ and the $q^{Z^{kl}}$.
As in the previous subsection, one sees that $\Omega_{\h} =
\Omega_{\h_{kl}^\perp} + \Omega_{\h_{kl}}$ where $\h_{kl}^{\perp}$ is the orthogonal complement to $\h_{kl}$ in $\h$. Since $\Omega_{\h} =
\sum_i e_{ii} \o e_{ii}$, we have $[\Omega_{\h}, (\phi \o \phi)
(\R')^{kl}] = 0$, and it follows that $[q^{Z^{kl}}, (\phi \o
\phi)(\R^{kl})] = 0.$ By orthogonality, $[q^{Z^{kl}},(\phi \o
\phi)(\R^{k'l'})] = 0$ for $(k',l') \neq (k,l)$. Now, set $Y =
\sum_{k,l} Z^{kl}$. Then, ${\cal J} = J q^Y$. Now, it is clear that $(\alpha \o \beta, Y) = (\alpha, \tau^l \beta)$ for $\alpha \in
\Gamma_1^{j} \cup \tau \Gamma_1^{j-1}, \beta \in \Gamma_1^{j+l} \cup
\tau \Gamma_1^{j+l-1}$ where we again take $\Gamma_1^0 =
\Gamma_1^{m+1} = \emptyset$. Then, we may take $r^0 =
\frac{1}{2}(Y_{21} - Y)$, so that $r^0 + Y \in S^2 \h$. Furthermore, as we have seen, $[q^{Y}, {\cal J}]=0$, and it is clear that $[q^{Y_{21}}, {\cal J}] = 0$ by orthogonality. The proof is finished.
$R_J$ satisfies the QYBE. Theorem \[tdg\] is proved.
[*Proof.*]{} Clear.
Proof of Giaquinto’s formula for $R_{\text{GGS}}$ in the generalized Cremmer-Gervais case
=========================================================================================
In this section we explicitly compute $R_{\text{GGS}}$ for generalized Cremmer-Gervais triples, the only triples satisfying $|\Gamma_1| + 1 =
|\Gamma|$ (omitting only one root). These are precisely the cases where $r^0$ is unique if its first component has trace zero ($r^0 \in
\wedge^2 \h'$ where $\h' \subset \h$ is the subspace of diagonal matrices of trace zero.) First we summarize the results given in Example \[gcge\] as proved in [@GG]. Let $\Res$ give the residue mod $n$ in $\{1,\ldots,n\}$. Take the triple indexed by $(n,m)$, where $\tau \alpha_i = \alpha_{\Res(i+m)}$. The unique $r^0$ whose first component has trace zero is given by $(r^0)_{ii}^{ii} = 0,
(r^0)^{ij}_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} - \Res\bigl(\frac{j-i}{m}).$ Then, the only difficulty is in computing $q^{r^0} \tilde a q^{r^0}$, so here we use to prove $q^{r^0} \tilde a q^{r^0} = \sum_{\alpha \prec
\beta} e_{-\alpha} \wedge_{\frac{-2O(\alpha,\beta)}{n}} e_\beta$.
Clearly we have $$q^{r^0} \tilde a q^{r^0} = \sum_{\alpha \prec \beta}
e_{-\alpha} \wedge_{\epsilon_{\alpha,\beta} + r(\alpha,\beta)}
e_{\beta},$$ where $r(e_j - e_i, e_k - e_{i+k-j}) =
(r^0)_{j,i+k-j}^{j,i+k-j} + (r^0)_{i,k}^{i,k}, j < i$, since $\text{sign}(\alpha,\beta) = 1$ for all $\alpha \prec \beta$. Thus, it suffices to show $\text{sign}(\alpha,\beta)
\epsilon_{\alpha,\beta} + r(\alpha,\beta) =
-\frac{2O(\alpha,\beta)}{n}$ where, as before, $O(\alpha,\beta) = m$ when $\tau^m \alpha = \beta$.
One sees that $$\begin{gathered}
(r^0)_{j,i+k-j}^{j,i+k-j} + (r^0)_{i,k}^{i,k} = 1 - \frac{1}{2}[2j =
i+k] - \frac{1}{2}[i = k] -
\frac{1}{n}\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{i+k-2j}{m}\bigr) -
\frac{1}{n}\text{Res} \bigl(\frac{k-i}{m}\bigr) \\ = 1 -
\frac{1}{2}[2j = i+k] - \frac{1}{2}[i = k] - \frac{2}{n}
\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) + M_{i,j,k},\end{gathered}$$ where $$M_{i,j,k} = [2j \neq i+k][\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) >
\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{i+k-2j}{m})] -
[i \neq k][\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) <
\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-i}{m}\bigr)].$$ Thus, since $\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) = O(\alpha,\beta)$, it suffices to show $1 + M_{i,j,k} + \epsilon_{\alpha,\beta} = 0$. In the case $\alpha \lessdot \beta$ or $\beta \lessdot \alpha$, it is easy to see that $\epsilon_{\alpha,\beta} = M_{i,j,k} = -\frac{1}{2}$. Otherwise, we may write $$1+M_{i,j,k} = [\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) >
\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{i+k-2j}{m})] +
[\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) >
\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-i}{m}\bigr)],$$ and it is easy to see that $[\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) >
\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{i+k-2j}{m})] = [\exists \gamma, \alpha \prec
\gamma \prec \beta, \alpha \gtrdot \gamma]$ while\
$[\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-j}{m}\bigr) >
\text{Res}\bigl(\frac{k-i}{m}\bigr)] = [\exists \gamma, \alpha \prec
\gamma \prec \beta, \alpha \lessdot \gamma]$. This finishes the proof.
[VancVanRL]{}
Belavin, A.A. and Drinfeld, V.G. Triangle equations and simple Lie algebras. Soviet Sci. Rev. Sect. C: [*Math. Phys. Rev.,*]{} [**4**]{} (1984), 93–165.
Etingof, P. and Kazhdan, D. Quantization of Lie bialgebras I. [*Selecta Math.*]{} [**2**]{} (1996), no. 1, 1–41.
Etingof, P. and Retakh, E. Quantum determinants and quasideterminants. Preprint, math.QA/9808065 (1998), to appear in [*Asian J. Math*]{}.
Gerstenhaber, M. and Giaquinto, A. Boundary solutions of the classical Yang-Baxter equation. [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**40**]{} (1997), no. 4, 337–353.
Gerstenhaber, M., Giaquinto, A., and Schack, S.D. Construction of quantum groups from Belavin-Drinfeld infinitesimals. Joseph, A. and Shnider, S., ed. [*Quantum Deformations of Algebras and their Representations,*]{} Israel Math. Conf. Proc., 7 (1993), 45–64. Giaquinto, A. and Hodges, T.J. Nonstandard solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation. [*Letters in Math. Phys.*]{} [**44**]{} (1998), 67–75.
Hodges, T.J. Nonstandard quantum groups associated to certain Belavin-Drinfeld triples. [*Contemp. Math.*]{} [**214**]{} (1998), 63–70.
Hodges, T.J.: The Cremmer-Gervais solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation, Preprint, q-alg/9712036 (1997).
Khoroshkin, S. and Tolstoy, V. Universal $R$-matrix for quantized (Super)algebras. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{}, [**141**]{} (1991), no.3, p. 599–617.
Schedler, T. Verification of the GGS conjecture for $\mathfrak{sl}(n)$, $n \leq 12$. Preprint, math.QA/9901079.
Schedler, T. On the GGS conjecture. Preprint, math.QA/9903079.
Etingof, P., and Schedler, T. On the GGS conjecture, Appendix A.1. Preprint, math.QA/9903079.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- |
A. Albert, J. Butler, Z. Demiragli, K. Finelli, D. Gastler, , J. Rohlf, S. Yuan\
Boston University\
E-mail:
- |
T. Costa de Paiva, V. Martinez Outschoorn, S. Willocq\
University of Massachusetts Amherst
- |
C. Strohman, P. Wittich\
Cornell University
- |
R. Glein, K. Ulmer\
University of Colorado
title: The Apollo ATCA Platform
---
Introduction
============
The development of high-performance Advanced Telecommunications Computing Architecture (ATCA) blades for high-energy physics applications has proven to be quite challenging [@bib:esm; @bib:Serenity]. Many problems must be solved, including: delivery of adequate cooling for 400 W of power; high-performance communications interfaces for control, monitoring and data acquisition; optical fiber management; and industry-standard debug and programming interfaces for routine monitoring and recovery of “bricked” modules. The Apollo platform provides a relatively simple hardware environment and firmware and software toolkit which may be used to develop ATCA blades without reinventing all the required infrastructure.
We have constructed and tested 10 demonstrator modules which are currently in operation at test stands at collaborator institutes and at CERN. We describe the design in detail, show some test results and plans for further development and deployment in various LHC experiments.
This paper describes a demonstrator of the Apollo board developed in 2018 and 2019 at Boston University and Cornell University.
Overview
========
The ATCA standard defines a front board with dimensions 8U x 280 mm x 6 HP equipped with a face plate, top and bottom handles, indicator LEDs and a set of rear-facing backplane connectors. The Apollo service module (SM) is an ATCA-compliant front board with a large (7U x 180 mm) cutout in which a command module (CM) containing application-specific processing elements (see Fig. \[fig:mech\]). The top surfaces of the SM and CM PCBs are co-planar but the PCBs need not be of identical thickness. A minimum of 2 board-to-board connectors provide electrical and mechanical connectivity between CM and SM, and the boards are securely joined by metal splice plates.
![Apollo block diagram (left) and mechanics (right).[]{data-label="fig:mech"}](figs/block_3d_side_by_side.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
A block diagram is shown in Fig. \[fig:mech\]. The SM contains power, communications and control infrastructure, providing [$\mathrm{I^2C}$ ]{}, UART, JTAG and AXI chip-to-chip links to the CM. The CM can accommodate any hardware required for a particular application but the demonstrator contains two FPGAs as required by a typical LHC trigger/readout board.
IPMC {#sec:ipmc}
====
For the Apollo demonstrator we use the CERN IPMC[@bib:cern-ipmc], which is based on a hardware and software core provided by Pigeon Point. The essential functions of the IPMC are: (1) to read a set of critical parameters (temperature, current, voltage) from on-board sensors and deliver them to the ATCA shelf manager and (2) to mange power-up and power-down of the blade.
We have customized the IPMC extensively to perform several functions not foreseen by the ATCA standard: Xilinx Virtual Cable server for JTAG access; command interpreter accessible via TCP for GPIO and [$\mathrm{I^2C}$ ]{}debugging; serial-over-LAN access to console ports of System on Chip (SoC) and CM microcontroller; and a more sophisticated power-up and power-down sequence.
SoC and Ethernet
================
A Xilinx Zynq SoC provides for overall control, monitoring, run control, and local DAQ functions for the blade. The demonstrator contains an Enclustra Mercury ZX1 module with a XC7Z035/45, providing a dual-core ARM Cortex-A9 CPU, 1 GB DDR3 SDRAM and two Ethernet ports. A total of four high-speed links (up to 10 Gbps) are routed to the SM for AXI chip-to-chip use. In the production hardware, the SoC will be upgraded to one supporting at least 64-bit CPUs and 4 GB of RAM.
Ethernet access is provided to the IPMC and SoC. An unmanaged Ethernet switch (ESM[@bib:esm]) has a total of 6 ports, of which 5 are used as follows: 2 for ATCA base Ethernet from the backplane; one for a front-panel RJ-45 jack; one for SoC access, and one for the IPMC. An additional RJ-45 jack provides access to a dedicated gigabit Ethernet port on the SoC.
Clocks {#sec:clocks}
======
An overview of Apollo demonstrator clock distribution is shown in Fig. \[fig:clocks\]. The SM can receive LHC machine clocks over the backplane or synthesize them from crystal oscillators on-board. The LHC clock is used for optical links from the detector, driven by the CERN LpGBT ASIC[@bib:lpgbt], while fixed-frequency clocks are used for Ethernet, AXI and 25 Gbps class optical links.
![Apollo demonstrator clocking[]{data-label="fig:clocks"}](figs/all_clocks.pdf){width="\textwidth"}
On the CM, clocks provided by the SM are distributed to a set of FPGA reference clock inputs, while an additional set of inputs is driven by local oscillators for bench testing.
Application-Specific Processing
===============================
The Apollo command-module is intended to be customized for each application, but they share many common features such as large FPGAs with ample logic resources and many high-speed fiber optic links. Three specific applications and their anticipated hardware needs are briefly presented.
The [**CMS Pixel DAQ and Timing Card**]{} (DTC) receives data from up to 512 front-end ASICs which deliver data in a complex, compressed data format. The total data rate for one DTC can approach 300 Gbps. Triggers are received from the CMS central trigger and must be converted to tokens and transmitted to the front-end. The received compressed data stream must be parsed in real time to build events. A separate trigger stream is processed for CMS luminousity monitoring system. The DTC is currently foreseen to require two XCVU7P or similar Virtex Ultrascale+ class FPGAs, 72 optical links at 10 Gbps and 16 optical links at 25 Gbps. A total of 28 pixel DTCs are required for CMS.
The [**CMS track finder**]{} uses pattern-matching to identify coincidences between “tracklets” transmitted from the readout modules and then uses a Kalman filter to establish precise track parameters. This application requires a smaller number of links than the DTC but substantial FPGA resources. The track finder is expected to require one large or two smaller Virtex Ultrascale+ FPGAs and 60 optical links at 25 Gbps. A total of between 126 and 180 track finder blades are required for CMS.
The [**ATLAS Monitored Drift-Tube Trigger Processor**]{} (MDTTP) performs a function similar to the combined functions of the DTC and track finder for CMS, but for the muon drift-tubes in ATLAS. Drift-tube hit data are received on about 60 fiber optic links, and a sophisticated two-dimensional fit is used to identify track segments. The segments are then joined to form tracks, and the Zynq processor is used to calculate transverse momentum for the identified tracks. In addition, drift-tube hits are buffered and stored until a trigger is received after which they are built into an event and sent to the DAQ. The MDTTP is expected to require one large Kintex Ultrascale+ FPGA and one Zynq Ultrascale+ SoC, along with 72 optical links at 10 Gbps and 12 optical links at 25 Gbps. A total of 64 MDTTP blades are required for ATLAS.
Prototypes and Test Results
===========================
A series of 10 demonstrator boards (Fig. \[fig:demo\]) have been constructed. Each consists of a service module and a command module, and can recieve two FPGAs, an XCKU15P in an A1760 package, and an XCVU7P in a B2104 package. A total of 88 FireFly channels rated for 28 Gbps and 36 FireFly channels rated for 14 Gbps are provided along with the flexible clocking and power architecture described earlier.
Apollo blades have been deployed in several shelves at CERN and collaborator institutes. Remote access including firmware reprogramming and remote reset/power cycle have been proven. Optical links have been tested extensively at 10 Gbps and 25 Gbps and shown to be error-free.
The detailed design of customized command modules for specific applications is underway.
![Demonstrator blade (left) – 25 Gbps eye pattern (right)[]{data-label="fig:demo"}](figs/photo_eye.png){width="\textwidth"}
A CM developed at Cornell University has been mated with a SM developed at Boston University, as shown in Fig. \[fig:demo\]. One KU15P and one VU7P Ultrascale+ FPGAs are installed. Two large heat sinks cool the FPGAs while two smaller heat sinks cool the FireFly optical transceivers. Optical fiber bundles are pressed into grooves machined in the heat sinks.
Figure \[fig:demo\] (right) shows an eye pattern for a fiber optic link test with loop-back fiber between two different quads on the XCVU9P FPGA. The horizontal axis is in fraction of one bit period (40 ps) and the vertical axis is arbitrary amplitude units. This represents a good result as logic “0” and logic “1” levels are well resolved in the middle of the bit period. Many combinations of links have been operated for hours with no bit errors seen.
Summary
=======
We have developed a novel Apollo ATCA blade, designed for a wide range of applications. It is foreseen to be used in the CMS Pixel readout, the CMS track trigger, and the ATLAS drift-tube trigger processor.
[99]{}
W. Smith, *Next Generation ATCA Control Infrastructure for the CMS Phase-2 Upgrades*,\
in TWEPP 2017,
A. Rose, *Serenity - An ATCA prototyping platform for CMS Phase-2*,\
in TWEPP 2018,
J. Mendez, *CERN-IPMC Solution for AdvancedTCA Blades*,\
in TWEPP 2018,
P. Moreira, *The lpGBT: a radiation tolerant ASIC for Data, Timing, Trigger and Control Applications in HL-LHC*, in TWEPP 2019,
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'K. Weis [^1]'
- 'W.J. Duschl'
- 'D.J.Bomans'
date: 'Received / Accepted'
title: An outflow from the nebula around the LBV candidate S119
---
Introduction
============
Stars with masses in the range of $50 - 100\,{\rm M}_\odot$ and luminosities of $10^5 - 10^6\,{\rm L}_\odot$ populate the upper left end of the [*Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram*]{} (HRD). In their short lives of $\la 10^7\,$yrs they evolve from hot O stars on the main sequence towards cooler temperatures, first at almost constant luminosities. They soon enter a phase of very strong mass loss of up to $10^{-4}\,{\rm M}_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. This influences their further evolution dramatically: They do not evolve further towards lower temperatures, i.e., towards the red supergiant state, but rather turn in the HRD and become hotter again, albeit later less luminous (e.g., Schaller et al. 1992; Langer et al. 1994).
The region in the HRD where this turn occurs is known to be the domain of the [*Luminous Blue Variables*]{} (LBVs). There exists an empirical limit that separates a region in the HRD into which the most massive stars do not evolve, the so-called [*Humphreys-Davidson Limit*]{} (Humphreys & Davidson 1979, 1994). Here the stars not only exhibit large continuous mass loss, but at least some of them undergo [*giant eruptions*]{}. Both, the continuous wind and the eruptions lead to a peeling off of the outer parts of the stellar envelope and to the formation of circumstellar [*LBV nebulae*]{} (LBVN; e.g., Nota et al. 1995). Humphreys & Davidson (1994) classify 32 stars as LBVs and an additional 9 as candidates. 9 of the LBVs and candidate stars are located in the Milky Way and 10 in the [*Large Magellanic Cloud*]{} (LMC).
S119 ($= {\rm Sk}$–69$175 = {\rm HDE}\,269687$) is one of the LBVs in the LMC. It was classified as Ofpe/WN9 star by Bohannan & Walborn (1989). Since the early eighties, there was already the suspicion of a close relation between Ofpe/WN9 stars and LBVs when R127, located again in the LMC and previously classified as Ofpe/WN9 underwent an LBV outburst (Stahl et al. 1983). The evidence for a connection between the two stellar classes has become even stronger since then, as longtime spectroscopic monitoring of LBVs and Ofpe/WN9 stars became available (see, e.g., Stahl & Wolf 1986; Wolf et al. 1988; Bohannan & Walborn 1989; Nota et al. 1996; Pasquali et al. 1996).
After discovering a nebula around S119, Nota et al. (1994) classified the star as an LBV candidate. Their ESO [*New Technology Telescope*]{} (NTT) image shows a nebula of 7$\times$9 size (corresponding to 1.9pc$\times$2.1pc for an assumed distance of the LMC of 51.2kpc), with a brighter lobe. Their NTT/EMMI spectra indicate an expansion velocity of the S119 nebula of $\sim 25$, and a ratio of H$_\alpha$/N $\sim 1$, leading to [\[N[ii]{}\]$\lambda$6583Å/H$_{\alpha}$]{}$\sim 0.75$. They derive a radial velocity of the star and of the center of expansion in the range of $100 - 140$. This casts doubt on S119 being a member of the LMC the radial velocity of which as derived from H[i]{} observations (Rohlfs et al. 1984) is typically in the range of $240 - 300$.
From the line ratio of \[S[ii]{}\]6716/6731Å Nota et al. (1994) derived an electron density of $n_{\rm e} = 800$cm$^{-3}$ and—assuming an electron temperature of $T_{\rm
e}=7\,500$K—estimated a nebula mass of $\sim 1.7$M$_\odot$. Similar results for the nebula were reported by Smith et al.(1998). They describe the nebula as elliptical of size 77$\times$86, with $T_{\rm e} < 6\,800$K as estimated from the non-detection of the \[N[ii]{}\]5755Å line, and $n_{\rm e} = 680$cm$^{-3}$. Little reddening and a radial velocity of $v_{\rm rad} = 118$ supports S119 not being a member of the main body of the LMC. The main stellar parameters of S119 have been determined by Crowther & Smith (1997) using two different models to account for the contamination of the nebula in the stellar spectrum: $T_{\rm eff} = 26\,200\ /\
27\,000\,{\rm K}$, $L = 5.8\,10^5\ /\ 6.3\,10^5\,{\rm L}_\odot$, and $\dot M = 1.34\,10^{-5}\ /\ 1.20\,10^{-5}\,{\rm
M}_\odot\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$. In this contribution, we present results of an analysis of the kinematics of the nebula around S119 and put it for the first time into perspective with the nebula’s high-resolution morphology as obtained from [*Hubble Space Telescope*]{} (HST) images. Moreover, we use the non-detection of S119 and its nebula with the [*High Resolution Imager*]{} (HRI) on board the [*Röntgensatellit*]{} (ROSAT) for determining and discussing upper limits of the X-ray emission.
Observation and data reduction
==============================
Imaging
-------
For the morphological analysis we retrieved from the STScI data archive all images of S119 taken with the HST [*Planetary Camera*]{} (PC) of the [*Wide Field Planetary Camera 2*]{} using the F656N (H$_\alpha$) filter[^2]. The exposure times were 500s for four images, and 5 and 30s for two each. The data were reduced with the standard STSDAS/IRAF routines. In total the four 500s exposures were combined and cosmic-ray cleaned. They were not mosaiced since the nebula is fully covered by the PC field of view. The pixel size in the Planetary Camera is 0.0455 per pixel, the effective resolution about 01. The images were not rotated or binned to make sure to maintain the full resolution. The celestial directions therefore are indicated in the images. The HST system position angle is 148.5. Fig. \[fig:s119hst\] shows a section of $\sim 15\arcsec\,\times\,15\arcsec$ from the reduced PC image which we used for the analysis. The almost full field of view of the PC image is shown in Fig. \[fig:hstslits\].
Long-slit echelle spectroscopy\[sect:echelle\]
----------------------------------------------
For the kinematic analysis of the S119 nebula we obtained high-resolution long-slit echelle spectra with the 4m-telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory. For the order selection we replaced the cross-disperser by a flat mirror and inserted a post-slit H$_\alpha$ filter (6563/75Å). This setup left us with a long-slit vignetted to a length of $\sim4^\prime$ and a spectral range that contained the H$_{\alpha}$ line and two \[N[ii]{}\] lines at 6548Å and 6583Å. We chose the 79lmm$^{-1}$ echelle grating and a slit-width of 150$\mu$m (corresponding to 1), which lead to an instrumental FWHM at the H$_\alpha$ line of 8kms$^{-1}$. The data were recorded with the long focus red camera and a $2048\,\times\,2048$ pixel CCD with a pixel size of 0.08Åpixel$^{-1}$ along the dispersion and 0$\farcs$26pixel$^{-1}$ on the spatial axis. Seeing was $\sim 1\farcs2$. Thorium-Argon comparison lamp frames were taken for wavelength calibration and geometric distortion correction. Telluric lines visible in the spectra were used to improve the absolute wavelength calibration of which we estimate an accuracy of better than 0.08Å.
We observed at two different position angles (PA) which were nearly perpendicular to each other. Four slit positions mapped the nebula with a ${\rm PA} = 125\degr$, one centered on the star [*(Slit Center)*]{}, one offset 25 to the north [*(Slit 2.5N)*]{} as well as one each at 25 and 5 to the south [*(Slits 2.5S*]{} and [*5S)*]{}. One additional observation was made with the slit oriented to ${\rm PA} = 213\degr$ and centered on S119 [*(Slit PA=213)*]{}. Fig. \[fig:hstslits\] shows the slit positions. Fig. \[fig:echelle1\] and \[fig:echelle2\] summarize our spectroscopic observations. The left column of Fig. \[fig:echelle1\] and \[fig:echelle2\] show the echellograms of each slit position we observed, the right column the corresponding position velocity diagrams ($pv$-diagrams). The echellograms are 54Å long and extend 1 in spatial direction, centered on the projected position of the star. The top of the echellograms points towards north-west for ${\rm PA} = 125\degr$ and towards south-west for ${\rm PA} = 213\degr$. In each echellogram an insert (of $20\arcsec\,\times\,5$Å) shows the expansion ellipse of the stronger \[N[ii]{}\] line (6583Å) at a different cut level. The slits are identified according to the nomenclature as introduced above. In the $pv$-diagrams the positions are given as offsets from the projected location of the star. Offsets to the north-west (or, in the case of Slit PA=213, south-west) are counted positive. The velocity measurements for the $pv$-diagrams followed from the H$_{\alpha}$ and the stronger \[N[ii]{}\] line at 6583Å. We estimate an error of the line fits to determine the radial velocities between $\pm$ 0.5-1, this is well below the printed symbol size in the $pv$-diagramms. All velocities are with respect to the heliocentric system, unless mentioned otherwise.
ROSAT HRI data \[sect:xray\]
----------------------------
In addition to the optical morphology and the kinematic analysis we looked up ROSAT HRI observations of the S119 region. The ROSAT satellite was sensitive to X-ray emission between 0.1 and 2.4keV and its HRI achieves a spatial resolution of $\sim
5\arcsec$. A 21ks ROSAT pointing[^3] was retrieved from the [*Max-Planck-Institut für Extraterrestrische Physik*]{} (MPE) ROSAT data center. After reduction and analysis of the X-ray image with IRAF/PROS[^4], we found no traces of S119 in the data.
Morphology from the HST image\[sect:imaging\]
=============================================
Previous images of the nebula around S119 taken with the NTT show an axisymmetric shell, with a conspicuously brighter lobe at the north east (Nota et al. 1994). The HST F656N images resolve the nebula around S119 and show that it is approximately spherically symmetric, with an average diameter of 75. Assuming that S119 is at the same distance as the LMC ($\sim
50$kpc), this corresponds to a size of 1.8pc. With the help of the HST especially the small scale structures in and around the nebula of S119 are clearly detected, which were not seen in previous ground-based images. A large amount of these filamemtary structures can be seen in addition to the spherical main body of nebula. The most prominent ones are four filaments extending out of the nebula, two next to each other to the north-west (marked [*NW-1*]{} and [*NW-2*]{} in Fig.\[fig:s119hst\]), one to the south ([*S-1*]{}), and one to the south-east ([*SE-1*]{}). These filaments extend beyond the nebula’s main body by 096, 181, 096, and 068, respectively. On the west side, between filaments NW-2 and S-1, at the rim of the main body, numerous filaments of comparatively low surface brightness extend beyond it. Here, no clear border of the spherical main body is visible. In his region, some of the filaments appear to be even detached from the main body of the nebula.
In the east, the surface brightness of the nebula is highest, with an H$_{\alpha}$ surface brightness of 810$^{-14}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}\,\sq^-\arcsec$. This brighter area marks the region seen in seeing-limited NTT images. In the inner part of the nebula the surface brightness is quite low ($\sim 4\,10^{-14}$ergcm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}\,\sq^-\arcsec$ on average, with some of the filaments being weaker by almost another order of magnitude). There it is far from a homogeneous structure. On the other hand, there are also knots and filaments distributed all over the nebula which are as bright as the eastern part of the nebula. This combination of unevenly high and low surface brightness features give rise to the nebula’s patchy appearance.
The kinematic structure of the nebula
=====================================
Our high-resolution echelle spectra allow us to analyze the kinematic structure of the S119 nebula in great detail. At a FWHM resolution of 8 our observation fully resolve the global structure of the Doppler ellipse of the expansion of the S119 nebula.
The overall expansion
---------------------
We find a radial velocity of the center of expansion at $156 \pm
2$. This is in agreement with earlier findings that the radial velocity of the S119 system is well below that of the main part of the LMC. The echellograms show background H$_{\alpha}$ emission along the entire slit at all positions, which presumably results from an H[ii]{} region within the LMC. The radial velocity of this H[ii]{} region of $\sim
264$ is consistent with it being located in the LMC. With respect to this H[ii]{} region, the S119 nebula moves with about 100 more along the line of sight.
All spectra passing over the central part of the spherical main body of the nebula show an expansion ellipse as expected for a spherical expansion. We derive a maximum expansion velocity of $25.5 \pm 2$ at the central position in both slits that cross the central star (see $pv$-diagrams for Slit Center and for Slit PA=213 at the position 0 in Figs. \[fig:echelle1\], \[fig:echelle2\]). As we move away from the geometric center of the nebula, the slits (Slit 2.5N and Slit 2.5S) prove the decrease of the expansion, that reduces to 15.5 and 21.4respectively.
We measured sizes of the Doppler ellipses in our echelle data and get diameters of 60 (Slit 2.5N), 91 (Slit Center), and 68 (Slit 2.5S), respectively. These sizes were determined from the spectra and not from the binned $pv$-diagrams. Given the considerably different spatial resolutions these values agree with those derived from the HST images (57, 86, and 62, respectively).
For a spherical shell of radius $R$ a spherically symmetric expansion with velocity $v_{\rm exp}$ would lead to an observed radial velocity relative to the systemic velocity
$$v_{\rm rad,rel}^{\rm spher} (x,y) = v_{\rm exp} \left( \frac{R^2 -
x^2 - y^2}{R^2} \right)^{1/2}$$
at a location $\left\{x,y\right\}$ in a Cartesian coordinate system centered on the star. In the present case, we would assume $R = 4\farcs5$ and $V_{\rm exp} = 25.5\,$from our data. If we orient the coordinate system such that the $y$-axis is along the slit direction with $y = 0$ being the star’s projected position onto the slit and $x$ being the offset of the slit with respect to the star, we get for the maximum radial velocities $v_{\rm rad,
rel, max} = v_{\rm rad, rel}^{\rm spher} (x=0,y) = 25.5\,{\hbox{km\,s$^{-1}$}}\sqrt{1 - \left( y / 4\farcs5 \right)^2 }$. In Fig.\[fig:comp\] we give a comparison between the absolute value of the radial velocities (corrected for the systemic velocity) at the star’s position projected onto the slit, and the model values. If it were a purely spherical expansion, the measured values should fall onto the dashed model curve). We find a clear deviation from a purely spherical expansion, for instance in the north-south asymmetry in Slits 2.5N and 2.5S.
Both the red-shifted and the blue-shifted components of the expansion ellipse have a FWHM of $0.3 - 0.5$Å ($13 -
23$), compared to an instrumental FWHM of 8kms$^{-1}$. The echellograms in Fig. \[fig:echelle1\] and \[fig:echelle2\], in particularly the small inserts of the expansion ellipse reveal a clumpy sub-structure. Most prominent in Slit Center, the blue-shifted wing of the ellipse shows brightness variations (at a roughly constant FWHM). These variations are most likely due to the brighter knots identified in the HST image, which were intercepted by the slits. However, due to the large difference in resolution between our spectra and the HST image, no clear identification of the individual knots is possible.
The outflow
-----------
In addition to the spherical expansion we find in all spectra clear indications for a much higher velocity expansion structure (for an example, see Fig. \[fig:outflow\]). It extends spatially from $\sim +4\arcsec$ to $\sim +7\arcsec$ and in velocity space from the end of the expansion ellipse to more than $280\,$ redshifted. Only in Slit 2.5N this emission feature appears to be detached from the expansion ellipse, and merges with the background H$_{\alpha}$ emission. To ensure that this high velocity component is part of the S119 nebula and not a structure in the background emission, we determined its \[N[ii]{}\]$\lambda$6583Å/H$_\alpha$ ratio. If the feature contains CNO processed material we expect a significantly larger value for an LBV nebula than for an uncontaminated H[ii]{} region. Nebulae around LBVs do have a higher content of nitrogen due to CNO processed material that is mixed into outer regions of the star, which will be ejected and forms the nebula. The higher nitrogen abundance of the nebula can be traced by the [\[N[ii]{}\]$\lambda$6583Å/H$_{\alpha}$]{} ratio. Typical examples of this ratio for LBVNs are $0.4 - 0.9$ for HR Car (Hutsemékers & van Drom 1991; Weis et al. 1997), $0.7$ for AG Car (Thackeray 1977; Smith et al. 1997), or even as high as $ 3 -
7$ in $\eta$ Car (Davidson et al. 1982; Meaburn et al. 1987; 1996; Weis et al. 1999). For the spherical nebula around S119 we derive a ratio of $0.6 \pm 0.1$, for the high velocity component we still find $0.5 \pm 0.1$ (Fig.\[fig:ratio\]). Both ratios are well within the range found in LBVNs, and are significantly larger than the ratio of the H[ii]{} region in the background of which we observe \[N[ii]{}\]$\lambda$6583Å/H$_\alpha = 0.04$. While not far from the limit of our spatial resolution, the combination of spatial and velocity resolution makes it unlikely that our [\[N[ii]{}\]$\lambda$6583Å/H$_{\alpha}$]{}determination is contaminated. The [\[N[ii]{}\]$\lambda$6583Å/H$_{\alpha}$]{} values derived for the nebula agree well with earlier measurements of Nota et al. (1994).
The largest velocity of the high-velocity feature was detected in the Slit Center position with 283.1, almost 130faster than the center of expansion of the central nebula. The velocity of this component increases approximately linearly with distance from the star’s projected position. The echellograms do not show any traces of this feature within the Doppler ellipse of the spherical nebula. All these properties strongly point towards this feature being a component of the nebula around S119 and not a projection effect.
In Fig. \[fig:s119all\] we combine the plots of all $pv$-diagrams available to us. A dashed line marks the radial velocity background H[ii]{} region. Both, the spherical expansion of the nebula’s main body as well as the high-velocity component are clearly visible. Due to its larger overall offset from the star, in Slit 5S (diamond shape symbols) the outflow seems to set on at a smaller projected offset from the star ($+
2\arcsec$ as compared to $+ 4\arcsec$ for the other slits). This is caused by the effect that the slit intercepts the outflow region earlier.
In Slit 2.5S (square shape symbols) at a projected position of $-
5\arcsec$ another feature appears which moves slightly faster by $\sim 20\,{\rm km\,s}^{-1}$. This feature most likely can be assigned to a part of the filament SE-1 identified in section \[sect:imaging\].
X-ray emission ?
----------------
A 21ks integration with the ROSAT HRI shows no X-ray emission of the nebula. At a distance of 50kpc and for a Raymond-Smith plasma this corresponds to an upper flux limit of $\sim 1\,10^{33}\,{\rm erg\,s}^{-1}$, almost independent of assumed temperatures between 0.1 and 1keV (see Technical Appendix to the ROSAT Call For Proposals, [*ROSAT Appendix F*]{}). Thus we can only demonstrate that this limit is consistent with the conditions in the S119 nebula:
- For an energy conserving bubble, for instance, we find an expected X-ray flux of $\sim 2\,10^{32}\,{\rm erg\, s}^{-1}$ (Weaver et al. 1977, Chu et al. 1995; with a mechanical wind luminosity of 8.110$^{40}$ergs$^{-1}$, an electron density of 700cm$^{-3}$, an electron temperature of 7000K, and an expansion age of 210$^4$yr).
- Moreover, even for the highest outflow velocities ($\sim
10^2$kms$^{-1}$, may lead to post-shock temperatures at a possible interface with the ambient medium of $T_{\rm ps} \approx
1.3\ 10^5\,{\rm K}$ and thus give rise to UV radiation rather than X rays detectable by ROSAT.
Summary and Conclusions
=======================
We have analyzed the morphological and kinematic structure of the nebula around the LBV candidate S119.
We find that S119 is surrounded by a nebula that represents a spherically expanding shell. On the western rim of this shell, a massive outflow occurs with a much higher velocity than the expanding shell. If one assumes a scenario, in which LBV nebulae are due to wind-wind interactions, the LBVN should be filled with hotter gas, since LBVs—unless in outburst—are hot stars with fast stellar winds. S119 is a hot star, classified as Ofpe/WN9. The lack of detectable X-rays can therefore be explained by either [*(a)*]{} a relatively old outflow in which the originally hot gas had already sufficient time to cool, or [*(b)*]{} an LBV nebula which was not filled with hot gas in the first place, or [*(c)*]{} a velocity of the outflow which is too small to cause shocks with a sufficiently high post-shock temperature, or—of course—a combination of two of these reasons.
HST images are characterized by the spherical overall appearance of this nebula. The edge of the spherical component is much better defined in the northern and eastern directions where we also find the largest surface brightness. It does not exhibit a smooth distribution of surface brightness, but rather is very patchy and shows many filaments and knots, some of which extend—in particular in the western directions—beyond the nebula’s main body and occasionally are detached from the main body. This is the reason for the less well defined edge of the nebula in this direction.
High-resolution long-slit echelle spectra show that the spherical component of the nebula is expanding with about 25 and that the center of expansion is at a radial velocity of 156. This is remarkable as it is considerably lower than that of the LMC to which—due to its projected position on the sky—the star seems to belong. Both numbers are in good agreement with earlier results (e.g., Nota et al. 1994).
In all spectra a high velocity component is present in addition to the spherical expansion. It corresponds to a relative radial motion of up to $\sim 100$ faster than the spherical main body of the nebula. This high velocity material is concentrated on the western side of the nebula. It is worth noting that on this side the nebula also seems to be somewhat frayed even between the filaments NW-2 and S-1 (see Sect. \[sect:imaging\]). As yet this makes S119 the only LBV (candidate) nebula with such an outflow. The radial velocities in the outflow increase linearly with distance from the nebula. This Hubble-type velocity law reminds one of the strings found in and around the [*Homunculus*]{} nebula of $\eta$ Car (Weis et al. 1999). However, due to the rather different morphological structure, projection effects (which were ruled out in the $\eta$ Car strings) may play a role in the radial velocity structure in the S119 outflow. One may, for instance, think of a conical structure with an opening angle that increases outwards. Due to our current lack of understanding of the physical nature of such Hubble type velocity laws, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions on the relation between the two phenomena. The largest radial velocity, relative to the star, amounts to $127\,$ at a projected distance of $6\farcs9$ from the star, corresponding to $\sim
1.7$pc. One may deduce a minimum dynamical age of $\sim
1.3\,10^4\,$yrs. The dynamical age of the shell assuming a radius of 45 and an expansion velocity of 25.5amounts than to $\sim 4.2\,10^4\,$yrs. One has to be aware, however, that it depends strongly on the formation mechanism of the outflow how meaningful a dynamical age is. In addition it was shown that the radial velocity of the system seems to deviate from that of the LMC so that the distance to S119 has to be questioned. This distance on the other hand severely affects the determination of the dynamical age. If S119 were only 30000pc away the dynamical age of the nebula would already go down to $\sim
2.5\,10^4\,$yrs. That would than be comparable to the lifetime of the star as an LBV. The dynamical age and the stars position in the HRD, that is being a hot star makes it quite likely that S119 is already on its way to leave the LBV phase as does He 3-519 (Davidson et al. 1993).
The brightness difference between the west side and the east side (Nota et al. 1994, see also Sect. \[sect:imaging\]) can most likely be accounted for by the outflow. However, one can only speculate whether the outflow is due to a density gradient in the ambient medium or whether it is caused by asymmetric flows in the S119 system. Given the sphericity of the nebula’s main component we are inclined to hold environment effects responsible for the outflow. This is also consistent with the brightest part of the nebula occurring in the same direction in which the HST image shows ionized diffuse gas which may easily indicate a higher density in that direction.
We have made use of the ROSAT Data Archive of the Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik (MPE) at Garching, Germany. Part of the work was carried out on a workstation provided by the [*Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach-Stiftung*]{} to the ITA. This support is gratefully acknowledged.
Bohannan, B.,Walborn, N.R. 1989, PASP, 101, 520
Chu, Y.-H., Chang, H.-W., Su, Y.-L., MacLow, M.M.,1995, ApJ, 450, 157
Crowther, P.A., & Smith, L.J. 1997, A&A, 320, 500
Davidson, K., Walborn, N.R., Gull, T.R. 1982, ApJ, 254, L51
Davidson, K., Humphreys R.M., Hajian A., Terzian Y., 1993, ApJ 411, 336
Humphreys, R.M., & Davidson, K. 1979, ApJ, 232, 409
Humphreys, R.M., & Davidson, K. 1994, PASP, 106, 1025
Hutsemékers, D., & Van Drom, E. 1991, A&A, 248, 141
Langer, N., Hamann, W.-R., Lennon, M., Najarro, F., Pauldrach, A.W.A., Puls, J. 1994, A&A, 290, 819
Meaburn, J., Wolstencroft, R.D., Walsh, J.R. 1987, A&A, 181, 333
Meaburn, J., Boumis, P., Walsh, J.R., et al. 1996, MNRAS, 282, 1313
Nota, A., Drissen, L., Clampin, M., Leitherer, C., Pasquali, A., Robert, C., Paresce, F., Robberto, M. 1994, in: Circumstellar Media in the Late Stages of Stellar Evolution, eds. R.E.S. Clegg, I.R. Stevens, W.P.S. Meikle, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 89
Nota, A., Livio, M., Clampin, M., Schulte-Ladbeck, R. 1995, ApJ, 448, 788
Nota, A., Pasquali, A.,Drissen, L., Leitherer, C., Robert, C., Moffat, A.F.J., Schmutz, W. 1996, ApJS, 102, 383
Pasquali, A., Langer, N., Schmutz, W., Leitherer, C., Nota, A., Hubeny, I., Moffat, A.F.J. 1996, ApJ, 478, 340
Rohlfs, K., Kreitschmann, J., Siegman, B.C., Feitzinger, J.V. 1984, A&A, 137, 343
Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., Maeder, A. 1992, A&AS, 96, 269
Smith, L.J., Stroud, M.P., Esteban, C., V[í]{}lchez, J.M. 1997, MNRAS, 290, 265
Smith, L.J., Nota, A., Pasquali, A., Leitherer, C., Clampin, M., Crowther, P.A. 1998, ApJ, 503, 278
Stahl, O., & Wolf, B. 1986, A&A, 154, 243
Stahl, O., Wolf, B., Klare, G., Cassatella, A., Krautter, J., Persi, P., Ferrari-Toniolo, M. 1983, A&A, 127, 49
Thackeray, A.D., 1977, MNRAS, 180, 95
Weaver, R., McCray, R., Castor, J., Shapiro, P., Moore, R. 1977, ApJ, 218, 377
Weis, K., Duschl, W.J., Bomans, D.J., Chu, Y.-H., Joner, M.D. 1997, A&A 320, 568
Weis, K., Duschl, W.J., Chu, Y.-H., 1999, A&A, 349, 467
Wolf, B., Stahl, O., Smolinski, J., Casatella, A., 1988, A&AS, 74, 239
[^1]: Visiting Astronomer, Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation.
[^2]: program number: 6540; P.I.: Regina Schulte-Ladbeck; dataset names: U4KY0301R...U4KY0308R
[^3]: P.I.: You-Hua Chu, HRI-pointing: rh600635n00
[^4]: PROS is developed, distributed, and maintained by the Smithonian Astrophysical Observatory, under partial support from NASA contracts NAS5-30934 and NAS8-30751.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
author:
- 'V. Kubarovsky'
- 'L. Guo'
- 'D.P. Weygand'
- 'P. Stoler'
- 'M. Battaglieri'
- 'R. DeVita'
- 'G. Adams'
- Ji Li
- 'M. Nozar'
- 'C. Salgado'
- 'P. Ambrozewicz'
- 'E. Anciant'
- 'M. Anghinolfi'
- 'B. Asavapibhop'
- 'G. Audit'
- 'T. Auger'
- 'H. Avakian'
- 'H. Bagdasaryan'
- 'J.P. Ball'
- 'S. Barrow'
- 'K. Beard'
- 'M. Bektasoglu'
- 'M. Bellis'
- 'N. Benmouna'
- 'B.L. Berman'
- 'N. Bianchi'
- 'A.S. Biselli'
- 'S. Boiarinov'
- 'B.E. Bonner'
- 'S. Bouchigny'
- 'R. Bradford'
- 'D. Branford'
- 'W.J. Briscoe'
- 'W.K. Brooks'
- 'V.D. Burkert'
- 'C. Butuceanu'
- 'J.R. Calarco'
- 'G.P. Capitani'
- 'D.S. Carman'
- 'B. Carnahan'
- 'C. Cetina'
- 'S. Chen'
- 'L. Ciciani'
- 'P.L. Cole'
- 'A. Coleman'
- 'J. Connelly'
- 'D. Cords'
- 'P. Corvisiero'
- 'D. Crabb'
- 'H. Crannell'
- 'J.P. Cummings'
- 'E. De Sanctis'
- 'R. DeVita'
- 'P.V. Degtyarenko'
- 'H. Denizli'
- 'L. Dennis'
- 'K.V. Dharmawardane'
- 'K.S. Dhuga'
- 'C. Djalali'
- 'G.E. Dodge'
- 'D. Doughty'
- 'P. Dragovitsch'
- 'M. Dugger'
- 'S. Dytman'
- 'O.P. Dzyubak'
- 'M. Eckhause'
- 'H. Egiyan'
- 'K.S. Egiyan'
- 'L. Elouadrhiri'
- 'A. Empl'
- 'P. Eugenio'
- 'L. Farhi'
- 'R. Fatemi'
- 'R.J. Feuerbach'
- 'J. Ficenec'
- 'T.A. Forest'
- 'V. Frolov'
- 'H. Funsten'
- 'S.J. Gaff'
- 'M. Garçon'
- 'G. Gavalian'
- 'G.P. Gilfoyle'
- 'K.L. Giovanetti'
- 'P. Girard'
- 'R. Gothe'
- 'C.I.O. Gordon'
- 'K. Griffioen'
- 'M. Guidal'
- 'M. Guillo'
- 'V. Gyurjyan'
- 'C. Hadjidakis'
- 'R.S. Hakobyan'
- 'D. Hancock'
- 'J. Hardie'
- 'D. Heddle'
- 'P. Heimberg'
- 'F.W. Hersman'
- 'K. Hicks'
- 'R.S. Hicks'
- 'M. Holtrop'
- 'J. Hu'
- 'C.E. Hyde-Wright'
- 'Y. Ilieva'
- 'M.M. Ito'
- 'D. Jenkins'
- 'K. Joo'
- 'H.G. Juengst'
- 'J.H. Kelley'
- 'M. Khandaker'
- 'D.H. Kim'
- 'K.Y. Kim'
- 'K. Kim'
- 'M.S. Kim'
- 'W. Kim'
- 'A. Klein'
- 'F.J. Klein'
- 'A.V. Klimenko'
- 'M. Klusman'
- 'M. Kossov'
- 'L.H. Kramer'
- 'Y. Kuang'
- 'S.E. Kuhn'
- 'J. Kuhn'
- 'J. Lachniet'
- 'J.M. Laget'
- 'J. Langheinrich'
- 'D. Lawrence'
- 'A. Longhi'
- 'K. Lukashin'
- 'W. Major'
- 'J.J. Manak'
- 'C. Marchand'
- 'L.C. Maximon'
- 'S. McAleer'
- 'J.W.C. McNabb'
- 'B.A. Mecking'
- 'S. Mehrabyan'
- 'J.J. Melone'
- 'M.D. Mestayer'
- 'C.A. Meyer'
- 'K. Mikhailov'
- 'R. Minehart'
- 'M. Mirazita'
- 'R. Miskimen'
- 'V. Mokeev'
- 'L. Morand'
- 'S.A. Morrow'
- 'M.U. Mozer'
- 'V. Muccifora'
- 'J. Mueller'
- 'L.Y. Murphy'
- 'G.S. Mutchler'
- 'J. Napolitano'
- 'R. Nasseripour'
- 'S.O. Nelson'
- 'S. Niccolai'
- 'G. Niculescu'
- 'I. Niculescu'
- 'B.B. Niczyporuk'
- 'R.A. Niyazov'
- 'J.T. O’Brien'
- 'G.V. O’Rielly'
- 'A.K. Opper'
- 'M. Osipenko'
- 'K. Park'
- 'E. Pasyuk'
- 'G. Peterson'
- 'S.A. Philips'
- 'N. Pivnyuk'
- 'D. Pocanic'
- 'O. Pogorelko'
- 'E. Polli'
- 'S. Pozdniakov'
- 'B.M. Preedom'
- 'J.W. Price'
- 'Y. Prok'
- 'D. Protopopescu'
- 'L.M. Qin'
- 'B.A. Raue'
- 'G. Riccardi'
- 'G. Ricco'
- 'M. Ripani'
- 'B.G. Ritchie'
- 'F. Ronchetti'
- 'P. Rossi'
- 'D. Rowntree'
- 'P.D. Rubin'
- 'F. Sabatié'
- 'K. Sabourov'
- 'J.P. Santoro'
- 'M. Sanzone-Arenhovel'
- 'V. Sapunenko'
- 'M. Sargsyan'
- 'R.A. Schumacher'
- 'V.S. Serov'
- 'A. Shafi'
- 'Y.G. Sharabian'
- 'J. Shaw'
- 'S. Simionatto'
- 'A.V. Skabelin'
- 'E.S. Smith'
- 'T. Smith'
- 'L.C. Smith'
- 'D.I. Sober'
- 'M. Spraker'
- 'A. Stavinsky'
- 'S. Stepanyan'
- 'I.I. Strakovsky'
- 'S. Strauch'
- 'M. Taiuti'
- 'S. Taylor'
- 'D.J. Tedeschi'
- 'U. Thoma'
- 'R. Thompson'
- 'L. Todor'
- 'C. Tur'
- 'M. Ungaro'
- 'M.F. Vineyard'
- 'A.V. Vlassov'
- 'K. Wang'
- 'L.B. Weinstein'
- 'A. Weisberg'
- 'H. Weller'
- 'C.S. Whisnant'
- 'E. Wolin'
- 'M.H. Wood'
- 'A. Yegneswaran'
- 'J. Yun'
---
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We provide a framework for the design and analysis of dynamic programming algorithms for surface-embedded graphs on $n$ vertices and branchwidth at most $k$. Our technique applies to general families of problems where standard dynamic programming runs in $2^{O(k\cdot \log
k)}\cdot n$ steps. Our approach combines tools from topological graph theory and analytic combinatorics. In particular, we introduce a new type of branch decomposition called [*surface cut decomposition*]{}, generalizing sphere cut decompositions of planar graphs which has nice combinatorial properties. Namely, the number of partial solutions that can be arranged on a surface cut decomposition can be upper-bounded by the number of non-crossing partitions on surfaces with boundary. It follows that partial solutions can be represented by a single-exponential (in the branchwidth $k$) number of configurations. This proves that, when applied on surface cut decompositions, dynamic programming runs in $2^{O(k)}\cdot n$ steps. That way, we considerably extend the class of problems that can be solved in running times with a [*single-exponential dependence*]{} on branchwidth and unify/improve most previous results in this direction.\
[[**Keywords:**]{} analysis of algorithms; parameterized algorithms; graphs on surfaces; branchwidth; dynamic programming; polyhedral embeddings; non-crossing partitions.]{}
author:
- 'Juanjo Rué[^1]'
- 'Ignasi Sau[^2]'
- 'Dimitrios M. Thilikos[^3]'
bibliography:
- 'algo.bib'
title: 'Dynamic Programming for Graphs on Surfaces[^4]'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
One of the most important parameters in the design and analysis of graph algorithms is the branchwidth of a graph. Branchwidth, together with its twin parameter of treewidth, can be seen as a measure of the topological resemblance of a graph to a tree. Its algorithmic importance dates back in the celebrated theorem of Courcelle (see e.g. [@Courcelle89]), stating that graph problems expressible in Monadic Second Order Logic can be solved in $f({{\mathbf{bw}}})\cdot n$ steps (here ${{\mathbf{bw}}}$ is the branchwidth[^5] and $n$ is the number of vertices of the input graph). Using parameterized complexity terminology, this implies that a large number of graph problems are fixed-parameter tractable when parameterized by the branchwidth of their input graph. As the bounds for $f({{\mathbf{bw}}})$ provided by Courcelle’s theorem are huge, the design of tailor-made dynamic programming algorithms for specific problems so that $f({{\mathbf{bw}}})$ is a simple – preferably a [*single-exponential*]{} – function, became a natural (and unavoidable) ingredient for many results on graph algorithms (see [@Arnborg85; @Bodlaender88; @TelleP97; @DFT07]). In this paper, we provide a general framework for the design and analysis of dynamic programming algorithms for graphs embedded in surfaces where $f({{\mathbf{bw}}})=2^{O({{\mathbf{bw}}})}$.
#### Dynamic programming.
Dynamic programming is applied in a bottom-up fashion on a rooted branch decomposition the input graph $G$, that roughly is a way to decompose the graph into a tree structure of edge bipartitions (the formal definition is in Section \[sec:prelim\]). Each bipartition defines a separator $S$ of the graph called [*middle set*]{}, of cardinality bounded by the branchwidth of the input graph. The decomposition is routed in the sense that one of the parts of each bipartition is the “lower part of the middle set”, i.e., the so-far processed one. For each graph problem, dynamic programming requires the suitable definition of tables encoding how potential (global) solutions of the problem are restricted to a middle set and the corresponding lower part. The size of these tables reflects the dependence on $k=|S|$ in the running time of the dynamic programming.
Designing the tables for each middle set $S$ is not always an easy task and may vary considerably due to the particularities of each problem. The simplest cases are problems such as [Vertex Cover]{} and [Dominating Set]{}, where the certificate of the solution is a set of vertices whose choice is not restricted by some global condition. This directly yields the desired $2^{O(k)}$ upper bound on their size. For other problems, such as [Longest Path]{}, [Cycle Packing]{}, or [Hamiltonian Cycle]{}, things are more complicated as the tables encode [*pairings of vertices of $S$*]{}, which are $2^{\Theta(k\log k)}$ many. However, for such problems one can do better for [*planar graphs*]{} following the approach introduced in [@DornPBF10effi]. The idea in [@DornPBF10effi] is to use a special type of branch decomposition called [*sphere cut decomposition*]{} that can guarantee that the pairings are *non-crossing* pairings around a virtual edge-avoiding cycle (called [*noose*]{}) of the plane where $G$ is embedded. This restricts the number of tables corresponding to a middle set $S$ by the $k$-th Catalan number, which is [*single-exponential*]{} in $k$. The same approach was extended for graphs embedded in surfaces of genus $\gamma$ [@DFT06]. The idea in [@DFT06] was to perform a [*planarization*]{} of the input graph by splitting the potential solution into at most $\gamma$ pieces and then applying the sphere cut decomposition technique of [@DornPBF10effi] to a more general version of the problem where the number of pairings is still bounded by some Catalan number (see also [@DFT08] for the application of this technique for more general graphs).
A wider family of problems are those where the tables of dynamic programming encode [*connected packings*]{} of $S$ into sets, i.e., collections of subsets of $S$ that are pairwise disjoint and where each subset is a connected part of a partial solution (see Section \[sec:expl\] for the formal definitions). Throughout this paper, we call these problems *connected packing-encodable*. Typical problems of this type are [Connected Vertex Cover]{}, [Connected Dominating Set]{}, [Feedback Vertex Set]{} ([FVS]{}), or [Steiner Tree]{}, where the connected components of a potential solution can be encoded by a collection of disjoint subsets of $S$, each of [*arbitrary cardinality*]{}. Here, the general bound on the table size is given by the $k$-th Bell number, and thus it can again be $2^{\Theta(k\cdot \log k)}$. To exemplify the differences between distinct types of dynamic programming encodings, we accompany this paper with an Appendix are presented (an expert reader may safely skip these examples). Unfortunately, for the latter category of problems, none of the current techniques has been able to drop the $2^{\Theta(k\cdot \log k)}$ bound to a single-exponential one for graphs embedded in surfaces. It is worth mentioning that, according to the recent lower bounds given by Lokshtanov *et al*. [@LMS11a], the bound $2^{\Theta(k\cdot \log k)}$ is best possible in [*general graphs*]{} for some parameterized problems like <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Disjoint Paths</span>, unless the Exponential Time Hypothesis (ETH) fails.
#### Our results.
In this paper, we follow a different approach in order to design single-exponential (in ${{\mathbf{bw}}}$) algorithms for graphs embedded in surfaces. In particular, we deviate significantly from the planarization technique of [@DFT06], which is not able to tackle problems whose solutions are encoded by general packings. Instead, we extend the concept of sphere cut decomposition from planar graphs to generic surfaces, and we exploit directly the combinatorial structure of the potential solutions in the topological surface. Our approach permits us to provide in a unified way a single-exponential (in ${{\mathbf{bw}}}$) time analysis for all aforementioned problems. Examples of other such problems are <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Leaf Spanning Tree</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Full-Degree Spanning Tree</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Leaf Tree</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum $d$-Degree-Bounded Connected Subgraph</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metric TSP</span>, or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum $d$-Degree-Bounded Connected Induced Subgraph</span> and all the variants studied in [@SaTh10]. Our results are formally described in Section \[sec:expl\] and imply all the results in [@DFT06; @DornPBF10effi], with running times whose dependence on genus is better than the ones in [@DFT06], as discussed in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
#### Our techniques.
For our results we enhance the current technology of dynamic programming using, among others, tools from topological graph theory. Our goal is to define a special type of branch decomposition of embedded graphs with nice topological properties, which we call *surface cut decomposition*. Moreover, we prove that such decomposition can be constructed in single-exponential time. Surface cut decompositions are based on the concept of [*polyhedral decomposition*]{}, which can be constructed in polynomial time. In the middle sets of a surface cut decomposition, all vertices, except possibly a set of cardinality $O(\gamma)$, are situated along a set of $O(\gamma)$ nooses of the surface with $O(\gamma)$ common points. This topological property of the middle sets is the source of the single-exponentiality of the size of the tables in dynamic programming: they correspond to non-crossing packings of a set where all its vertices, except possibly a set of cardinality $O(\gamma)$, lie on the boundary of a surface. Our next step is to reduce the problem of counting such packings to the counting of non-crossing partitions of vertices on the boundary of the same surface. Then, the single-exponential bound follows by the recent enumerative results of [@RST10_comb_Arxiv].
For performing dynamic programming, our approach resides in a common preprocessing step that is to construct a *surface cut decomposition*. Then, what remains is just to run a problem-specific dynamic programming algorithm on such a decomposition. The exponential bound on the size of the tables of the dynamic programming algorithm follows as a result of the enumeration analysis in Section \[sec:upperbounds\].
Very recently, a new framework for obtaining [*randomized*]{} single-exponential algorithms parameterized by treewidth in general graphs has appeared in [@CNP+11]. This framework is based on a dynamic programming technique named Cut&Count, which seems applicable to most connected packing-encodable problems, like [Connected Vertex Cover]{}, [Connected Dominating Set]{}, [Feedback Vertex Set]{}, or [Steiner Tree]{}. The randomization in the algorithms of [@CNP+11] comes from the usage a probabilistic result called the Isolation Lemma [@MVV87], whose derandomization is a challenging open problem [@ViMu08]. Therefore, the existence of [*deterministic*]{} single-exponential algorithms parameterized by treewidth for connected packing-encodable problems in general graphs remains wide open. Our results for graphs on surfaces, as well as their generalization to any proper minor-free graph family [@RST11minors], can be seen as an intermediate step towards an eventual positive answer to this question.
#### Organization of the paper.
In Section \[sec:prelim\], we give the definitions of the main topological and graph theoretical concepts and tools that we use in this paper. In Section \[sec:expl\], we define formally the class of connected packing-encodable problems and we formally settle the combinatorial problem of their enumeration. In Section \[sec:poly\], we define the concept of a polyhedral decomposition. In section \[sec:width\], we give some results on the behavior of certain width parameters on surfaces and in Section \[sec:topological\_lemmas\], we prove some graph-topological results. The concept of a surface-cut decompositions, as well as the algorithm for its construction, are given in Section \[sec:sphere\_cut\]. The enumeration results of the paper are presented in Section \[sec:upperbounds\]. Finally, some conclusions and open problems are given in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Preliminaries {#sec:prelim}
=============
#### Graphs.
We use standard graph terminology, see for instance [@Diestel05]. All graphs are finite and undirected. Given a graph $G$ and an edge $e\in E(G)$, let $G\slash e$ be the graph obtained from $G$ by contracting $e$, removing loops and parallel edges. If $H$ can be obtained from a subgraph of $G$ by a (possibly empty) sequence of edge contractions, we say that $H$ is a *minor* of $G$. Given a vertex $u$ with degree two, by *dissolving* $u$ we denote the operation of replacing $u$ and its two incident edges by an edge between its neighbors.
#### Topological surfaces.
In this paper, surfaces are compact and their boundary is homeomorphic to a finite set (possibly empty) of disjoint circles. We denote by $\beta(\Sigma)$ the number of connected components of the boundary of a surface $\Sigma$. The Surface Classification Theorem [@Mohar:graphs-on-surfaces] asserts that a compact and connected surface without boundary is determined, up to homeomorphism, by its Euler characteristic $\chi(\Sigma)$ and by whether it is orientable or not. More precisely, orientable surfaces are obtained by adding $g\geq 0$ *handles* to the sphere ${\mathbb{S}}^2$, obtaining the $g$-torus $\mathbb{T}_g$ with Euler characteristic $\chi(\mathbb{T}_g)=2-2g$, while non-orientable surfaces are obtained by adding $h > 0$ *cross-caps* to the sphere, hence obtaining a non-orientable surface $\mathbb{P}_h$ with Euler characteristic $\chi(\mathbb{P}_h) = 2-h$. A subset $\Pi$ of a surface $\Sigma$ is *surface-separating* if $\Sigma \setminus \Pi$ has at least two connected components.
As a conclusion, our surfaces are determined, up to homeomorphism, by their orientability, their Euler characteristic, and the number of connected components of their boundary. For computational simplicity, it is convenient to work with the *Euler genus* $\gamma(\Sigma)$ of a surface $\Sigma$, which is defined as $\gamma(\Sigma)=2-\chi(\Sigma)$.
#### Graphs embedded in surfaces.
Our main reference for graphs on surfaces is the monograph of Mohar and Thomassen [@Mohar:graphs-on-surfaces]. For a graph $G$ we use the notation $(G,\tau)$ to denote that $\tau$ is an embedding of $G$ in $\Sigma$ (that is, a drawing without edge crossings), whenever the surface $\Sigma$ is clear from the context. An embedding has *vertices*, *edges*, and *faces*, which are zero-, one-, and two-dimensional open sets, and are denoted $V(G)$, $E(G)$, and $F(G)$, respectively. The degree ${\mathbf{\mathrm{d}}}(v)$ of a vertex $v$ is the number of edges incident with $v$, counted with multiplicity (loops are counted twice).
For a graph $G$, the *Euler genus* of $G$, denoted $\gamma(G)$, is the smallest Euler genus among all surfaces in which $G$ can be embedded. Determining the Euler genus of a graph is an <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">NP</span>-hard problem [@Tho89], hence we assume throughout the paper that we are given an already embedded graph. An *$O$-arc* is a subset of $\Sigma$ homeomorphic to ${\mathbb{S}}^1$. A subset of $\Sigma$ meeting the drawing only at vertices of $G$ is called *$G$-normal*. If an $O$-arc is $G$-normal, then we call it a *noose*. The *length* of a noose is the number of its vertices. Many results in topological graph theory rely on the concept of *representativity* [@SeymourT94; @RS95], also called *face-width*, which is a parameter that quantifies local planarity and density of embeddings. The representativity ${{\bf rep}}(G,\tau)$ of a graph embedding $(G,\tau)$ is the smallest length of a non-contractible (i.e., non null-homotopic) noose in $\Sigma$. We call an embedding $(G,\tau)$ *polyhedral* [@Mohar:graphs-on-surfaces] if $G$ is $3$-connected and ${{\bf rep}}(G,\tau)\geq 3$, or if $G$ is a clique and $1 \leq |V(G)| \leq
3$. With abuse of notation, we also say in that case that the graph $G$ itself is polyhedral.
For a given embedding $(G,\tau)$, we denote by $(G^*,\tau)$ its dual embedding. Thus $G^*$ is the geometric dual of $G$. Each vertex $v$ (resp. face $r$) in $(G,\tau)$ corresponds to some face $v^*$ (resp. vertex $r^*$) in $(G^*,\tau)$. Also, given a set $S \subseteq E(G)$, we denote by $S^*$ the set of the duals of the edges in $S$. Let $(G,\tau)$ be an embedding and let $(G^*,\tau)$ be its dual. We define the *radial graph embedding* $(R_G,\tau)$ of $(G,\tau)$ (also known as *vertex-face graph embedding*) as follows: $R_G$ is an embedded bipartite graph with vertex set $V(R_G)= V(G) \cup V(G^*)$. For each pair $e=\{v,u\}$, $e^*=\{u^*,v^*\}$ of dual edges in $G$ and $G^*$, $R_G$ contains edges $\{v,v^*\}$, $\{v^*,u\}$, $\{u,u^*\}$, and $\{u^*,v\}$. Mohar and Thomassen [@Mohar:graphs-on-surfaces] proved that, if $|V(G)|\geq 4$, the following conditions are equivalent: *(i)* $(G,\tau)$ is a polyhedral embedding; *(ii)* $(G^*,\tau)$ is a polyhedral embedding; and *(iii)* $(R_G,\tau)$ has no multiple edges and every 4-cycle of $R_G$ is the border of some face. The *medial graph embedding* $(M_G,\tau)$ of $(G,\tau)$ is the dual embedding of the radial embedding $(R_G,\tau)$ of $(G,\tau)$. Note that $(M_G,\tau)$ is a $\Sigma$-embedded 4-regular graph.
#### Tree-like decompositions of graphs.
Let $G$ be a graph on $n$ vertices. A [*branch decomposition*]{} $(T,\mu)$ of a graph $G$ consists of an unrooted ternary tree $T$ (i.e., all internal vertices are of degree three) and a bijection $\mu: L \rightarrow E(G)$ from the set $L$ of leaves of $T$ to the edge set of $G$. We define for every edge $e$ of $T$ the [*middle set*]{} ${{\bf mid}}(e) \subseteq V(G)$ as follows: Let $T_1$ and $T_2$ be the two connected components of $T\setminus \{e\}$. Then let $G_i$ be the graph induced by the edge set $\{\mu(f): f \in L \cap V(T_i)
\}$ for $i \in \{1,2\}$. The *middle set* is the intersection of the vertex sets of $G_1$ and $G_2$, i.e., ${{\bf mid}}(e):= V(G_1) \cap V(G_2)$. The [*width*]{} of $(T,\mu)$ is the maximum order of the middle sets over all edges of $T$, i.e., ${{\mathbf{w}}}(T,\mu) := \max\{|{{\bf mid}}(e)| \mid e\in T\}$. An optimal branch decomposition of $G$ is defined by a tree $T$ and a bijection $\mu$ which give the minimum width, the [*branchwidth*]{}, denoted by ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(G)$.
Let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph. For $S \subseteq V$, we denote by $\delta(S)$ the set of all edges with an end in $S$ and an end in $V
\setminus S$. Let $\{V_1,V_2\}$ be a partition of $V$. If $G[V \setminus
V_1]$ and $G[V \setminus V_2]$ are both non-null and connected, we call $\delta(V_1)$ a *bond* of $G$ [@SeymourT94].
A *carving decomposition* $(T,\mu)$ is similar to a branch decomposition, only with the difference that $\mu$ is a bijection between the leaves of the tree and the vertex set of the graph $G$. For an edge $e$ of $T$, the counterpart of the middle set, called the *cut set* ${{\bf cut}}(e)$, contains the edges of $G$ with endvertices in the leaves of both subtrees. The counterpart of branchwidth is *carvingwidth*, and is denoted by ${{\mathbf{cw}}}(G)$. In a *bond carving decomposition*, every cut set is a bond of the graph. That is, in a bond carving decomposition, every cut set separates the graph into two connected components.
Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be graphs with disjoint vertex-sets and let $k \geq 0$ be an integer. For $i=1,2$, let $W_i \subseteq V(G_i)$ form a clique of size $k$ and let $G_i'$ ($i=1,2$) be obtained from $G_i$ by deleting some (possibly no) edges from $G_i[W_i]$ with both endvertices in $W_i$. Consider a bijection $h: W_1 \to W_2$. We define a *clique sum* $G$ of $G_1$ and $G_2$, denoted by $G=G_1\oplus_k G_2$, to be the graph obtained from the union of $G'_1$ and $G_2'$ by identifying $w$ with $h(w)$ for all $w \in W_1$. The integer $k$ is called the *size* of the clique sum. Given a set of graphs $\mathcal{G}$ and an integer $\ell
\geq 0$, we define the *$\ell$-clique sum closure* of $\mathcal{G}$ as the set of graphs $\mathcal{G}_{\ell}$ recursively defined as follows: every graph in $\mathcal{G}$ is also in $\mathcal{G}_{\ell}$, and if $G_1
\in \mathcal{G}$, $G_2 \in \mathcal{G}_{\ell}$, and $G_3 = G_1 \oplus_k
G_2$ with $0 \leq k \leq \ell$, then $G_3 \in \mathcal{G}_{\ell}$.
Connected packing-encodable problems {#sec:expl}
====================================
The standard dynamic programming approach on branch decompositions requires the so called *rooted* branch decomposition, defined as a triple $(T,\mu,e_{r})$, where $(T,\mu)$ is a branch-decomposition of $G$ such that $T$ is a tree rooted on a leaf $v_{l}$ of $T$ incident with some edge $e_{r}$. We slightly abuse notation by insisting that no edge of $G$ is assigned to $v_{l}$ and thus ${{\bf mid}}(e_{r})=\emptyset$ (for this, we arbitrarily pick some edge of a branch decomposition, subdivide it and then connect by $e_{r}$ the subdivision vertex with a new leaf $v_{l}$). The edges of $T$ are oriented towards the root $e_{r}$ and for each edge $e\in E(T)$ we denote by $E_{e}$ the edges of $G$ that are mapped to leaves of $T$ that are descendants of $e$. We also set $G_{e}=G[E_{e}]$ and we denote by $L(T)$ the edges of $T$ that are incident with leaves of $T$. Given an edge $e$ whose tail is a non-leaf vertex $v$, we denote by $e_1,e_2 \in E(T)$ the two edges heading at $v$ (we call them [*children*]{} of $e$). When the tail of an edge of $T$ is also a leaf of $T$ then we call it *leaf-edge*.
Typically, dynamic programming on a rooted branch decomposition $(T,\mu,e_{r})$ of a graph $G$ associates some suitable combinatorial structure ${\sf struct}(e)$ with each edge of $T$ such that the knowledge of ${\sf struct}(e_{r})$ makes it possible to determine the solution to the problem. Roughly speaking, ${\sf struct}(e)$ encodes all the ways that the possible certificates of a partial solution on graph $G_{e}$ may be restricted to ${{\bf mid}}(e)$. The computation of ${\sf struct}(e)$ is done bottom-up by first providing ${\sf struct}(e)$ when $e$ is a leaf-edge of $T$ and then giving a recursive way to construct ${\sf struct}(e)$ from ${\sf
struct}(e_{1})$ and ${\sf struct}(e_{2})$, where $e_{1}$ and $e_{2}$ are the children of $e$.
The encoding of ${\sf struct}$ is commonly referred as the “tables” of the dynamic programming algorithm. It is desirable that the size of the tables, as well as the time to process them, is bounded by $f(|{{\bf mid}}(e)|)\cdot n^{O(1)}$, where $f$ is a function not depending on $n$. This would give a polynomial-time algorithm for graphs of fixed branchwidth. In technical terms, this means that the problem is [*Fixed Parameter Tractable*]{} [(FPT]{}), when parameterized by the branchwidth of the input graph (for more on Fixed Parameter Tractability, see [@FlGr06; @DoFe99; @Niedermeier06inv]). A challenge in the design of such algorithms is to reduce the contribution of branchwidth to the size of their tables and therefore to simplify $f$ as much as possible. As indicated by the lower bounds in [@LMS11b; @ImpagliazzoPZ01whi; @CaiJ03onth], for many problems like <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Independent Set</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Dominating Set</span>, or $q$-<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Coloring</span> for fixed $q \geq 3$, $f$ is not expected to be better than single-exponential in general graphs.
Before we proceed with the description of the family of problems that we examine in this paper, we need some definitions. Let $G$ be a graph and let $S$ be a set of vertices of $G$. We denote by ${\cal G}$ the collection of all subgraphs of $G$. Each $H\in {\cal G}$ defines a packing ${\cal P}_{S}(H)$ of $S$ such that two vertices $x,y\in S$ belong to the same set of ${\cal P}_{S}(H)$ if $x,y$ belong to the same connected component of $H$. We say that $H_{1},H_{2}\in {\cal G}$ are [*$S$-equivalent*]{} if ${\cal P}_{S}(H_{1})={\cal P}_{S}(H_{2})$, and we denote it by $H_{1}\equiv_{S} H_{2}$. Let $\overline{{\cal G}}_{S}$ the collection of all subgraphs of $G$ modulo the equivalence relation $\equiv_{S}$. We define the set of all [*connected packings of $S$ with respect to $G$*]{} as the collection $$\Psi_{G}(S)=\{{\cal P}_{S}(H)\mid H \in \overline{{\cal G}}_{S}\}.$$ Notice that each member of $\Psi_{G}(S)$ can indeed be seen as a packing of $S$, as its sets may not necessarily meet all vertices of $S$.
In this paper we consider graph problems that can be solved by dynamic programming algorithms on branch decompositions for which the size of ${\sf struct}(e)$ is upper-bounded by $2^{O(|{{\bf mid}}(e)|)}\cdot |\Psi_{G_{e}}({{\bf mid}}(e))|\cdot n^{O(1)}$. We call these problems [*connected packing-encodable*]{}. We stress that our definition of connected packing-encodable problem assumes the existence of [*an*]{} algorithm with this property, but there may exist other algorithms whose tables are much bigger. In the introduction, we gave a long list of problems that belong to this category and, in the Appendix, we make a full description on how to do dynamic programming for one of them. For these problems, dynamic programming has a single-exponential dependance on branchwidth if and only if $\Psi_{G_{e}}({{\bf mid}}(e))$ contains a single-exponential number of packings, i.e., $|\Psi_{G_{e}}({{\bf mid}}(e))|=2^{O(|{{\bf mid}}(e)|)}$.
However, in general the number of different connected packings that could be created during the dynamic programming is not necessarily smaller than the number of the non-connected ones. Therefore, it may linearly depend on the $k$-th Bell number, where $k$ is the branchwidth of the input graph. This implies that, in general, $|\Psi_{G_{e}}({{\bf mid}}(e))|=2^{O(k\log k)}$ is the best upper bound we may achieve for connected packing-encodable problems, at least for deterministic algorithms. The purpose of this paper is to show that, for such problems, this bound can be reduced to a single-exponential one when their input graphs have bounded genus. In Section \[sec:sphere\_cut\], we define the concept of a surface cut decomposition, which is a key tool for the main result of this paper, resumed as follows.
\[teo:fidnal\] Every connected packing-encodable problem whose input graph $G$ is embedded in a surface of Euler genus $\gamma$, and has branchwidth at most $k$, can be solved by a dynamic programming algorithm on a surface cut decomposition of $G$ with tables of size $\gamma^{O(k)}
\cdot k^{O(\gamma)}\cdot \gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot n^{O(1)}$.
In Section \[sec:sphere\_cut\], we prove (Theorem \[teo:surface\_cut\]) that, given a graph $G$ embedded in a surface of Euler genus $\gamma$, a surface cut decomposition of $G$ of width $O({{\mathbf{bw}}}(G)+\gamma)$ can be constructed in $2^{O({{\mathbf{bw}}}(G))}\cdot n^{3}$ steps. Therefore, we conclude the following result.
\[teo:finals\] Every connected packing-encodable problem whose input graph $G$ is embedded in a surface of Euler genus $\gamma$, and has branchwidth at most $k$, can be solved in $\gamma^{O(k)} \cdot
k^{O(\gamma)} \cdot \gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot n^{O(1)}$ steps.
Given a parameterized problem with parameter $k$, an algorithm that solves it in time $2^{O(k)}\cdot n^{O(1)}$ is called [*single-exponential [FPT]{}-algorithm*]{}. As finding an optimal embedding of a graph of genus $\gamma$ can be solved in $f(\gamma)\cdot n$ steps [@Mohar99alin], we can restate Theorem \[teo:finals\] as follows.
Every connected packing-encodable problem on graphs of fixed genus has a single-exponential [FPT]{}-algorithm, when parameterized by the branchwidth of its input.
Polyhedral decompositions {#sec:poly}
=========================
We introduce in this section *polyhedral decompositions* of graphs embedded in surfaces. Let $G$ be an embedded graph, and let $N$ be a noose in the surface. Similarly to [@CaMo07], we use the notation $G$$N$ for the graph obtained by cutting $G$ along the noose $N$ and gluing a disk on the obtained boundaries.
\[def:poly\] Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ embedded in a surface of Euler genus $\gamma$, a *polyhedral decomposition* of $G$ is a set of graphs $\mathcal{G}=\{H_1,\ldots,H_{\ell}\}$ together with a set of vertices $A \subseteq V$ such that
- $|A|=O(\gamma)$;
- $H_i$ is a minor of $G[V\setminus A]$, for $i=1,\ldots,\ell$;
- $H_i$ has a polyhedral embedding in a surface of Euler genus at most $\gamma$, for $i=1,\ldots,\ell$;
- $G[V\setminus A]$ belongs to the $2$-clique sum closure of $\mathcal{G}$.
\[obs:noose\] Note that an embedded graph $H$ is not polyhedral if and only if there exists a noose $N$ of length at most two in the surface in which $H$ is embedded, such that either $N$ is non-contractible or $V(H)
\cap N$ separates $H$. Indeed, if $H$ has representativity at most two, then there exists a non-contractible noose $N$ of length at most two. Otherwise, since $H$ is not polyhedral, $H$ has a minimal separator $S$ of size at most two. It is then easy to see that there exists a noose containing only vertices of $S$.
Algorithm \[alg:polyhedral\] provides an efficient way to construct a polyhedral decomposition, as it is stated in Proposition \[prop:poly\]. In the algorithm, the addition of an edge $\{u,v\}$ represents the existence of a path in $G$ between $u$ and $v$ that is not contained in the current component.
\[prop:poly\] Given a graph $G$ on $n$ vertices embedded in a surface, Algorithm \[alg:polyhedral\] constructs a polyhedral decomposition of $G$ in $O(n^3)$ steps.
[**Proof:** ]{}We first prove that the the output $(\mathcal{G},A)$ of Algorithm \[alg:polyhedral\] is indeed a polyhedral decomposition of $G$, and then we analyze the running time.
Let us see that each component of $\mathcal{G}$ is a minor of $G[V\setminus A]$. Indeed, the only edges added to $G$ by Algorithm \[alg:polyhedral\] are those between two non-adjacent vertices $u,v$ that separate a component $H$ into several components $H_1,\ldots,H_{\ell}$. For each component $H_i$, $i=1,\ldots,\ell$, there exists a path between $u$ and $v$ in $H \setminus H_i$ (provided that the separators of size 1 have been already removed, which can we assumed without loss of generality), and therefore the graph obtained from $H_i$ by adding the edge $\{u,v\}$ is a minor of $H$, which is inductively a minor of $G[V\setminus A]$. Also, each component of $\mathcal{G}$ is polyhedral by definition of the algorithm.
As a non-separating noose is necessarily non-contractible, each time some vertices are moved to $A$, the Euler genus of the surfaces strictly decreases [@Mohar:graphs-on-surfaces Lemma 4.2.4]. Therefore, $|A|=O(\gamma)$.
By the construction of the algorithm, it is also clear that each component of $\mathcal{G}$ has a polyhedral embedding in a surface of Euler genus at most $\gamma$. Finally, $G[V\setminus A]$ can be constructed by joining the graphs of $\mathcal{G}$ applying clique sums of size at most two.
Thus, $(\mathcal{G},A)$ is a polyhedral decomposition of $G$ according to Definition \[def:poly\].
We now analyze the running time of the algorithm. Separators of size at most two can be found in $O(n^2)$ steps [@HRG00]. A noose with respect to a graph $H$ corresponds to a cycle in the radial graph of $H$, hence can also be found[^6] in $O(n^2)$ (using that the number of edges of a bounded-genus graph is linearly bounded by its number of vertices). Since each time that we find a [*small*]{} separator we decrease the size of the components, the running time of the algorithm is $O(n^3)$. [$\square~~$]{}
Width parameters of graphs on surfaces {#sec:width}
======================================
In this section we state some definitions and auxiliary results about several width parameters of graphs on surfaces, to be applied in Section \[sec:sphere\_cut\] for building surface cut decompositions. In the same spirit of [@FoTh07 Theorem 1] we can prove the following lemma. We omit the proof here since the details are very similar[^7] to the proof in [@FoTh07].
\[lem:carving12\] Let $(G,\tau)$ and $(G^*,\tau)$ be dual polyhedral embeddings in a surface of Euler genus $\gamma$ and let $(M_G,\tau)$ be the medial graph embedding. Then $\max\{{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G),{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G^*)\} \leq {{\mathbf{cw}}}(M_G)/2
\leq 6 \cdot {{\mathbf{bw}}}(G) + 2\gamma + O(1).$ In addition, given a branch decomposition of $G$ of width at most $ k$, a carving decomposition of $M_G$ of width at most $12k$ can be found in linear time.
We would like to point out that in Lemma \[lem:carving12\] we need the embeddings to be polyhedral.
\[lem:bw1\] The removal of a vertex from a non-acyclic graph decreases its branchwidth by at most $1$.
\[lem:bw2\] Let $G$ be a graph and let $\mathcal{G}$ be a collection of graphs such that $G$ can be constructed by joining graphs in $\mathcal{G}$ applying clique sums of size at most two. Given branch decompositions $\{(T_H,\mu_H)\ |\ H \in \mathcal{G})\}$, we can compute in linear time a branch decomposition $(T,\mu)$ of $G$ such that ${{\mathbf{w}}}(T,\mu)
\leq \max \{ 2, \{ {{\mathbf{w}}}(T_H,\mu_H)\ |\ H \in \mathcal{G}\} \}$. In particular, ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(G) \leq \max \{ 2, \{ {{\mathbf{bw}}}(H)\ |\ H \in \mathcal{G}\} \}$.
[**Proof:** ]{}Note that if $G_1$ and $G_2$ are graphs with no vertex (resp. a vertex, an edge) in common, then $G_1 \cup G_2 = G_1 \oplus_0 G_2$ (resp. $G_1 \oplus_1 G_2$, $G_1 \oplus_2 G_2$). To prove Lemma \[lem:bw2\], we need the following two lemmata.
\[lem:sum1\] Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be graphs with at most one vertex in common. Then ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_1 \cup G_2) = \max \{{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_1),{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_2)\}$.
[**Proof:** ]{}Assume first that $G_1$ and $G_2$ share one vertex $v$. Clearly ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_1 \cup G_2) \geq \max \{{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_1),{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_2)\}$. Conversely, for $i=1,2$, let $(T_i,\mu_i)$ be a branch decomposition of $G_i$ such that ${{\mathbf{w}}}(T_i,\mu_i)\leq k$. For $i=1,2$, let $T_i^v$ be the minimal subtree of $T_i$ containing all the leaves $u_i$ of $T_i$ such that $v$ is an endvertex of $\mu_i(u_i)$. For $i=1,2$, we take an arbitrary edge $\{a_i,b_i\}$ of $T_i^v$, we subdivide it by adding a new vertex $w_i$, and then we build a tree $T$ from $T_1$ and $T_2$ by adding the edge $\{w_1,w_2\}$. We claim that $(T,\mu_1 \cup \mu_2)$ is a branch decomposition of $G_1 \cup G_2$ of width at most $k$. Indeed, let us compare the middle sets of $(T,\mu_1 \cup \mu_2)$ to those of $(T_1,\mu_1)$ and $(T_2,\mu_2)$. First, it is clear that the vertices of $V(G_1) \cup V(G_2) - \{v\}$ appear in $(T,\mu_1 \cup \mu_2)$ in the same middle sets as in $(T_1,\mu_1)$ and $(T_2,\mu_2)$. Secondly, ${{\bf mid}}(\{w_1,w_2\})=\{v\}$, since $v$ is a cut-vertex of $G_1 \cup G_2$. Also, for $i=1,2$, ${{\bf mid}}(\{a_i,w_i\})={{\bf mid}}(\{w_i,b_i\})={{\bf mid}}(\{a_i,b_i\})$, and the latter has size at most $k$ as ${{\mathbf{w}}}(T_i,\mu_i) \leq k$. For all other edges $e$ of $T_i$, $i=1,2$, ${{\bf mid}}(e)$ is exactly the same in $T$ and in $T_i$, since if $e \in E(T_i^v)$ then $v \in {{\bf mid}}(e)$ in both $T$ and $T_i$, and if $e
\in E(T_i \setminus T_i^v)$ then $v \notin {{\bf mid}}(e)$ in both $T$ and $T_i$.
If $G_1$ and $G_2$ share no vertices, we can merge two branch decompositions $(T_1,\mu_1)$ and $(T_2,\mu_2)$ by subdividing a pair of arbitrary edges, without increasing the width. [$\square~~$]{}
\[lem:sum2\] Let $G_1$ and $G_2$ be graphs with one edge $f$ in common. Then ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_1 \cup G_2) \leq \max \{{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_1),{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_2),2\}$. Moreover, if both endvertices of $f$ have degree at least two in at least one of the graphs, then ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_1 \cup G_2) = \max \{{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_1),{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G_2)\}$.
It remains only to show how to merge the branch decompositions $(T_1,\mu_1)$, $(T_2,\mu_2)$ of two graphs $H_1$, $H_2$ in $\mathcal{G}$. We distinguish four cases:
- $H_1$ and $H_2$ share two vertices $v_1$, $v_2$, and the edge $e=\{v_1,v_2\} \in E(G)$. We take the leaves in $T_1$ and $T_2$ corresponding to $e$, we identify them, and we add a new edge whose leave corresponds to $e$ (see Figure \[fig:tree1\](a)).
- $H_1$ and $H_2$ share two vertices $v_1$, $v_2$, and the edge $e=\{v_1,v_2\} \notin E(G)$. We take the leaves in $T_1$ and $T_2$ corresponding to $e$, we identify them, and we dissolve the common vertex (see Figure \[fig:tree1\](b)).
- $H_1$ and $H_2$ share one vertex $v$. We take two edges $b,c$ in $T_1,T_2$ whose leaves correspond to edges containing $v$, we subdivide them and add a new edge between the newly created vertices (see Figure \[fig:tree1\](c)).
- $H_1$ and $H_2$ share no vertices. We do the construction of case (c) for any two edges of the two branch decompositions.
The above construction does not increase the branchwidth by Lemmata \[lem:sum1\] and \[lem:sum2\].
![Merging branch decompositions $(T_1,\mu_1)$ and $(T_2,\mu_2)$ of two components $H_1$ and $H_2$ in a polyhedral decomposition $(\mathcal{G},A)$ of $G=(V,E)$. There are three cases: (a) $H_1$ and $H_2$ share two vertices $v_1$, $v_2$ and the edge $e=\{v_1,v_2\}$ is in $E$; (b) $H_1$ and $H_2$ share two vertices $v_1$, $v_2$ and $e=\{v_1,v_2\}$ is *not* in $E$; (c) $H_1$ and $H_2$ share one vertex $v$.[]{data-label="fig:tree1"}](decomp.eps){width="12.0cm"}
[$\square~~$]{}
\[obs:addVertices\] Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, and let $A \subseteq V$. Given a branch decomposition $(T',\mu')$ of $G[V \setminus A]$, we can obtain a branch decomposition $(T,\mu)$ of $G$ with ${{\mathbf{w}}}(T,\mu) \leq {{\mathbf{w}}}(T',\mu') + |A|$ recursively as follows: First, for each edge $\{u,v\} \in E(G)$ with $u \in V \setminus A$ and $v \in A$, we choose an edge $e \in G[V \setminus A]$ containing $u$, and we replace the leaf of $T'$ corresponding to $e$ with two incident pendant edges whose leaves correspond to edges $\{u,v\}$ and $e$, respectively. Finally, for each edge $\{u,v\} \in E(G)$ with $u,v \in A$, we take and arbitrary edge of $T'$, subdivide it, and add a new edge whose leave corresponds to edge $\{u,v\}$. It can be easily checked that the size of the middle sets has increased by at most $|A|$.
Given an embedded graph $G$ and a carving decomposition $(T,\mu)$ of its medial graph $M_G$, we define a *radial decomposition* $(T^*,\mu^*)$ of the dual graph $R_G$, where $T^*=T$ and $\mu^*$ is a bijection from the leaves of $T$ to the set of faces of $R_G$ defined as follows: for each edge $e \in E(T)$, $\mu^*(e)=f$, where $f$ is the face in $R_G$ corresponding to the vertex $u_f \in V(M_G)$ such that $\mu(e)=u_f$. Each edge $e \in E(T^*)$ partitions the faces of $R_G$ into two sets $F_1$ and $F_2$. We define the *border set* of $e$, denoted ${{\bf bor}}(e)$, as the set of edges of $R_G$ that belong to both $F_1$ and $F_2$. Note that $F_1$ and $F_2$ may intersect also in vertices, not only in edges.
If $(T,\mu)$ is a bond carving decomposition of $M_G$, then the associated radial decomposition (also called *bond*) has nice connectivity properties. Indeed, in a bond carving decomposition, every cut set partitions the vertices of $M_G$ into two subsets $V_1,V_2$ such that both $M_G[V_1]$ and $M_G[V_2]$ are non-null and connected. This property, seen in the radial decomposition of $R_G$, implies that each edge $e \in
E(T^*)$ corresponds to a partition of the faces of $R_G$ into two sets $F_1$ and $F_2$, namely *black* and *white* faces (naturally partitioning the edges into *black*, *white*, and *grey*), such that it is possible to reach any black (resp. white) face from any black (resp. white) face by only crossing black (resp. white) edges. In other words, the union of all black (resp. white) faces and edges is a connected set.
\[obs:natural\]Recall that all the faces of a radial graph $R_G$ are *tiles*, that is, each face has exactly 4 edges. Also, each one of those tiles corresponds to a pair of dual edges $e$ and $e^*$ of $G$ and $G^*$, respectively. Given a carving decomposition $(T,\mu)$ of $M_G$ (or equivalently, a radial decomposition $(T^*,\mu^*)$ of $R_G$), one can obtain in a natural way branch decompositions of $G$ and $G^*$ by redefining the bijection $\mu$ from the leaves of $T$ to the edges of $G$ (or $G^*$) that correspond to the faces of $R_G$.
Some topological results {#sec:topological_lemmas}
========================
In this section we state two topological lemmata and some definitions that will be used in Section \[sec:sphere\_cut\]. Given a collection ${\cal S}$ of sets, we denote their union by ${\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}{\cal S}=\bigcup_{S\in{\cal S}}S$.
Given a graph $G$ embedded in a surface of Euler genus $\gamma$, its dual $G^*$ and a spanning tree $C^*$ of $G^*$, we call $C = \{e\in E(G)\ |\ e^*
\in E(C^*)\}$ a *spanning cotree* of $G$. We define a *tree-cotree partition* (cf. [@Epp03]) of an embedded graph $G$ to be a triple $(T,C,X)$ where $T$ is a spanning tree of $G$, $C$ is a spanning cotree of $G$, $X\subseteq E(G)$, and the three sets $E(T)$, $C$, and $X$ form a partition of $E(G)$. Eppstein proved [@Epp03 Lemma 3.1] that if $T$ and $C^*$ are forests such that $E(T)$ and $C$ are disjoint, we can make $T$ become part of a spanning tree $T'$ and $C$ become part of a spanning cotree disjoint from $T'$, extending $T$ and $C$ to a tree-cotree decomposition. We can now announce the following lemma from [@Epp03 Lemma 3.2].
\[lem:topo1\] If $(T,C,X)$ is a tree-cotree decomposition of a graph $G$ embedded in a surface of Euler genus $\gamma$, then $|X|=O(\gamma)$.
Let $\Sigma$ be a surface and let $\mathcal{N}$ be a finite collection of $O$-arcs in $\Sigma$ pairwise intersecting at a finite zero-dimensional subsets (i.e., points) of $\Sigma$. For a point $p \in \Sigma$, let $\mathcal{N}(p)$ be the number of $O$-arcs in $\mathcal{N}$ containing $p$, and let $P(\mathcal{N}) = \{p \in \Sigma : \mathcal{N}(p) \geq 2\}$; note that by assumption $P(\mathcal{N})$ is a finite set of points of $\Sigma$. Then we define $$\theta(\mathcal{N}) = \sum_{p \in P(\mathcal{N})} (\mathcal{N}(p)-1)\ .$$
\[lemma: O(g)\] Let $\Sigma$ be a surface without boundary with $\gamma(\Sigma)= \gamma$. Let $\mathcal{N}$ be a collection of $O(\gamma)$ $O$-arcs in $\Sigma$ pairwise intersecting at finite zero-dimensional subsets of $\Sigma$, and such that $\Sigma \setminus {\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}\mathcal{N}$ has two connected components. Then $\theta(\mathcal{N}) = O(\gamma).$
[**Proof:** ]{}In order to prove the lemma, we define from $\mathcal{N}$ the following (multi)graph $H$ embedded in $\Sigma$: we first add a vertex $v_p$ in $H$ for every point $p$ in $\Sigma$ such that $\mathcal{N}(p)
\geq 2$. We call such points *repeated*. We now distinguish four cases according to the number of repeated points in an $O$-arc. First, for each $O$-arc $N$ with at least three repeated points, we order cyclically the repeated points in $N$, and the same ordering applies to the corresponding vertices in $H$. Then, we add an edge in $H$ between each two consecutive vertices in that ordering. For each $O$-arc with exactly two repeated points $p$ and $q$, we add two parallel edges in $H$ between $v_p$ and $v_q$. For each $O$-arc with exactly one repeated point $p$, we add in $H$ a loop at vertex $v_p$. Finally, for each $O$-arc $N$ with no repeated points, we add to $H$ a new vertex $v_N$ with a loop. Visually, $H$ is the graph embedded in $\Sigma$ corresponding to the union of the $O$-arcs in $\mathcal{N}$.
In order to prove the result, by the construction of $H$ it is enough to prove that $\sum_{v\in V(H)}({\mathbf{\mathrm{d}}}_H(v)-2)= O(\gamma)$. By assumption, $H$ separates $\Sigma$ into two connected components $\Sigma'$ and $\Sigma''$. Let $H_1, H_2,\dots, H_r$ be the maximal connected subgraphs of $H$. In particular, $r \leq |\mathcal{N}| =
O(\gamma)$ by hypothesis. Some of these connected subgraphs may be incident with $\Sigma'$ but not with $\Sigma''$, or vice-versa. Additionally, there is at least one connected subgraph $H_i$ incident with both connected components. Without loss of generality we assume that the subgraphs $H_1,H_2,\dots, H_p$ are incident only with $\Sigma'$, $H_{p+1},\dots,H_q$ are incident with both components, and $H_{q+1},\dots,H_{r}$ are incident only with $\Sigma''$. It is clear that there exists a path joining a vertex in $H_{i}$ with a vertex in $H_{i+1}$ if $1\leq i \leq q-1$ or $p+1\leq i \leq r-1$.
From graphs $H_1,H_2,\dots, H_p,\dots,H_q$ (the ones which are incident with $\Sigma'$) we construct a new graph $G_1$ in the following inductive way: we start taking $H_{q}$ and $H_{q-1}$, and a path joining a vertex in $H_{q}$ to a vertex in $H_{q-1}$. This path exists because $H_{q}$ and $H_{q-1}$ are incident with $\Sigma'$. Consider the graph obtained from $H_{q}$ and $H_{q-1}$ by adding an edge that joins this pair of vertices. Then, we delete $H_{q}$ and $H_{q-1}$ from the initial list and add this new connected graph. This procedure is done $q-1$ times. At the end, we obtain a connected graph $G'$ incident with both $\Sigma'$ and $\Sigma''$ where each vertex has degree at least three. Finally, we apply the same procedure with $G',H_{q+1},\dots,H_{r}$, obtaining a connected graph $G$. Observe also that $$\sum_{v\in V(H)}({\mathbf{\mathrm{d}}}_H(v)-2)\ \leq\ \sum_{v\in V(G)}({\mathbf{\mathrm{d}}}_G(v)-2)\ <\ \sum_{v\in V(G)}{\mathbf{\mathrm{d}}}_G(v)\ =\ 2|E(G)|\ .$$ In what follows, we obtain upper bounds for $2|E(G)|$. Observe that $H$ defines a pair of faces over $\Sigma$, not necessarily disks. In the previous construction of $G$, every time we add an edge we either subdivide a face into two parts or not. Consequently, the number of faces that $G$ defines over $\Sigma$ is at most $2+|\mathcal{N}|$. The next step consists in reducing the surface in the following way: let $f$ be a face determined by $G$ over $\Sigma$. If $f$ is contractible, we do nothing. If it is not, there is a non-contractible cycle $\mathbb{S}^1$ contained on $f$. Let $\Sigma_1$ be the connected component of $\Sigma$$\mathbb{S}^1$ which contains $G$. Then $G$ defines a decomposition of $\Sigma_1$, $\gamma(\Sigma_1)\leq \gamma$, and the number of faces has been increased by at most one. Observe that for each operation $\,$ we reduce the Euler genus and we create at most one face. As the Euler genus is finite, so is the number of $\,$ operations. This gives rise to a surface $\Sigma_s$ with $\gamma(\Sigma_s)\leq\gamma$, and such that all faces determined by $G$ are contractible. Additionally, the number of faces that $G$ determines over $\Sigma_s$ is smaller than $2+|\mathcal{N}|+\gamma$.
$G$ defines a map on $\Sigma_s$ (i.e., all faces are contractible), and consequently we can apply Euler’s formula. Then $|F(G)|+|V(G)|=|E(G)|+2-\gamma(\Sigma_s)$. Then, as $|F(G)|\leq
2+|\mathcal{N}|+\gamma$, we obtain that $|E(G)|+2-\gamma(\Sigma_s)=|V(G)|+|F(G)|\leq
|V(G)|+2+|\mathcal{N}|+\gamma$. The degree of each vertex is at least three, and thus $3|V(G)|\leq 2|E(G)|$. Substituting this condition in the previous equation, we obtain $$|E(G)|+2-\gamma(\Sigma_s)\ \leq\ |V(G)|+2+|\mathcal{N}|+\gamma\ \leq\ \frac{2}{3}|E(G)|+2+|\mathcal{N}|+\gamma.$$ Isolating $|E(G)|$, we get that $2|E(G)|\leq
6|\mathcal{N}|+6\gamma(\Sigma_s)+6\gamma\leq 6|\mathcal{N}|+12\gamma$. As by hypothesis $|\mathcal{N}|=O(\gamma)$, the previous bound yields the desired result.[$\square~~$]{}
Surface cut decompositions {#sec:sphere_cut}
==========================
Sphere cut decompositions have been introduced as a combinatorial concept in [@SeymourT94] and were used for the first time in [@DornPBF10effi] to analyze the running time of algorithms based on dynamic programming over branch decompositions on planar graphs (see also [@DFT07; @SaTh10; @DFT08]. In this section we generalize sphere cut decompositions to graphs on surfaces; we call them *surface cut decompositions*.
\[def:surface\_cut\] Given a graph $G$ embedded in a surface $\Sigma$ with $\gamma(\Sigma)=\gamma$, a *surface cut decomposition* of $G$ is a branch decomposition $(T,\mu)$ of $G$ such that there exists a polyhedral decomposition $(\mathcal{G},A)$ of $G$ with the following property: for each edge $e \in
E(T)$, either $|{{\bf mid}}(e) \setminus A| \leq 2$, or there exists a graph $H
\in \mathcal{G}$ such that
- ${{\bf mid}}(e) \setminus A \subseteq V(H)$;
- the vertices in ${{\bf mid}}(e) \setminus A$ are contained in a set $\mathcal{N}$ of $O(\gamma)$ nooses of $\Sigma$ pairwise intersecting only at subsets of ${{\bf mid}}(e) \setminus A$.
- $\theta(\mathcal{N})= O(\gamma)$.
- $\Sigma \setminus {\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}\mathcal{N}$ contains exactly two connected components, such that the graph $G_{e} \setminus A$ is embedded in the closure of one of them.
Note that a sphere cut decomposition is a particular case of a surface cut decomposition when $\gamma=0$, by taking $A = \emptyset$, $\mathcal{G}$ containing only the graph $G$ itself, and all the vertices of each middle set contained in a single noose. We provide now an algorithm to construct a surface graph decomposition of an embedded graph. The proof of Theorem \[teo:surface\_cut\] uses Proposition \[prop:poly\] and all the results of Sections \[sec:width\] and \[sec:topological\_lemmas\].\
\[teo:surface\_cut\] Given a graph $G$ on $n$ vertices embedded in a surface of Euler genus $\gamma$, with ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(G)\leq k$, Algorithm \[alg:surface\] constructs, in $2^{3k+O(\log k)} \cdot n^3$ steps, a surface cut decomposition $(T,\mu)$ of $G$ of width at most $27k +
O(\gamma)$.
[**Proof:** ]{}We prove, in this order, that the output $(T,\mu)$ of Algorithm \[alg:surface\] is indeed a surface cut decomposition of $G$, then that the width of $(T,\mu)$ is at most $27 {{\mathbf{bw}}}(G) + O(\gamma)$, and finally the claimed running time.
#### $(T,\mu)$ is a surface cut decomposition of $G$.
We shall prove that all the properties of Definition \[def:surface\_cut\] are fulfilled. First note that, as $(\mathcal{G},A)$ is a polyhedral decomposition of $G$, we have that $|A|=O(\gamma)$.
By construction, it is clear that $(T,\mu)$ is a branch decomposition of $G$. In $(T,\mu)$, there are some edges that have been added in the last step of Algorithm \[alg:surface\], in order to merge branch decompositions of the graphs in $\mathcal{G}$, with the help of Lemma \[lem:bw2\]. Let $e$ be such an edge. Since $(\mathcal{G},A)$ is a polyhedral decomposition of $G$, any two graphs in $\mathcal{G}$ share at most two vertices, hence $|{{\bf mid}}(e)\setminus A| \leq 2$.
All other edges of $(T,\mu)$ correspond to an edge of a branch decomposition of some polyhedral component $H \in \mathcal{G}$. Let henceforth $e$ be such an edge. Therefore, ${{\bf mid}}(e) \setminus A \subseteq
V(H)$. To complete this part of the proof, we prove in a sequence of three claims that the remaining conditions of Definition \[def:surface\_cut\] hold.
\[claim:1\] The vertices in ${{\bf mid}}(e) \setminus A$ are contained in a set $\mathcal{N}$ of $O(\gamma)$ nooses.
[**Proof:** ]{}The proof uses the tree-cotree partition defined in Section \[sec:topological\_lemmas\].
Recall that $e$ is an edge that corresponds to a branch decomposition $(T_H,\mu_H)$ of a polyhedral component $H$ of $\mathcal{G}$. The branch decomposition $(T_H,\mu_H)$ of $H$ has been built by Algorithm \[alg:surface\] from a bond carving decomposition of its medial graph $M_H$, or equivalently from a bond radial decomposition of its radial graph $R_H$. Due to the fact that the carving decomposition of $M_H$ is bond, edge $e$ partitions the vertices of $M_H$ into two sets – namely, *black* and *white* vertices – each one inducing a connected subgraph of $M_H$. There are three types of edges in $R_H$: *black*, *white*, and *grey*, according to whether they belong to faces of the same color (black or white) or not. Therefore, the corresponding black and white faces also induce connected subgraphs of $R_H$, in the sense that it is always possible to reach any black (resp. white) face from any black (resp. white) face only crossing black (resp. white) [*edges*]{}.
Let $F$ be the set of grey edges of $R_H$. Since each edge of $R_H$ contains a vertex from $H$ and another from $H^*$, the vertices in ${{\bf mid}}(e)$ are contained in $R_H[F]$, so it suffices to prove that $R_H[F]$ can be partitioned into a set of $O(\gamma)$ cycles (possibly sharing some vertices). Note that each cycle in the radial graph $R_H$ corresponds to a noose in the surface.
To this end, first note that in $R_H[F]$ all vertices have even degree. Indeed, let $v \in V(R_H[F])$, and consider a clockwise orientation of the edges incident with $v$ in $R_H[F]$. Each such edge alternates from a black to a white face, or viceversa, so beginning from an arbitrary edge and visiting all others edges in the clockwise order, we deduce that the number of edges incident with $v$ is necessarily even.
Therefore, $R_H[F]$ can be partitioned into a set of cycles. Let us now bound the number of such cycles. Since the subgraph induced by the black (resp. white) faces of $R_H$ is connected, we can consider in $M_H$ a spanning tree $T^{*}_B$ (resp. $T_W^*$) corresponding to the black (resp. white) faces of $R_H$. Merge both trees by adding a new edge $e_0^*$, and let $T^*$ be the resulting tree. Let $T$ be a spanning tree of $R_H$ disjoint from $T^*$ (in the sense that there is no pair of dual edges $e$ and $e^*$ with $e \in E(T)$ and $e^* \in E(T^*)$); such a spanning tree exists by [@Epp03 Lemma 3.1]. Now consider the tree-cotree partition $(T,T^*,X)$, where $X$ is the set of edges of $R_H$ that are neither in $T$ nor in $T^*$.
Each edge of $T^*$, except $e_0^*$, corresponds to two faces of $R_H$ of the same color. Therefore, the set $F \in E(R_H)$ of edges separating faces of different color is contained in $T\cup\{e_0\}\cup X$. Since $T$ is a tree, each cycle of $R_H[F]$ uses at least one edge in $\{e_0\}\cup
X$. Therefore, $R_H[F]$ can be partitioned into at most $1 + |X|$ cycles. The result follows from the fact that $(T,T^*,X)$ is a tree-cotree partition, and therefore $|X|=O(\gamma)$ by Lemma \[lem:topo1\]. [$\square~~$]{}
\[claim:2\] Let $\mathcal{N}$ be the set of nooses constructed in the proof of Claim \[claim:1\]. Then ${\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}\mathcal{N}$ separates $\Sigma$ into two connected components.
[**Proof:** ]{}By Claim \[claim:1\], the vertices in ${{\bf mid}}(e) \setminus A$ are contained in ${\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}\mathcal{N}$. The claim holds from the fact that for each component $H$ of $\mathcal{G}$, $(T^b_H,\mu^b_H)$ is a bond carving decomposition of $M_{H}$, and by taking into account the discussion before Observation \[obs:natural\].[$\square~~$]{}
Note that the collection of nooses constructed in the proof of Claim \[claim:1\] is finite and its elements pairwise intersect only at subsets of ${{\bf mid}}(e) \setminus A$, as required. In particular, for this collection $\mathcal{N}$ of nooses, the parameter $\theta(\mathcal{N})$ is well-defined (see Section \[sec:topological\_lemmas\]).
\[claim:3\] Let $\mathcal{N}$ be the set of nooses constructed in the proof of Claim \[claim:1\]. Then $\theta(\mathcal{N}) = O(\gamma).$
[**Proof:** ]{}By Claim \[claim:2\], ${\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}\mathcal{N}$ separates $\Sigma$ into two connected components. The claim then holds by Lemma \[lemma: O(g)\]. [$\square~~$]{}
#### The width of $(T,\mu)$ is at most $27 \cdot {{\mathbf{bw}}}(G) +
O(\gamma)$.
For simplicity, let $k={{\mathbf{bw}}}(G)$. By Proposition \[prop:poly\], each polyhedral component $H$ is a minor of $G$, hence ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(H)\leq k$ for all $H \in \mathcal{G}$. In Step 1 of Algorithm \[alg:surface\], we compute a branch decomposition $(T'_H,\mu'_H)$ of $H$ of width at most $k'= \frac{9}{2}k$, using Amir’s algorithm [@Ami01 Theorem 3.8]. In Step 2, we transform $(T'_H,\mu'_H)$ to a carving decomposition $(T^c_H,\mu^c_H)$ of the medial graph $M_{H}$ of $H$ of width at most $12k'$, using Lemma \[lem:carving12\]. In Step 3, we transform $(T^c_H,\mu^c_H)$ to a [*bond*]{} carving decomposition $(T^b_H,\mu^b_H)$ of $M_{H}$ of width at most $12k'$, using the algorithm of [@SeymourT94]. Then, using Observation \[obs:natural\], we transform in Step 4 $(T^b_H,\mu^b_H)$ to a branch decomposition $(T_H,\mu_H)$ of $H$. By the proof of Claim \[claim:1\], the discrepancy between ${{\mathbf{w}}}(T_H,\mu_H)$ and ${{\mathbf{w}}}(T^b_H,\mu^b_H)/2$ is at most the bound provided by Lemma \[lemma: O(g)\], i.e., $O(\gamma)$. Therefore, ${{\mathbf{w}}}(T_H,\mu_H) \leq 6k'+O(\gamma)=27k
+ O(\gamma)$, for all $H \in \mathcal{G}$.
Then, we merge the branch decompositions of the polyhedral components, using Lemma \[lem:bw2\], and finally we add the edges of $G$ with at least one endvertex in $A$, using Observation \[obs:addVertices\], to obtain a branch decomposition $(T,\mu)$ of $G$.
Combining the discussion above with Lemmata \[lem:bw1\] and \[lem:bw2\] and Observation \[obs:addVertices\], and using that $|A|= O(\gamma)$, we get that $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mathbf{w}}}(T,\mu)&\leq &\max \{ 2, \{ {{\mathbf{w}}}(T_H,\mu_H)\ |\ H \in
\mathcal{G}\} \} + |A|\\
& \leq & 27k + O(\gamma) + |A|\\
& = & 27k + O(\gamma).\end{aligned}$$
#### Algorithm \[alg:surface\] runs in $2^{3k+O(\log
k)}\cdot n^3$ time.
We analyze sequentially the running time of each step. First, we compute a polyhedral decomposition of $G$ using Algorithm \[alg:polyhedral\] in $O(n^3)$ steps, by Proposition \[prop:poly\]. Then, we run Amir’s algorithm in each component in Step 1, which takes $O(2^{3k}k^{3/2}n^2)$ time [@Ami01 Theorem 3.8]. We would like to stress that this step is the only non-polynomial procedure in the construction of surface cut decompositions. Step 2 can be done in linear time by Lemma \[lem:carving12\]. Step 3 can be done in $O(n^2)$ time [@SeymourT94]. Step 4 takes linear time by Observation \[obs:natural\]. Merging the branch decompositions can clearly be done in linear time. Finally, since any two elements in $\mathcal{G}$ share at most two vertices, the overall running time is the claimed one. [$\square~~$]{}
Upper-bounding the size of the tables {#sec:upperbounds}
=====================================
In this section we show that by using surface cut decompositions in order to solve connected packing-encodable problems in surface-embedded graphs, one can guarantee single-exponential upper bounds on the size of the tables of dynamic programming algorithms. Then Theorem \[teo:finals\] follows directly by the definition of a connected packing-encodable problem and the following lemma.
\[lem:jbf\] Let $G$ be a graph embedded in a surface $\Sigma$ without boundary and Euler genus $\gamma$, and let $(T,\mu)$ be a surface cut decomposition of $G$ of width at most $k$. Then for every $e\in E(T)$, $|\Psi_{G_{e}}({{\bf mid}}(e))|= \gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot k^{O(\gamma)}\cdot
\gamma^{O(k)}$.
Before we give the proof of the above lemma, we first need to define formally the notion of non-crossing partitions on surfaces with boundary and then to prove some lemmata that combine elements from topology and combinatorics.\
A *non-crossing partition* of a set of size $k$, from a combinatorial point of view, is a partition of the set $\{1,2,\dots ,k\}$ with the following property: if $\{a,b,c,d\}
\subseteq \{1, 2,\dots ,k\}$ with $1\leq a<b<c<d\leq k$ and some subset in the partition contains $a$ and $c$, then no other subset contains both $b$ and $d$. One can represent such a partition on a disk by placing $k$ points on the boundary of the disk, labeled consecutively, and drawing each subset as a convex polygon (also called *block*) on the points belonging to the subset. Then, the “non-crossing” condition is equivalent to the fact that the blocks are pairwise disjoint. See Figure \[fig:catalan\] for some examples.
![Non-crossing partitions on a disk, which enumerate the number of partial solutions on planar graphs when using sphere cut decompositions.[]{data-label="fig:catalan"}](catalan.eps){width="11.0cm"}
The enumeration of non-crossing partitions on a disk is one of the first non-trivial problems in enumerative combinatorics: it is well-known (see e.g. [@FlajoletSedgewig:analytic-combinatorics]) that the the number of non-crossing partitions of $\{1,2,\dots,k\}$ on a disk is equal to the Catalan number $C(k)=\frac{1}{k+1}\binom{2k}{k}
\sim\frac{4^{k}}{k^{3/2}\sqrt{\pi}}= O(4^{k})$. This is the main combinatorial property exploited to obtain single-exponential dynamic programming algorithms on planar graphs using sphere cut decompositions [@DornPBF10effi; @SeymourT94; @SaTh10].
The generalization of the notion of non-crossing partition to surfaces of higher genus is not as straignforward as in the case of the disk, and must be defined carefully. We consider pairs $(\Sigma,S)$ where $\Sigma$ is a surface whose boundary has $\beta\left(\Sigma\right)$ connected components, each one homeomorphic to a simple circle, and $S$ is a set of vertices on this boundary. A [*partition family*]{} for the pair $(\Sigma,S)$ is a collection $\mathfrak{B}$ of mutually non-intersecting connected subsets of $\Sigma$, such that each vertex in $S$ belongs to some set in $\mathfrak{B}$.
Actually the concept of a partition family is not enough for our purposes, as we have to incorporate the presence of the set of vertices $A$ arising from a polyhedral decomposition. This set of vertices plays is some sense the role of [*apices*]{} in Graph Minors theory, and this is why we also call these vertices *apices*. For this reason we consider pairs of the form $(\Sigma\cup \Gamma_{A},S\cup
A)$ where $\Sigma$ is a surface with boundary, $S$ is a set of vertices on this boundary, $A$ is a vertex set not on the boundary (the apices), and $\Gamma_{A}$ is the closed set containing the points of the graph $C_{A}$ obtained if we take a complete graph with $A$ as vertex set and add to it $S$ together with all edges between the vertices of $A$ and $S$. We require that $\Gamma_{A}\cap \Sigma=S$ and we see the set $\Gamma_{A}$ as “flying above” the surface $\Sigma$. That way, we call the edges of $C_{A}$ [*flying edges*]{}, and we treat them as [*closed subsets*]{} of $\Gamma_{A}$ by adding to them the two endpoints of their boundary. We use the notation $\Sigma^{A}$ to denote $\Sigma\cup\Gamma_{A}$ (clearly $\Sigma=\Sigma^{\emptyset}$). To extend the definition of partition family, we take a partition family $\mathfrak{B}_{\Sigma}$ of $\Sigma$ and, on top of it, we consider a set $\mathfrak{E}_{A}$ of flying edges where each apex is incident with some edge in $\mathfrak{E}_{A}$. An [*extended partition family*]{} for $(\Sigma^{A},S)$ is a collection $\mathfrak{B}_{\Sigma^{A}}$ of subsets of $\Sigma^{A}\cup S$ defined as $$\mathfrak{B}_{\Sigma^{A}}=\{C\mid C\mbox{~is a connected component of the set ${\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}(\mathfrak{B}_{\Sigma}\cup
\mathfrak{E}_{A})$}\}\ ,$$ where $\mathfrak{B}_{\Sigma}$ and $\mathfrak{E}_{A}$ are taken as before. For simplicity, we may drop the index of a collection $\mathfrak{B}_{\Sigma}$ or $\mathfrak{B}_{\Sigma^{A}}$ when it is clear from the context whether it refers to $\Sigma$ or to $\Sigma^{A}$.
Notice that each partition family $\mathfrak{B}$ for $(\Sigma^{A},S\cup
A)$ defines a partition of $S\cup A$ as follows. $${\cal R}(\mathfrak{B})=\{(S\cup A)\cap B\mid B\in \mathfrak{B} \}.$$
We say that two extended partition families $\mathfrak{B}_{1}$ and $\mathfrak{B}_{2}$ for $(\Sigma^{A},S\cup A)$ are [*equivalent*]{} if ${\cal R}(\mathfrak{B}_{1})={\cal R}(\mathfrak{B}_{2})$ and we denote it by $\mathfrak{B}_{1}\equiv \mathfrak{B}_{2}$. The set of the [*non-crossing partitions with apices*]{} of the set $S\cup A$ (where $S$ and $A$ are vertices embedded in $\Sigma^{A}$ as before), denoted by $\Pi_{\Sigma^{A}}(S\cup A)$, is the set of equivalence classes of the extended partition families for $(\Sigma^{A},S\cup A)$ with respect to the relation $\equiv$. We define $\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)=\Pi_{\Sigma^{\emptyset}}(S\cup \emptyset)$, and note that, if $\Sigma$ is the disk and $|S|=k$, then $|\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)|$ is the $k$-th Catalan number and therefore $|\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)|=O(4^{k})$. The asymptotic enumeration of $|\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)|$ for general surfaces is quite a complicated problem. However, its behavior for surfaces $\Sigma$ where $\gamma(\Sigma)$ and $\beta(\Sigma)$ are bounded is not significantly different from the disk in what concerns its exponential growth. In particular it holds that $\lim_{|S|\rightarrow \infty}
|\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)|^{1/|S|}=4$ and this is a consequence of the following enumerative result from [@RST10_comb_Arxiv].
\[theorem: non-crossing-partition-final\] Let $\Sigma$ be a surface with boundary. Then the number $|\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)|$, for $|S|=k$, verifies $$\label{eq:thm-111}
|\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)|\leq _{k\rightarrow
\infty}\frac{C(\Sigma)}{\Gamma\left(3/2\gamma(\Sigma)+\beta(\Sigma)-3\right)}\cdot
k^{3/2\gamma(\Sigma)+\beta(\Sigma)-4} \cdot 4^k\ ,$$ where $C(\Sigma)$ is a function depending only on $\Sigma$ that is bounded by $\gamma(\Sigma)^{O(\gamma(\Sigma))}$, and $\Gamma$ is the Gamma function: $\Gamma(u)=\int_{0}^{\infty}t^{u-1}e^{-t}dt$.
The above result, which is critical for our analysis, has been proved using tools from analytic combinatorics (see [@FlajoletSedgewig:analytic-combinatorics]): singularity analysis over expressions obtained by the symbolic method. Actually, we prefer to translate it to the following looser form that is more convenient for our algorithmic purposes.
\[corr:four\] Let $\Sigma$ be a surface with boundary and let $S$ be a set of $k$ vertices in the boundary of $\Sigma$. Let also $\gamma$ be an integer such that $\gamma(\Sigma),\beta(\Sigma)\leq \gamma$. Then $|\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)|=\gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot k^{O(\gamma)}\cdot 4^{k}$.
For every set $S$ we define ${\cal B}(S)$ as the collection of all its partitions. Recall that if $|S|=l$, then $|{\cal B}(S)|$ is the $l$-th Bell number and that $|{\cal B}(S)|=2^{O(l\log l)}$. Also, given a collection ${\cal C}=\{S_{1},\ldots,S_{q}\}$ of subsets of $S$ and a subset $S'\subseteq S$, we denote by ${\cal C}|_{S'}$ the collection of all non-empty sets in $\{S_{1}\cap S',\ldots,S_{q}\cap S'\}$. Clearly, if ${\cal C}$ is a partition of $S$, then ${\cal C}|_{S'}$ is a partition of $S'$.
\[lem:formor\] Let $\Sigma$ be a surface with boundary, let $S$ be a set of vertices in the boundary of $\Sigma$, and let $A$ be a set of apices. Let also $\gamma$ and $k$ be integers such that $|A|,\gamma(\Sigma),\beta(\Sigma)\leq \gamma$ and $|S|\leq k$. Then $|\Pi_{\Sigma^{A}}(S\cup A)|=\gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot k^{O(\gamma)}\cdot
\gamma^{O(k)}$.
[**Proof:** ]{}Let ${\cal R}\in \Pi_{\Sigma^{A}}(S\cup A)$ and let $\mathfrak{B}$ be an extended partition family for $(\Sigma^{A},S\cup A)$, where ${\cal
R}(\mathfrak{B})={\cal R}$. We define $\mathfrak{B}_{\Sigma}$ as the set of connected components of the set $({\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}\mathfrak{B})\cap \Sigma$. Notice that $\mathfrak{B}_{\Sigma}$ is a partition family for $(\Sigma,S)$ and thus ${\cal R}_{\Sigma}={\cal R}(\mathfrak{B}_{\Sigma})\in
\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)$. Notice also that ${\cal R}|_{A}$ is a member of ${\cal
B}(A)$. We conclude that each ${\cal R}\in \Pi_{\Sigma^{A}}(S\cup A)$ uniquely generates a pair $({\cal R}_{\Sigma},{\cal R}|_{A})\in
\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)\times {\cal B}(A)$.
We define ${\bf P}_{({\cal R}_{\Sigma},{\cal R}|_{A})}$ as the set of all possible ${\cal R}$’s in $\Pi_{\Sigma^{A}}(S\cup A)$ that can generate a given pair $({\cal R}_{\Sigma},{\cal R}|_{A})\in \Pi_{\Sigma}(S)\times
{\cal B}(A)$.
\[claim:Dim1\]$|{\bf P}_{({\cal R}_{\Sigma},{\cal R}|_{A})}|\leq
(|{\cal R}|_{A}|+1)^{|{\cal R}_{\Sigma}|}$.
[**Proof:** ]{}We use the notation ${\cal R}|_{A}=\{A_{1},\ldots,A_{q}\}$. Let ${\cal R}\in {\bf P}_{({\cal R}_{\Sigma},{\cal R}|_{A})}$. By the above definitions, for each $i\in\{1,\ldots,p\}$, there is a unique set, say $P^{(i)}$, of ${\cal R}$ containing $A_{i}$ as a subset. Moreover, there is a (possibly empty) subset, say ${\cal B}^{(i)}$, of ${\cal R}_{\Sigma}$ such that $P^{(i)}\setminus A_{i}={\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}{\cal B}^{(i)}$. Notice that $\{{\cal B}^{(1)},\ldots,{\cal B}^{(i)}\}$ is a packing of ${\cal
R}_{\Sigma}$ (not necessarily a partition of ${\cal R}_{\Sigma}$, as some sets of ${\cal R}_{\Sigma}$ may appear directly as sets in ${\cal R}$). This means that each ${\cal R}\in {\bf P}_{({\cal R}_{\Sigma},{\cal
R}|_{A})}$ corresponds to some packing of ${\cal R}_{\Sigma}$ and some bijection of its sets to some of the elements of ${\cal R}|_{A}$. This corresponds to the partial functions from the set ${\cal R}_{\Sigma}$ to the set ${\cal R}|_{A}$, that is the claimed upper bound.[$\square~~$]{}
The rest of the proof is based on the fact that
$$|\Pi_{\Sigma^{A}}(S\cup A)|\leq \sum_{({\cal R}_{\Sigma},{\cal R}|_{A})\in\atop\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)\times {\cal B}(A)} |{\bf P}_{({\cal R}_{\Sigma},{\cal R}|_{A})}|.$$ Recall now that $|{\cal B}(A)|\leq |A|^{|A|}\leq \gamma^{\gamma}$. Also, from Corollary \[corr:four\], it holds that $|\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)|=\gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot k^{O(\gamma)}\cdot 4^{k}$. The Claim above implies that ${\bf P}_{({\cal R}_{\Sigma},{\cal R}|_{A})}\leq
(\gamma+1)^{k}$, as every packing in $\Pi_{\Sigma}(S)$ has at most $|S|\leq k$ sets and every packing in ${\cal B}(A)$ has at most $|A|\leq
\gamma$ sets. The proof of the lemma is completed by putting all these facts together. [$\square~~$]{}
Let $G$ be a graph and let $S$ be a subset of $V(G)$. We define $\Pi_{G}(S)$ as the set of all partitions in $\Psi_{G}(S)$, formally, $$\Pi_{G}(S)=\{{\cal R}\mid {\cal R}\in
\Psi_{G}(S)\mbox{~and~}{\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}{\cal R}=S\}.$$
\[lem:pi\] Let $G$ be a graph and let $S'\subseteq S\subseteq V(G)$. Then $|\Pi_{G}(S')|\leq |\Pi_{G}(S)|$.
[**Proof:** ]{}In order to prove the lemma, let us define an injective application $i: \Pi_{G}(S') \hookrightarrow \Pi_{G}(S)$. Let $\mathcal{R} \in
\Pi_{G}(S')$, which implies by definition (see Section \[sec:expl\]) that there exists a subgraph $H \subseteq G$ whose connected components define the packing $\mathcal{R}$ of $S'$. We define $i(\mathcal{R})$ as the packing of $S$ given by the same subgraph $H$. It is then easy to check that if $\mathcal{R}_1,\mathcal{R}_2 \in \Pi_{G}(S')$ with $\mathcal{R}_1 \neq \mathcal{R}_2$, then $i(\mathcal{R}_1) \neq
i(\mathcal{R}_2)$.[$\square~~$]{}
\[lemma:contr\] Let $G'$ be a graph with a set $S'\subseteq V(G')$ and an edge $e=\{x,y\}$ whose endvertices are both vertices of $S'$. Let also $G$ be the graph obtained from $G'$ after the contraction of $e$ to a vertex $v_{e}$, and let $S=S'\setminus \{x,y\}\cup \{v_{e}\}$. Then $|\Pi_{G}(S)|\leq |\Pi_{G'}(S')|$.
[**Proof:** ]{}Similarly to the proof of Lemma \[lemma:contr\], let us define an injection $i: \Pi_{G}(S) \hookrightarrow \Pi_{G'}(S')$. Let $\mathcal{R}
\in \Pi_{G}(S)$, and let $H$ be a subgraph of $G$ whose connected components define the packing $\mathcal{R}$ of $S$. We distinguish two cases. First, if $v_e \notin V(H)$, we define $i(\mathcal{R})$ to be the packing of $S'$ given by the connected components of $H$. Otherwise, if $v_e \in V(H)$, let $H' \subseteq G'$ be the graph obtained from $H$ by removing $v_e$ and adding $x,y$, the edge $\{x,y\}$, and all the edges in $G'$ between $x,y$ and the neighbors of $v_e$ in $H$. In this case we define $i(\mathcal{R})$ to be the packing of $S'$ given by the connected components of $H'$. It is again easy to check that if $\mathcal{R}_1,\mathcal{R}_2 \in \Pi_{G}(S)$ with $\mathcal{R}_1 \neq
\mathcal{R}_2$, then $i(\mathcal{R}_1) \neq i(\mathcal{R}_2)$. [$\square~~$]{}
The following observation gives the obvious way to enumerate packings from partitions.
\[obs:manyn\] Let $G$ be a graph and let $S\subseteq V(G)$. Then $\Psi_{G}(S)=\bigcup_{S'\subseteq S}\Pi_{G}(S').$
Combining Lemma \[lem:pi\] and Observation \[obs:manyn\] we obtain the following.
\[obs:psi\] Let $G$ be a graph and let $S'\subseteq S\subseteq V(G)$. Then $|\Psi_{G}(S')|\leq |\Psi_{G}(S)|$.
Let $H$ be a graph embedded in a surface $\Sigma$ with boundary. We denote by $\mathfrak{B}_{H}$ the collection of connected subsets of $\Sigma$ corresponding to the connected components of $H$.
\[lem:hela\] Let $G$ be a graph containing a set $A$ of vertices such that $G\setminus A$ is embedded in a surface $\Sigma$. Let also $S$ be the set of vertices of $G$ that lie on the boundary of $\Sigma$. Then $|\Pi_{G}(S\cup A)|\leq |\Pi_{\Sigma^{A}}(S\cup A)|$.
[**Proof:** ]{}It is enough to prove that for every partition ${\cal R}$ in $\Pi_{G}(S\cup A)$ there is an extended partition family $\mathfrak{B}$ for $(\Sigma^{A},S\cup A)$ such that ${\cal R}(\mathfrak{B})={\cal R}$. For this, consider a subgraph $H$ of $G$ where ${\cal P}_{S\cup
A}(H)={\cal R}$. As ${\cal R}\in \Pi_{G}(S\cup A)$, it holds that ${\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}{\cal R}=S\cup A$ and therefore ${\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}{\cal R}\subseteq V(H)$. As $H\setminus A$ can be embedded in $\Sigma$, the set $\mathfrak{B}_{H\setminus A}$ is a partition family for $(\Sigma,S)$. Let now $H_{A}$ be the subgraph of $H$ formed by its edges that are not embedded in $\Sigma$. Observe that $H_{A}$ is isomorphic to a subgraph of $C_{A}$ and therefore its edges can be seen as a collection $\mathfrak{E}_{A}$ of flying edges where each apex vertex is contained in some edge of $\mathfrak{E}_{A}$. Let $\mathfrak{B}$ be the connected components of the set ${\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}(\mathfrak{B}_{H\setminus A}\cup
\mathfrak{E}_{A})$. Clearly, $\mathfrak{B}$ is an extended partition family for $(\Sigma^{A},S\cup A)$. It is now easy to verify that ${\cal
R}(\mathfrak{B})={\cal R}$ and the lemma follows. [$\square~~$]{}
\[lem:hel\] Let $G$ be a graph containing a set $A$ of vertices such that $G\setminus A$ is embedded in a surface $\Sigma$ with boundary. Let also $S$ be the set of vertices of $G$ that lie on the boundary of $\Sigma$ and $A'\subseteq A$. Then, if $|S|\leq k$ and $|A|,\gamma(\Sigma),\beta(\Sigma)\leq \gamma$, then $|\Psi_{G}(S\cup A')|=
\gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot k^{O(\gamma)}\cdot \gamma^{O(k)}$.
[**Proof:** ]{}From Observation \[obs:psi\], it is enough to prove the lemma for the case where $A'=A$. From Lemmata \[lem:formor\] and \[lem:hela\], it follows that $|\Pi_{G}(S\cup A)|=\gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot k^{O(\gamma)}\cdot
\gamma^{O(k)}$. From Lemma \[lem:pi\], we obtain that $|\Pi_{G}(W)|\leq
|\Pi_{G}(S\cup A)|=\gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot k^{O(\gamma)}\cdot
\gamma^{O(k)}$ for every $W\subseteq S\cup A$. Therefore, from Observation \[obs:manyn\], $|\Psi_{G}(S\cup A)|\leq 2^{|S|+|A|}\cdot
\gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot k^{O(\gamma)}\cdot
\gamma^{O(k)}=\gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot k^{O(\gamma)}\cdot \gamma^{O(k)}$ and the lemma follows. [$\square~~$]{}
Let $\Sigma$ be a surface without boundary, and let $\mathcal{N}$ be a set of $O$-arcs in $\Sigma$ pairwise intersecting at zero-dimensional subsets of $\Sigma$. Then the closure of each connected component of $\Sigma
\setminus {\pmb{\pmb{\cup}}}\mathcal{N}$ is called a *pseudo-surface*. Notice that the boundary of a pseudo-surface is a subset of $\mathcal{N}$ and that the definition of the parameter $\theta(\mathcal{N})$ introduced in Section \[sec:topological\_lemmas\] can be naturally extended to pseudo-surfaces. If $\Sigma$ is a pseudo-surface with boundary given by a finite set $\mathcal{N}$ of $O$-arcs pairwise intersecting at finite zero-dimensional subsets of $\Sigma$, note that $\Sigma$ is a surface with boundary if and only if $\theta(\mathcal{N})=0$. Note also that the closure of each of the two connected components in the last condition of Definition \[def:surface\_cut\] is a pseudo-surface.
\[lem:pseu\] Let $G$ be a graph embedded in a pseudo-surface $\Sigma$ whose boundary is given by a collection $\mathcal{N}$ of nooses of $G$ pairwise intersecting only at vertices of $G$, and such that $\theta(\mathcal{N}) > 0$. Let $S$ be the set of vertices of $G$ that lie on the boundary of $\Sigma$. Then there is a graph $G'$ embedded in a pseudo-surface $\Sigma'$ with boundary given by a collection $\mathcal{N}'$ of nooses of $G'$, such that
- $\theta(\mathcal{N}')= \theta(\mathcal{N})-1$;
- $G$ is the result of the contraction of an edge in $G'$;
- if $S'$ is the set of vertices of $G'$ that lie on the boundary of $\Sigma'$, then $|S'|=|S|+1$.
[**Proof:** ]{}Without loss of generality, let $v \in N_1 \cap \ldots \cap
N_{\ell}$, with $N_1,\ldots,N_{\ell} \in \mathcal{N}$ and $\ell \geq 2$, so by assumption $v \in S \subseteq V(G)$; for an illustration throughout the proof, see Figure \[fig:InverseContraction\]. We build from $\Sigma$ a pseudo-surface $\Sigma'$ by replacing noose $N_1$ with a noose $N_1'$ obtained from $N_1$ by slightly deforming it around $v$ in such a way that $v \notin N_1'$ (note that this is clearly possible, as by assumption the nooses intersect only at vertices of $G$). As the nooses in $\Sigma$ and in $\Sigma'$ intersect at the same vertices except for vertex $v$, we have that $\theta(\mathcal{N}')= \theta(\mathcal{N})-1$. We now construct $G'$ from $G$ as follows: We start from the embedding of $G$ in $\Sigma$, and we embed it in $\Sigma'$ in such a way that $v \in N_2 \cap \ldots \cap
N_{\ell}$. Finally, we add a new vertex $v' \in N_1'$ and we add the edge $\{v,v'\}$. By construction, it is clear that $G$ can be obtained from $G'$ by contracting edge $\{v,v'\}$, and that $S'=S \cup \{v'\}$. [$\square~~$]{}
![Example of the construction of $\Sigma'$ and $G'$ in the proof of Lemma \[lem:pseu\]. On the left, we have a graph $G$ (depicted with thick lines) embedded in a pseudo-surface $\Sigma$ whose boundary is given by the set of nooses $\mathcal{N}=\{N_1,N_2,N_3,N_4,N_5\}$ (in grey) pairwise intersecting at vertices of $G$, with $\theta(\mathcal{N})=4$. On the right, the corresponding graph $G'$ embedded in a pseudo-surface $\Sigma'$ with boundary given by $\mathcal{N}'=\{N_1',N_2,N_3,N_4,N_5\}$, and such that $\theta(\mathcal{N}')=3$. In this example, we have that $|S|=6$ and $|S'|=7$.[]{data-label="fig:InverseContraction"}](InverseContraction.eps){width="14.5cm"}
[**Proof of Lemma \[lem:jbf\]:**]{} In case $|{{\bf mid}}(e)\setminus
A|\leq 2$, we have that $|{{\bf mid}}(e)|=O(\gamma)$ and the result follows as $|\Pi_{G_{e}}({{\bf mid}}(e))|\leq |{\bf B}(O(\gamma))|= 2^{O(\gamma\log
\gamma)}$. In the remaining case, let $H$ be the graph of the polyhedral decomposition $({\cal G},A)$ of $G$ that corresponds to edge $e$. Let also ${\cal N}$ be the corresponding set of $O(\gamma)$ nooses meeting all vertices of ${{\bf mid}}(e)\setminus A$. Let also $\Sigma^{*}$ be the closure of the connected component of $\Sigma\setminus\bigcup_{N\in{\cal N}}N$ where the graph $G_{e}\setminus A$ is embedded. Clearly, $\Sigma^{*}$ is a pseudo-surface with boundary given by a set of nooses $\mathcal{N}$ with $\theta(\mathcal{N})=O(\gamma)$. By inductively applying Lemmata \[lemma:contr\] and \[lem:pseu\], we can assume that $\Sigma^{*}$ is a surface with boundary such that $O(|{{\bf mid}}(e)|+\gamma(\Sigma))=O(k+\gamma)$ of the vertices of $G_{e}$ lie on this boundary. Then the result follows directly from Lemma \[lem:hel\] by setting $G_{e}$ instead of $G$, $\Sigma^{*}$ instead of $\Sigma$, $A \cap {{\bf mid}}(e)$ instead of $A'$, and $A \cap
V(G_e)$ instead of $A$. [$\square~~$]{}
Conclusions and open problems {#sec:conclusions}
=============================
As stated in Theorem \[teo:finals\], our results can be summarized as follows: Every connected packing-encodable problem whose input graph $G$ is embedded in a surface of Euler genus $\gamma$, and has branchwidth at most $k$, can be solved in $\gamma^{O(k)} \cdot k^{O(\gamma)} \cdot
\gamma^{O(\gamma)}\cdot n^{O(1)}$ steps.
As we mentioned, the problems tackled in [@DFT06] can be encoded with pairings, and therefore they can be seen as special cases of packing-encodable problems. As a result of this, we reproduce all the results of [@DFT06]. Moreover, as our approach does not use planarization, our analysis provides algorithms where the dependence on the Euler genus $\gamma$ is better than the one in [@DFT06]. In particular, the running time of the algorithms in [@DFT06] is $2^{O(\gamma\cdot k+\gamma^{2}\cdot \log k)}\cdot n^{O(1)}$, while in our case the running time is $2^{O(\log \gamma \cdot k + \gamma \cdot \log k +
\gamma \cdot \log \gamma)}\cdot n^{O(1)}$.
Dynamic programming is important for the design of [*subexponential*]{} exact or parameterized algorithms. Using the fact that bounded-genus graphs have branchwidth at most $O(\sqrt{\gamma \cdot n})$ [@FoTh04], we derive the existence of exact algorithms in $O^{*}(2^{O(\log \gamma
\cdot \sqrt{\gamma n}+\gamma \cdot \log n+ \gamma \cdot \log \gamma})$ steps for all connected packing-encodable problems. Moreover, using bidimensionality theory (see [@DFHT05; @DHT06]), one can derive $2^{O(\gamma \cdot \log \gamma \cdot \sqrt{k} + \gamma \cdot \log k)}\cdot
n^{O(1)}$ time parameterized algorithms for all bidimensional connected packing-encodable problems, where here $k$ is the corresponding parameter.
Note that the running time of our algorithms is conditioned by the construction of an appropriate surface cut decomposition. This preprocessing step takes $2^{3k+O(\log k)} \cdot n^3$ steps by Theorem \[teo:surface\_cut\]. Finding a preprocessing algorithm with better polynomial dependance remains open. As finding an optimal branch decomposition of a surface-embedded graph in polynomial time is open, it may be even possible that computing an optimal surface cut decomposition can be done in polynomial time.
Sometimes dynamic programming demands even more complicated encodings. We believe that our results can also serve in this direction. For instance, surface cut decompositions have recently been used in [@ADF+10] for minor containment problems, where tables encode partitions of packings of the middle sets.
A natural extension of our results is to consider more general classes of graphs than bounded-genus graphs. This has been done in [@DFT08] for problems where the tables of the algorithms encode pairings of the middle sets. Extending these results for connected packing-encodable problems (where tables encode subsets of the middle sets) using the planarization approach of [@DFT08] appears to be a quite complicated task. We believe that our surface-oriented approach could be more successful in this direction and we find it an interesting, but non-trivial task [@RST11minors].\
**Acknowledgement**. We would like to thank Sergio Cabello for inspiring discussions and for pointing us to several helpful topological references.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
Two examples of dynamic programming algorithms {#two-examples-of-dynamic-programming-algorithms .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------
In this Appendix we present two examples of typical dynamic programming algorithms on graphs of bounded branchwidth. The first algorithm solves the [Vertex Cover]{} problem, which is a problem whose solutions can be simply encoded by a subset of vertices. The second algorithm solves the [Connected Vertex Cover]{} problem, which is a packing-encodable problem, but cannot be encoded by neither a subset nor a pairing of vertices.
#### Dynamic programming for [Vertex Cover]{}.
Given a graph $G$ and a non-negative integer $\ell$, we have to decide whether $G$ contains a set $S\subseteq V(G), |S|\leq \ell$, meeting all edges of $G$.
Let $G$ be a graph and $X,X'\subseteq V(G)$ where $X\cap X'=\emptyset$. We say that ${{\mathbf{vc}}}(G,X,X')\leq \ell$ if $G$ contains a vertex cover $S$ where $|S|\leq \ell$ and $X\subseteq S\subseteq V(G)\setminus X'$. Let ${\cal R}_{e}=\{(X,\ell)\mid X\subseteq {{\bf mid}}(e) \mbox{~and~}
{{\mathbf{vc}}}(G_{e},X,{{\bf mid}}(e)\setminus X)\leq \ell\}$ and observe that ${{\mathbf{vc}}}(G)\leq
\ell$ if and only if $(\emptyset,\ell)\in {\cal R}_{e_{r}}$. For each $e\in E(T)$ we can compute ${\cal R}_{e}$ by using the following dynamic programming formula: $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal R}_{e} & = &
\begin{cases}
\{(X,\ell)\mid X\subseteq e \mbox{~and~} X\neq \emptyset \wedge \ell\geq |X|\} & \text{if $e\in L(T)$}\\
\{(X,\ell)\mid \exists (X_{1},\ell_{1})\in {\cal R}_{e_{1}}, \exists (X_{2},\ell_{2})\in {\cal R}_{e_{2}}: & \\
(X_{1}\cup X_{2})\cap {{\bf mid}}(e)=X \wedge \ell_{1}+\ell_{2}-|X_{1}\cap
X_{2}|\leq \ell \} & \text{if $e\not\in L(T)$}
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ Note that for each $e\in E(T)$, $|{\cal R}_{e}|\leq 2^{|{{\bf mid}}(e)|}\cdot
\ell$. Therefore, the above algorithm can check whether ${{\mathbf{vc}}}(G)\leq \ell$ in $O(4^{{{\mathbf{bw}}}(G)}\cdot \ell^2\cdot |V(T)|)$ steps. Clearly, this simple algorithm is single-exponential in ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(G)$. Moreover the above dynamic programming machinery can be adapted to many other combinatorial problems where the certificate of the solution is a (non-restricted) subset of vertices (e.g. [Dominating Set]{}, [3-Coloring]{}, [Independent Set]{}, among others).
#### Dynamic programming for [Connected Vertex Cover]{}.
Suppose now that we are looking for a [*connected*]{} vertex cover of size $\leq \ell$. Clearly, the above dynamic programming formula does not work for this variant as we should keep track of more information on $X$ towards encoding the connectivity demand.
Let $G$ be a graph, $X\subseteq V(G)$ and ${\cal H}$ be a (possibly empty) hypergraph whose vertex set is a subset of $X$, whose hyperedges are non-empty, pairwise non-intersecting, and such that each vertex of ${\cal
H}$ belongs to some of its hyperedges (we call such a hypergraph [*partial packing*]{} of $X$). Suppose that ${\cal H}$ is a partial packing on ${{\bf mid}}(e)$. We say that ${{\mathbf{cvc}}}(G,{\cal H})\leq \ell$ if $G$ contains a vertex cover $S$ where $|S|\leq \ell$ and such that if ${\cal C}$ is the collection of the connected components of $G_{e}[S]$, then either $|E({\cal H})|=|{\cal C}|$ and $(X,\{X\cap V(C)\mid C\in {\cal C}\})={\cal H}$ or $E({\cal H})=\emptyset$ and $|{\cal C}|=1$.
As before, let ${\cal Q}_{e}=\{({\cal H},\ell)\mid {{\mathbf{cvc}}}(G,{\cal H})\leq
\ell\}$ and observe that ${{\mathbf{cvc}}}(G)\leq \ell$ if and only if $((\emptyset,\emptyset),\ell)\in {\cal Q}_{e_{r}}$. The dynamic programming formula for computing ${\cal Q}_{e}$ for each $e\in E(T)$ is the following. $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal Q}_{e} & = &
\begin{cases}
\{({\cal H},\ell)\mid \min\{\ell, |E({\cal H})|+1 \} \geq |V({\cal H})| \geq 1 & \text{if $e\in L(T)$}\\
\{({\cal H},\ell)\mid \exists ({\cal H}_{1},\ell_{1})\in {\cal Q}_{e_{1}}, \exists ({\cal H}_{2},\ell_{2})\in {\cal Q}_{e_{2}}: & \\
V({\cal H}_{1})\cap ({{\bf mid}}(e_1) \cap {{\bf mid}}(e_2)) = V({\cal H}_{2})\cap ({{\bf mid}}(e_1) \cap {{\bf mid}}(e_2)), & \\
({\cal H}_{1}\oplus {\cal H}_{2})[{{\bf mid}}(e)]={\cal H}, \ell_{1}+\ell_{2}-|V({\cal H}_{1})\cap V({\cal H}_{2})|\leq \ell \}, & \\
\mbox{~if~}E({\cal H})=\emptyset\mbox{~then~} |E({\cal H}_{1}\oplus {\cal H}_{2})|=1, \mbox{and}\\
\mbox{~if~}E({\cal H}) \neq\emptyset\mbox{~then~} |E(H_{1}\oplus
H_{2})|=|E({\cal H})| & \text{if $e\not\in L(T)$}.\
\\
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ In the above formula, ${\cal H}_{1}\oplus{\cal H}_{2}$ is the hypergraph with vertex set $V({\cal H}_{1})\cup V({\cal H}_{2})$ where each of its hyperedges contains the vertices of each of the connected components of ${\cal H}_{1}\cup {\cal H}_{2}$.
Clearly, each ${\cal H}$ corresponds to a collection of subsets of $X$ and the number of such collections for a given set ${{\bf mid}}(e)$ of $r$ elements is given by the $r$-th Bell number of $r$, denoted by $B_r$. By taking the straightforward upper bound $|B_{r}|=2^{O(r\log r)}$, we have that one can check whether an input graph $G$ has a connected vertex cover of size at most $\ell$ in $2^{O({{\mathbf{bw}}}(G)\cdot \log {{\mathbf{bw}}}(G))}\cdot \ell \cdot |V(T)|$ steps.
As the growth of $B_{r}$ is not single-exponential, we cannot hope for a single-exponential (in ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(G)$) running time for the above dynamic programming procedure, and no deterministic algorithm is known for this problem running in time single-exponential in ${{\mathbf{bw}}}(G)$. The same problem appears for numerous other problems where further restrictions apply to their solution certificates. Such problems can be connected variants of problems encodable by a subset of vertices, and others such as [Maximum Induced Forest]{}, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum $d$-Degree-Bounded Connected Subgraph</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Metric TSP</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum $d$-Degree-Bounded Connected Induced Subgraph</span> and all the variants studied in [@SaTh10], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Connected Dominating Set</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Connected $r$-Domination</span>, [Feedback Vertex Set]{}, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Connected Feedback Vertex Set</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Leaf Spanning Tree</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Full-Degree Spanning Tree</span>, <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Steiner Tree</span>, or <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Maximum Leaf Tree</span>.
[^1]: Laboratorie d’Informatique, École Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau-Cedex, France. Supported by the European Research Council under the European Community’s 7th Framework Programme, ERC grant agreement 208471 - ExploreMaps project. E-mail: [[email protected]]{}.
[^2]: AlGCo project-team, CNRS, Laboratoire d’Informatique, de Robotique et de Microélectronique de Montpellier (LIRMM), Montpellier, France. Supported by projects ANR Agape and ANR Gratos. E-mail: `[email protected]`.
[^3]: Department of Mathematics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. Supported by the project “Kapodistrias” (A${\rm \Pi}$ 02839/28.07.2008) of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. E-mail: `[email protected]`.
[^4]: The results of this paper were announced in the extended abstract “*Dynamic Programming for Graphs on Surfaces. Proceedings of ICALP’2010, volume 6198 of LNCS, pages 372-383*”, which is a combination of the algorithmic framework presented in this paper and the enumerative results that can be found in [@RST10_comb_Arxiv].
[^5]: The original statement of Courcelle’s theorem used the parameter of treewidth instead of branchwidth. The two parameters are approximately equivalent, in the sense that one is a constant-factor approximation of the other.
[^6]: A shortest non-contractible cycle can be found in $2^{O(\gamma \log \gamma)}n^{4/3}$ steps [@CaMo07]. This running time improves on $O(n^3)$ for a big range of values of $\gamma$.
[^7]: The improvement in the multiplicative factor of the Euler genus is obtained by applying more carefully Euler’s formula in the proof analogous to that of [@FoTh07 Lemma 2].
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'Given a star product with separation of variables $\star$ on a pseudo-Kähler manifold $M$ and a point ${{x_0}}\in M$, we construct an associative algebra of formal distributions supported at ${{x_0}}$. We use this algebra to express the formal oscillatory exponents of a family of formal oscillatory integrals related to the star product $\star$.'
address: 'Department of Mathematics, Abilene Christian University, ACU Box 28012, Abilene, TX 79699-8012'
author:
- Alexander Karabegov
title: An algebra of distributions related to a star product with separation of variables
---
Introduction
============
Berezin and Berezin-Toeplitz quantizations on a Kähler manifold $M$ which depend on a certain small numerical parameter $h$ produce deformation quantizations with separation of variables on $M$ of the anti-Wick and Wick type, respectively, via an asymptotic procedure as $h \to 0$ (see [@Ber1], [@Ber2], [@BW], [@CGR], [@E], [@CMP1], [@KS]). In the deformation quantization formalism, the small asymptotic parameter $h$ is replaced with the formal parameter $\nu$. Deformation quantizations with separation of variables exist on arbitrary pseudo-Kähler manifolds and admit a bijective parametrization by $\nu$-formal pseudo-Kähler forms.
Both Berezin and Berezin-Toeplitz quantizations are based upon an integral operator, the Berezin transform, which maps contravariant symbols to the corresponding covariant symbols. The $h$-dependent Berezin transform admits an asymptotic expansion as $h \to 0$ which gives a $\nu$-formal differential operator on $M$, the formal Berezin transform. Any deformation quantization with separation of variables has the corresponding formal Berezin transform from which it can be completely recovered. A formal Berezin transform can be expressed in terms of what we call a formal oscillatory integral.
It was shown in [@KS] and [@LMP10] that there exists a formal algebraic counterpart of an oscillatory integral with a complex phase function on a manifold $M$. It is called a formal oscillatory integral (FOI). A FOI is given by a fixed point ${{x_0}}\in M$ and a formal oscillatory integral kernel, $$\label{E:fosck}
\exp(\varphi) \cdot \rho,$$ where $\varphi = \nu^{-1} \varphi_{-1} + \varphi_0 + \ldots$ is a $\nu$-formal complex phase function on $M$ such that ${{x_0}}$ is a nondegenerate critical point of $\varphi_{-1}$ with zero critical value, $\varphi_{-1}({{x_0}})=0$, and $\rho = \rho_0 + \nu \rho_1 + \ldots$ is a $\nu$-formal complex volume form on $M$ such that $\rho_0$ does not vanish at ${{x_0}}$. We call $(\varphi, \rho)$ [*a phase-volume form pair at ${{x_0}}$*]{}. A FOI associated with the formal oscillatory kernel (\[E:fosck\]) is a $\nu$-formal distribution $\Lambda$ supported at ${{x_0}}$ which actually depends only on the jet[^1] of (\[E:fosck\]) at ${{x_0}}$. A FOI is described by algebraic axioms in terms of its oscillatory kernel. Heuristically, the $\nu$-formal distribution $\Lambda$ gives an interpretation of the formal expression $$\Lambda(f) = \nu^{-\frac{n}{2}} \int_M e^\varphi f\, \rho,$$ where $n = \dim M$ and $f$ is an amplitude supported near ${{x_0}}$.
Let $\star$ be a star product of the anti-Wick type on a pseudo-Kähler manifold $M$, $I$ be its formal Berezin transform, $\mu$ be its formal trace density, and ${{x_0}}$ be a point in $M$. It was shown in [@KS] and [@LMP10] that the $\nu$-formal distribution $$\label{E:kl}
K^{(l)}(f_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes f_l) := (I f_1 \star \ldots \star If_l)({{x_0}})$$ on $M^l$ is a FOI at the diagonal point $({{x_0}})^l:=({{x_0}}, \ldots,{{x_0}}) \in M^l$. Its formal oscillatory kernel is $$\label{E:lkernel}
\exp \left(F^{(l)}\right) \cdot \mu^{\otimes l},$$ where the jet of $F^{(l)}$ at $({{x_0}})^l$ is expressed via what we call a cyclic formal $(l+1)$-point Calabi function of the star product $\star$ (see details in the main body of the paper).
In this paper we describe an associative algebra of $\nu$-formal distributions supported at ${{x_0}}$. For each $l \geq 1$, the jet of the oscillatory exponent $\exp{F^{(l)}}$ at $({{x_0}})^l$ is naturally expressed in terms of this algebra.
Many constructions in this paper depend on jets of functions at a given point but are stated in terms of functions which represent these jets. These representatives exist by Borel’s theorem.
Formal oscillatory integrals
============================
Formal oscillatory integrals were introduced in [@KS] and developed further in [@LMP10]. Given a vector space $V$, we denote by $V((\nu))$ the space of $\nu$-formal vectors $$\label{E:fvect}
v = \nu^r v_r + \nu^{r+1} v_{r+1} + \ldots,$$ where $r \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}$ and $v_k \in V$ for all $k \geq r$. The subspace $V[[\nu]] \subset V((\nu))$ consists of the vectors (\[E:fvect\]) with $r =0$.
Let, as above, $M$ be a manifold, ${{x_0}}$ be a fixed point in $M$, and $(\varphi, \rho)$ be a phase-volume form pair at ${{x_0}}$. Two pairs, $(\varphi, \rho)$ and $(\hat\varphi, \hat\rho)$, at ${{x_0}}$ are called equivalent if there exists a formal function $u = u_0 + \nu u_1 + \ldots$ on a neighborhood of ${{x_0}}$ such that $$\hat\varphi = \varphi+ u \mbox{ and } \hat \rho = e^{-u} \rho.$$ Hence, it is natural to write the equivalence class of a pair $(\varphi, \rho)$ as (\[E:fosck\]).
Given a pair $(\varphi, \rho)$ and a $\nu$-formal volume form $\hat\rho=\hat\rho_0 + \nu \hat\rho_1 + \ldots$ such that $\hat\rho_0$ does not vanish at ${{x_0}}$, there exists a formal phase function $\hat\varphi$ such that the pairs $(\varphi, \rho)$ and $(\hat\varphi, \hat\rho)$ are equivalent.
Given a pair $(\varphi, \rho)$ on a manifold $M$ at ${{x_0}}\in M$, a formal distribution $\Lambda = \Lambda_0 + \nu \Lambda_1 + \ldots$ on $M$ supported at ${{x_0}}$ is called a formal oscillatory integral (FOI) associated with the pair $(\varphi, \rho)$ if $\Lambda_0 \neq 0$ and $$\label{E:FOI}
\Lambda\left(vf + (v\varphi + \mathrm{div}_\rho v) f\right)=0$$ for any vector field $v$ and any function $f$ on $M$.
Here $\mathrm{div}_\rho v = \mathbb{L}_v \rho/\rho$ is the divergence of the vector field $v$ with respect to $\rho$ and $\mathbb{L}_v$ is the Lie derivative with respect to $v$. As shown in [@LMP10], $$\Lambda_0 = \alpha \delta_{{x_0}},$$ where $\alpha$ is a nonzero complex constant and $\delta_{{x_0}}$ is the Dirac distribution at ${{x_0}}$, $\delta_{{x_0}}(f)=f({{x_0}})$. For any pair $(\varphi, \rho)$ there exists an associated FOI which is determined up to a formal multiplicative constant $c(\nu) = c_0 + \nu c_1 + \ldots$, where $c_0\neq 0$. In particular, there is a unique such FOI $\Lambda$ for which $\Lambda(1)=1$. If a FOI is associated with a pair $(\varphi, \rho)$, then it is associated with any equivalent pair. If $\Lambda$ is a FOI at ${{x_0}}$ associated with a pair $(\varphi, \rho)$ and $\{x^i\}$ are local coordinates on a coordinate chart $U$ containing ${{x_0}}$, then the pair $(\varphi, \rho)$ is equivalent to some pair $(\psi, dx)$ on $U$, where $dx = dx^1 \wedge \ldots \wedge dx^n$. In terms of the pair $(\psi,dx)$, condition (\[E:FOI\]) can be stated as follows, $$\label{E:FOIcoord}
\Lambda\left(\frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}x^i} + \frac{{\partial}\psi}{{\partial}x^i}f\right)=0$$ for any $i$ and any function $f$, because $\mathrm{div}_{dx} ({\partial}/{\partial}x^i) = 0$.
It is clear from the definition that a FOI at ${{x_0}}$ associated with a pair $(\varphi, \rho)$ depends only on the jets of $\varphi$ and $\rho$ at ${{x_0}}$. It was shown in [@LMP10] that if a FOI $\Lambda$ at ${{x_0}}$ is associated with pairs $(\varphi, \rho)$ and $(\hat\varphi, \rho)$ with the same volume form $\rho$, then the jet of $\hat\varphi-\varphi$ at ${{x_0}}$ is a $\nu$-formal constant. This result is based on the following important statement. Given a FOI $\Lambda$ at ${{x_0}}$, consider a pairing on $C^\infty(M)[[\nu]]$ given by the formula $$\label{E:pairl}
(f, g)_{\Lambda} :=\Lambda(f\cdot g).$$ This pairing depends only on the jets of $f$ and $g$ at ${{x_0}}$ and therefore it induces a pairing on the space ${{\mathcal F}}$ of $\nu$-formal jets at ${{x_0}}$. The induced pairing will be denoted by the same notation $(\cdot, \cdot)_{\Lambda}$.
\[L:nondeg\] For any FOI $\Lambda$ at ${{x_0}}$ the pairing (\[E:pairl\]) on ${{\mathcal F}}$ is nondegenerate.
We will give a shorter and more conceptual proof of this lemma than the one given in [@LMP10].
Let $\Lambda$ be a FOI at ${{x_0}}$. Fix a coordinate chart $U$ containing ${{x_0}}$ with local coordinates $\{x^i\}$. The FOI $\Lambda$ is associated with some pair $(\psi,dx)$ on $U$. For any functions $f,g$, we have from (\[E:FOIcoord\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}x^i}, g\right)_\Lambda + \left(f, \frac{{\partial}g}{{\partial}x^i} + \frac{{\partial}\psi}{{\partial}x^i} g\right)_\Lambda = \Lambda\left(\frac{{\partial}f}{{\partial}x^i}g + f \frac{{\partial}g}{{\partial}x^i} + \frac{{\partial}\psi}{{\partial}x^i} fg \right) =\\
\Lambda\left(\frac{{\partial}(f g)}{{\partial}x^i} + \frac{{\partial}\psi}{{\partial}x^i}fg\right) =0.\end{aligned}$$ It means that the transpose of the operator ${\partial}/{\partial}x^i$ with respect to the pairing (\[E:pairl\]) is $$\left(\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x^i}\right)^\dagger = - \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}x^i} - \frac{{\partial}\psi}{{\partial}x^i}.$$ The transpose of the multiplication operator by a function $f$ with respect to the pairing (\[E:pairl\]) is the same operator, $f^\dagger = f$. We see that any formal differential operator of finite order $A$ on $U$ has a transpose $A^\dagger$ with respect to this pairing. Suppose that a formal function $f \in C^\infty(M)[[\nu]]$ lies in the kernel of the pairing (\[E:pairl\]), that is, $$(f,g)_\Lambda=0$$ for any formal function $g$. For any differential operator $A$ on $U$ we have $$\label{E:laf}
\Lambda(Af) = \Lambda(Af \cdot 1) = (Af,1)_\Lambda = (f, A^\dagger 1)_\Lambda=0.$$ Assume that the jet of $f = f_0 + \nu f_1 + \ldots$ at ${{x_0}}$ is nonzero. Let $r$ be the least nonnegative integer such that the jet of $f_r$ at ${{x_0}}$ is nonzero. Since $\Lambda_0 = \alpha\delta_{{x_0}}$, where $\alpha$ is a nonzero constant, we see from (\[E:laf\]) that $$(Af_r)({{x_0}})=0$$ for any differential operator $A$ which does not depend on $\nu$. It contradicts the assumption that the jet of $f_r$ at ${{x_0}}$ is nonzero. Therefore, the pairing (\[E:pairl\]) induced on ${{\mathcal F}}$ is nondegenerate.
Formal oscillatory integrals should naturally appear in the framework of deformation quantization because many star products are obtained from asymptotic expansions of oscillatory integrals. In this paper we are concerned with the family (\[E:kl\]) of FOIs related to a star product with separation of variables.
Deformation quantization {#S:defquant}
========================
Let $M$ be a Poisson manifold equipped with a Poisson bracket $\{\cdot, \cdot\}$. A formal deformation quantization on $M$ is given by a $\nu$-linear associative product on the space $C^\infty(M)[[\nu]]$ of formal functions, $$\label{E:star}
f \star g = fg + \sum_{r=1}^\infty \nu^r C_r(f,g),$$ where $C_r$ are bidifferential operators on $M$ and $$C_1(f,g)-C_1(g,f)=i\{f,g\}.$$ The product $\star$ is called a star product. It is assumed that the unit constant is the identity for a star product, $f \star 1 = 1 \star f = f$ for any $f$. The product (\[E:star\]) naturally extends to the space $C^\infty(M)((\nu))$.
Two star products $\star$ and $\tilde\star$ on a Poisson manifold $(M, \{\cdot, \cdot\})$ are called equivalent if there exists a formal differential operator $T= 1 + \nu T_1 + \ldots$ on $M$ such that $$f \tilde \star g = T^{-1}(Tf \star Tg).$$ The operator $T$ is called an equivalence operator between the star products $\star$ and $\tilde\star$.
If a star product $\star$ on a manifold $M$ is fixed, we denote by $L_f$ and $R_f$ the left and the right star multiplication operators by a function $f$, respectively, so that $L_f g = f \star g = R_g f$. It follows from the associativity of the star product that $[L_f,R_g]=0$ for any functions $f,g$.
Since a star product $\star$ on $M$ is given by bidifferential operators, it can be restricted to any open subset of $M$. Moreover, it induces a product on the space of formal jets at a given point. We will retain the same notation $\star$ for these induced products.
If $M$ is a symplectic manifold, then for each star product $\star$ on $M$ there exists a $\nu$-formal trace density $\mu$ globally defined on $M$ such that $$\int_M f \star g \, \mu = \int_M g \star f \, \mu$$ if $f$ or $g$ is compactly supported (see [@NT]).
The concept of deformation quantization was introduced in [@BFFLS]. Kontsevich showed in [@K] that star products exist on arbitrary Poisson manifolds and gave an explicit parametrization of their equivalence classes. On symplectic manifolds Fedosov constructed star products in each equivalence class in [@F1] and [@F2].
A star product (\[E:star\]) is called [*natural*]{} in [@GR] if, for every $r$, the bidifferential operator $C_r$ is of order not greater than $r$ in each argument. Many important star products are natural, e.g., the Fedosov’s star products (see [@N]).
We call a formal differential operator $N = N_0 + \nu N_1 + \ldots$ [*natural*]{} if the order of the differential operator $N_r$ is not greater than $r$ for $r \geq 0$. A star product $\star$ on $M$ is natural if and only if the operators $L_f$ and $R_f$ are natural for every $f \in C^\infty(M)[[\nu]]$. We denote by $\mathfrak{N}$ the space of natural operators on $M$. It is an associative algebra. It is also a Lie algebra with the operation $A, B \mapsto \nu^{-1}[A,B]$. Alternatively, $\nu^{-1}\mathfrak{N}$ is a Lie algebra with respect to the usual commutator $A,B \mapsto [A,B]$.
Denote by $\mathfrak{E}$ the group of formal differential operators on $M$ of the form $$\exp\left( \nu^{-1} N\right),$$ where $N = \nu^2 N_2 + \nu^3 N_3 + \ldots \in \mathfrak{N}$. Observe that $$\exp\left( \nu^{-1} N\right) = 1 + \nu N_2 \pmod{\nu^2}.$$ We call the operators from $\mathfrak{E}$ [*the operators of exponential type*]{}.
\[L:conjnat\] If $S \in \mathfrak{E}$ and $A \in \mathfrak{N}$, then $SAS^{-1} \in \mathfrak{N}$.
If $S = \exp(\nu^{-1}N)$ and $N = \nu^2 N_2+ \ldots \in \mathfrak{N}$, then $$SAS^{-1} = \exp( \operatorname{ad}(\nu^{-1} N)) A = \sum_{r=0}^\infty \frac{1}{n!}\left(\nu^{-1}\operatorname{ad}(N)\right)^r A,$$ where the series converges in the $\nu$-adic topology. Since $\nu^{-1}\operatorname{ad}(N)$ leaves $\mathfrak{N}$ invariant, we see that $SAS^{-1}\in \mathfrak{N}$.
In [@GR] the following important theorem was proved.
\[T:GR\] (S. Gutt and J. Rawnsley)\
Any equivalence operator between two equivalent natural star products is of exponential type.
The algebra $\mathbb{B}$ {#S:algb}
========================
In what follows we will use functions on formal neighborhoods of embedded submanifolds. Let $Y$ be an embedded submanifold of a manifold $X$ and let $I_Y$ be the vanishing ideal of $Y$ in $C^\infty(X)$. We call $$C^\infty(X,Y) := C^\infty(X) / \cap_{k=1}^\infty (I_Y)^k$$ the space of functions on the formal neighborhood of $Y$ in $X$.
Given a manifold $M$, we identify the diagonal of $M^l$ with $M$ (thus assuming that $M \subset M^l$ for any $l$). An $l$-differential operator $C(f_1, \ldots, f_l)$ on $M$ defines a mapping $$C: C^\infty(M^l,M) \to C^\infty(M).$$
Let $ \mathbb{A}:=(C^\infty(M)[[\nu]],\star)$ be a star algebra on a Poisson manifold $M$ with natural star product $\star$. Denote by $\widetilde M$ a copy of $M$ with the opposite Poisson structure. The opposite product $f \star^{\mathrm{opp}} g := g \star f$ is a star product on $\widetilde M$. The product $$\odot := \star \otimes \star^{\mathrm{opp}}$$ is a natural star product on $M \times \widetilde{M}$. For $f,g,u,v \in \mathbb{A}$ we have $$(f \otimes g) \odot (u \otimes v) = (f \star u) \otimes (v \star g).$$ Here $\otimes$ is a tensor product over the ring ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu]]$. The product $\odot$ induces a product on $C^\infty(M \times M,M)[[\nu]]$ which will be denoted by the same symbol. We introduce the algebra $\mathbb{B}:= (C^\infty(M \times M, M)[[\nu]], \odot)$.
We call an element of $\mathbb{B}$ factorizable if it is induced by a formal function $f \otimes g \in \mathbb{A} \otimes \mathbb{A}$, and use the same notation $f \otimes g$ for this element. There exists a homomorphism $F \mapsto N_F$ from $\mathbb{B}$ to $\mathfrak{N}$ given on the factorizable elements by $$N_{f \otimes g} = L_fR_g.$$ We will prove that if $M$ is symplectic, then this mapping is an isomorphism. To this end, we need to recall several definitions and facts from [@LMP5].
If $A$ is a differential operator of order $r$ on a manifold $M$, then its principal symbol $\mathrm{Symb}_r(A)$ is a fiberwise polynomial function of degree $r$ on the cotangent bundle $T^\ast M$. Given a natural operator $N = N_0 + \nu N_1 + \ldots$ on $M$, we call the formal series $$\sigma(N) := \sum_{r=0}^\infty \mathrm{Symb}_r(N_r)$$ the sigma symbol of $N$. It can be interpreted as a function on the formal neighborhood of the zero section $Z$ of $T^\ast M$, $$\sigma(N) \in C^\infty(T^\ast M,Z).$$ The mapping $N \mapsto \sigma(N)$ is a surjective homomorphism from $\mathfrak{N}$ onto $C^\infty(T^\ast M,Z)$ whose kernel is $\nu\mathfrak{N}$. It follows that the sigma symbol $\sigma(N_F)$ of $F = F_0 + \nu F_1 + \ldots \in C^\infty(M\times M, M)[[\nu]]$ depends only on $F_0$. It was proved in [@LMP5] that if $M$ is symplectic, then the mapping $$C^\infty(M \times M, M) \ni F_0 \mapsto \sigma(N_{F_0})$$ is an isomorphism of $C^\infty(M \times M, M)$ onto $C^\infty(T^\ast M,Z)$.
\[T:isom\] If $\star$ is a natural star product on a symplectic manifold $M$, then the mapping $F \mapsto N_F$ is an isomorphism of the algebra $\mathbb{B}$ onto $\mathfrak{N}$.
We will construct the inverse mapping of the mapping $F \mapsto N_F$. Let $N$ be an arbitrary natural operator on $M$. There exists a unique element $F_0 \in C^\infty(M \times M, M)$ such that $$\sigma(N_{F_0}) = \sigma(N).$$ Then $\nu^{-1}(N - N_{F_0}) \in \mathfrak{N}$. Let $F_1$ denote the unique element of $C^\infty(M \times M, M)$ such that $$\sigma(N_{F_1}) = \sigma(\nu^{-1}(N - N_{F_0})).$$ Hence, $\nu^{-2}(N - N_{F_0} - \nu N_{F_1}) \in \mathfrak{N}$. Continuing this process, we produce a unique element $F = F_0 + \nu F_1 + \ldots \in\mathbb{B}$ such that $N = N_F$.
We say that a formal distribution $\Lambda = \Lambda_0 + \nu \Lambda_1 + \ldots$ on $M$ supported at a point ${{x_0}}\in M$ is [*natural*]{} if the order of the distribution $\Lambda_r$ is not greater than $r$ for every $r$. We denote the set of all such distributions by ${{\mathcal N}}$.
\[L:natdistr\] A formal distribution $\Lambda$ supported at ${{x_0}}$ is natural if and only if there exists a natural operator $N \in \mathfrak{N}$ such that $$\Lambda = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N,$$ i.e., $\Lambda(f) = (Nf)({{x_0}})$ for any function $f$.
It is clear that if $N \in \mathfrak{N}$, then $\Lambda = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N\in {{\mathcal N}}$. Conversely, given $\Lambda \in {{\mathcal N}}$, one can fix local coordinates around ${{x_0}}$ and find the unique formal differential operator with constant coefficients $C$ such that $\Lambda = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ C$. Then $C$ is natural. It can be extended to a natural operator on $M$ by multiplying it by an appropriate cutoff function.
Denote by $\tau$ the involution on $\mathbb{B}$ such that $\tau(f\otimes g) = g\otimes f$. It is an antiautomorphism of $\mathbb{B}$. The algebra $\mathbb{B}$ acts on ${{\mathcal N}}$ so that an element $F\in \mathbb{B}$ maps $\Lambda\in{{\mathcal N}}$ to $\Lambda \circ N_{\tau(F)}\in {{\mathcal N}}$. Given $F \in \mathbb{B}$ and ${{x_0}}\in M$, we set $$\Lambda_F := \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N_{\tau(F)}.$$
\[L:fact\] For $f ,g \in \mathbb{A}$ we have $\Lambda_{f \otimes g} (h)=(g \star h \star f)({{x_0}})$.
$$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_{f \otimes g} (h)= (N_{\tau(f \otimes g)}h)({{x_0}}) =
(N_{g \otimes f}h)({{x_0}}) =\\
(L_gR_fh)({{x_0}}) =(g \star h \star f)({{x_0}}).\end{aligned}$$
The formal distribution $\Lambda_F$ depends only on the jet of $F$ at the diagonal point $({{x_0}},{{x_0}}) \in M \times M$. We denote by ${{\mathcal F}}^{(2)}$ the space of $\nu$-formal jets on $M \times M$ at $({{x_0}},{{x_0}})$.
\[L:surj\] If $\star$ is a star product on a symplectic manifold $M$, then the corresponding mapping $F \mapsto \Lambda_F$ induces a surjective mapping $$\lambda: {{\mathcal F}}^{(2)} \to {{\mathcal N}}.$$
This statement follows from Theorem \[T:isom\] and Lemma \[L:natdistr\].
Given a factorizable element $f \otimes g \in {{\mathcal F}}^{(2)}$, we get from Lemma \[L:fact\] that $$\label{E:factx}
\langle \lambda(f \otimes g), h \rangle = (g \star h \star f)({{x_0}}).$$
Star products with separation of variables {#S:sep}
==========================================
Berezin described in [@Ber1] and [@Ber2] a quantization procedure on Kähler manifolds which leads to star products with the property of separation of variables (see, e.g., [@BW], [@CGR], [@E], [@CMP1], [@KS]). It is natural to consider the star products with this property on pseudo-Kähler manifolds. Recall that an almost-Kähler manifold is a complex manifold equipped with a real symplectic form of type $(1,1)$ with respect to the complex structure.
A star product (\[E:star\]) on a pseudo-Kähler manifold $M$ has the property of separation of variables of the Wick type if the operators $C_r, r \geq 1,$ differentiate the first argument in holomorphic directions and the second argument in antiholomorphic ones. A star product is of the anti-Wick type if $C_r, r \geq 1,$ differentiate the first argument in antiholomorphic directions and the second argument in holomorphic ones.
[*Remark.*]{} Observe that if $\star$ is a star product of the anti-Wick type on a pseudo-K" ahler manifold $M$, then the opposite product $f \star^{\mathrm{opp}} g := g \star f$ is a product of the Wick type on the manifold $M$ with the same complex structure but with the opposite symplectic structure. Also, $\star$ is a product of the Wick type on the manifold $\widebar {M}$, which is a copy of $M$ with the opposite complex structure but with the same symplectic structure.
Let $\star$ be a product of the anti-Wick type on $M$. If $a$ is a holomorphic function and $b$ is an antiholomorphic function locally defined on $M$, then for any function $f$ we have $$a \star f = af \mbox{ and } f \star b = bf,$$ i.e., $L_a = a$ and $R_b = b$ are pointwise multiplication operators.
Throughout this paper we will denote the pointwise multiplication operator by a function $f$ by the same symbol $f$.
Let $\omega_{-1}$ be a pseudo-Kähler form on $M$ (which determines a symplectic structure on $M$). In [@CMP1] it was shown that the star products of the anti-Wick type on $M$ are bijectively parametrized (not only up to equivalence) by the formal closed (1,1)-forms $$\omega = \nu^{-1}\omega_{-1} + \omega_0 + \nu \omega_1 + \ldots$$ on $M$. We will briefly recall this parametrization.
Suppose that $\omega$ is fixed. Let $U$ be a contractible coordinate chart on $M$ with holomorphic coordinates $\{z^k\}$. There exists a formal potential $$\Phi= \nu^{-1}\Phi_{-1} + \Phi_0 + \nu\Phi_1+ \ldots$$ of $\omega$ on $U$, so that $\omega = i {\partial}\bar {\partial}\Phi$. As shown in [@CMP1], there exists a unique star product of the anti-Wick type $\star$ on $M$ such that on every contractible chart $U$ and for any potential $\Phi$ of $\omega$ on $U$, $$L_{\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^k}} = \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^k} + \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z^k} \mbox{ and } R_{\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}\bar z^l}} = \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}\bar z^l} + \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\bar z^l}.$$ The formal form $\omega$ is called [*the classifying form of the star product $\star$.*]{} Every star product of the anti-Wick type has a unique classifying form.
Given a star product $\star$ of the anti-Wick type on $M$, there exists a $\nu$-formal differential operator $$I = 1 + \nu I_1 + \nu^2 I_2 + \ldots$$ globally defined on $M$ such that for any local holomorphic function $a$ and local antiholomorphic function $b$, $$I(ab) = b \star a.$$ It is called the formal Berezin transform of the star product $\star$. Observe that $Ia=a$ and $Ib = b$. It is proved in [@CMP3] that $$\label{E:iaib}
L_b = I\circ b \circ I^{-1} \mbox{ and } R_a=I \circ a \circ I^{-1}.$$ One can recover the product $\star$ from the operator $I$ using that $$(ab) \star (a'b') = a I(a'b) b',$$ where the functions $a,a'$ are local holomorphic and $b,b'$ are local antiholomorphic. The equivalent star product $$\label{E:wicktype}
f \star' g := I^{-1} (If \star Ig)$$ on $M$ is a star product with separation of variables [*of the Wick type*]{} (see [@CMP3]).
\[L:bertr\] The formal Berezin transform $I$ of a star product of the anti-Wick type $\star$ is of exponential type.
The star products with separation of variables $\star$ and $\star'$ are natural (see [@N]). Since $I$ is an equivalence operator between the products $\star$ and $\star'$, it is of exponential type according to Theorem \[T:GR\].
It was shown in [@KS] and [@LMP10] that for any point ${{x_0}}\in M$ and any integer $l \geq 1$ the functional $$K^{(l)}(f_1, \ldots, f_l) = I(f_1 \star' \ldots \star' f_l)({{x_0}}) = (If_1 \star \ldots \star If_l)({{x_0}})$$ on $M^l$ is a FOI at $({{x_0}})^l \in M^l$. Below we give a phase-volume form pair associated with $K^{(l)}$, which was found in [@KS] and [@LMP10].
Let $U$ be a contractible neighborhood in $M$ and $\Phi$ be a local potential of the classifying form $\omega$ of the product $\star$ on $U$. Let $\widebar U$ denote a copy of $U$ equipped with the opposite complex structure. One can find a function $\tilde\Phi(x,y)$ on $U \times \widebar U$ such that $\tilde\Phi (x,x)= \Phi(x)$ and $$\bar{\partial}_{U \times \widebar U} \tilde{\Phi}$$ has zero of infinite order at every point of the diagonal of $U \times \widebar U$. The function $\tilde\Phi(x,y)$ is called an almost analytic extension of $\Phi$ (see details in [@LMP10] [^2]). For each $l \geq 1$ we introduce a function $G^{(l)}$ on $U^l$ by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(l)}(x_1, \ldots x_l) := \tilde\Phi(x_1,x_2) + \tilde\Phi(x_2,x_3) + \ldots + \tilde \Phi(x_l,x_1) \\
- (\Phi(x_1) + \Phi(x_2) + \ldots + \Phi(x_l)).\end{aligned}$$ This function defines an element of $\nu^{-1}C^\infty(U^l,U)[[\nu]]$, where $U$ is identified with the diagonal of $U^l$. This element does not depend on the choice of the potential $\Phi$ and of the almost analytic extension of $\Phi$. Thus, taking such functions for every contractible neighborhood in $M$, we get a global element of $\nu^{-1}C^\infty(M^l,M)[[\nu]]$. We call it a [*cyclic formal $l$-point Calabi function of the classifying form $\omega$.*]{}
Now suppose that ${{x_0}}\in U$ and consider the function $$\label{E:fgl}
F^{(l)}(x_1,\ldots, x_l) := G^{(l+1)}({{x_0}}, x_1, \ldots, x_l)$$ on $U^l$. The jet of $F^{(l)}$ at $({{x_0}})^l \in U^l$ is determined by the jet of $G^{(l+1)}$ at $({{x_0}})^{l+1}\in U^{l+1}$, which is the jet of the formal $(l+1)$-point Calabi function of $\omega$ at $({{x_0}})^{l+1}$.
It was shown in [@KS] and [@LMP10] that the FOI $K^{(l)}$ at $({{x_0}})^l$ is associated with the pair $(F^{(l)}, \mu^{\otimes l})$ on $U^l$, where $\mu$ is a trace density of the star product $\star$.
The main goal of this paper is to develop an algebraic framework which will incorporate the jet of the formal oscillatory exponent $\exp G^{(l)}$ at $({{x_0}})^l \in M^l$ for every $l \geq 1$.
The algebra ${{\mathcal C}}$
============================
Let $\star$ be a star product of the anti-Wick type on a pseudo-Kähler manifold $M$, $I$ be its formal Berezin transform, and ${{x_0}}$ be a fixed point in $M$. We choose a coordinate chart $U$ containing ${{x_0}}$ with coordinates $\{z^k,\bar z^l\}$ such that $z^k({{x_0}})=\bar z^l({{x_0}})=0$ for all $k,l$. We consider various jet spaces on $M$ at the point ${{x_0}}$ and on $M \times M$ at the point $({{x_0}},{{x_0}})$. We identify these spaces with spaces of formal series in local coordinates. Denote by ${{\mathcal F}}={\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu,z,\bar z]]$ the space of $\nu$-formal jets on $M$ at ${{x_0}}$ and by ${{\mathcal A}}=({{\mathcal F}},\star)$ the algebra on ${{\mathcal F}}$ with the induced product $\star$. Denote by ${{\mathcal F}}^{(2)} = {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu, z, \bar z, w, \bar w]]$ the space of $\nu$-formal jets on $M \times M$ at $({{x_0}},{{x_0}})$, where $\{z^k,\bar z^l\}$ and $\{w^k,\bar w^l\}$ are the coordinates on the first and the second factors of the chart $U \times U$. For the involutive mapping $\tau: {{\mathcal F}}^{(2)} \to {{\mathcal F}}^{(2)}$ such that $\tau(f \otimes g) = g \otimes f$ for $f,g \in {{\mathcal F}}$, one has $\tau(z^k)=w^k$ and $\tau(\bar z^l)=\bar w^l$.
Since $\star$ is a natural star product on $M$ and $M$ is symplectic, one can construct a bijection $F \mapsto N_F$ from ${{\mathcal F}}^{(2)}$ onto the space $\mathfrak{N}$ of natural operators on $M$ as in Section \[S:algb\]. For a factorizable element $f \otimes g \in {{\mathcal F}}^{(2)}, N_{f \otimes g}=L_fR_g$. There is a mapping $\lambda: {{\mathcal F}}^{(2)} \to {{\mathcal N}}$ to the space ${{\mathcal N}}$ of natural distributions at ${{x_0}}$, $$\lambda(F) = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N_{\tau(F)},$$ which is surjective by Lemma \[L:surj\]. On factorizable elements $f \otimes g \in {{\mathcal F}}^{(2)}$ the mapping $\lambda$ is given by formula (\[E:factx\]).
The space ${{\mathcal J}}={\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[z,\bar z]]$ of jets on $M$ at ${{x_0}}$ has a descending filtration ${{\mathcal J}}=F_0{{\mathcal J}}\supset F_1{{\mathcal J}}\supset \ldots$, where $F_r{{\mathcal J}}$ is the space of jets which have zero of order at least $r$ at ${{x_0}}$. We assume that $F_r{{\mathcal J}}={{\mathcal J}}$ for $r <0$. We introduce a filtration $${{\mathcal F}}=F_0{{\mathcal F}}\supset F_1{{\mathcal F}}\supset \ldots$$ on the space of formal jets ${{\mathcal F}}={{\mathcal J}}[[\nu]]$ which agrees with the filtration on ${{\mathcal J}}$ and for which the filtration degree of $\nu$ is 2, $$F_r{{\mathcal F}}= F_r {{\mathcal J}}+ \nu F_{r-2} {{\mathcal J}}+ \nu^2 F_{r-4} {{\mathcal J}}+ \ldots.$$ We call it [*the standard filtration*]{}. Observe that ${{\mathcal F}}/F_r {{\mathcal F}}$ is a finite dimensional vector space over ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}$. One can check that $${{\mathcal F}}^{(2)} = \varprojlim_r ({{\mathcal F}}\otimes {{\mathcal F}})/F_r({{\mathcal F}}\otimes {{\mathcal F}}),$$ where the subspaces $$F_r({{\mathcal F}}\otimes {{\mathcal F}}) := \sum_{i+j=r} F_i{{\mathcal F}}\otimes F_j{{\mathcal F}}$$ form the standard filtration on ${{\mathcal F}}\otimes {{\mathcal F}}$. Here $\otimes$ is the tensor product over the ring ${\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu]]$.
\[L:filtered\] The algebra ${{\mathcal A}}=({{\mathcal F}},\star)$ is a filtered algebra with respect to the standard filtration.
Since $\star$ is a natural star product (see [@N]), the bidifferential operator $C_r$ in (\[E:star\]) is of order not greater than $r$ in each argument. Therefore, if $f \in F_i{{\mathcal J}}$ and $g \in F_j{{\mathcal J}}$, then $C_r(f,g) \in F_{i+j - 2r}{{\mathcal J}}$ and $\nu^r C_r(f,g)\in F_{i+j}{{\mathcal F}}$, whence the lemma follows.
Lemma \[L:filtered\] allows to extend various mappings of the space ${{\mathcal F}}\otimes {{\mathcal F}}$ to its completion ${{\mathcal F}}^{(2)} = {{\mathcal F}}\hat \otimes {{\mathcal F}}$ with respect to the topology associated with the standard filtration. We will tacitly assume that these extensions can be justified with the use of this lemma.
We define a filtered associative algebra ${{\mathcal C}}:=({{\mathcal F}}^{(2)}, \ast)$, where the product $\ast$ is given on the factorizable elements by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
(g_1 \otimes h_1) \ast (g_2 \otimes h_2):=(h_1 \star g_2)({{x_0}}) \cdot (g_1 \otimes h_2).\end{aligned}$$
We introduce a trace on ${{\mathcal C}}$ given on the factorizable elements by the formula $$\label{E:trace}
\operatorname{tr}(f \otimes g) := (g \star f) ({{x_0}}).$$ One can check the trace property on factorizable elements, $$\begin{aligned}
\operatorname{tr}((g_1 \otimes h_1) \ast (g_2 \otimes h_2)) =(h_1 \star g_2)({{x_0}}) \cdot (h_2 \otimes g_1)({{x_0}}) =\\
\operatorname{tr}((g_2 \otimes h_2) \ast (g_1 \otimes h_1)).\end{aligned}$$
\[L:trl\] For $F \in {{\mathcal C}}$, the following identity holds, $$\operatorname{tr}F = \langle \lambda(F), 1 \rangle.$$
Given a factorizable element $f \otimes g \in {{\mathcal F}}^{(2)}$, we get from formula (\[E:factx\]) that $$\operatorname{tr}(f \otimes g) = (g \star f)({{x_0}}) = \langle\lambda (f \otimes g), 1\rangle,$$ whence the lemma follows.
We introduce a splitting of ${{\mathcal C}}$, $$\label{E:split}
{{\mathcal C}}= {{\mathcal G}}\oplus {{\mathcal H}},$$ where ${{\mathcal G}}= {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu, z, \bar w]]$ and ${{\mathcal H}}$ is generated by $\bar z^l$ and $w^k$ for all $k,l$, i.e., any $H\in {{\mathcal H}}$ can be represented as $$H= \bar z^l A_l + w^k B_k$$ for some $A_l,B_k \in {{\mathcal C}}$. This splitting does not depend on the choice of local holomorphic coordinates used in its definition. We will show that in the splitting (\[E:split\]) the subspace ${{\mathcal G}}$ is a subalgebra of ${{\mathcal C}}$ and ${{\mathcal H}}$ is a two-sided ideal of ${{\mathcal C}}$.
\[L:lsurj\] The subspace ${{\mathcal H}}\subset {{\mathcal C}}$ is a two-sided ideal of the algebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ which lies in the kernel of the mapping $\lambda$.
It suffices to check the statement of the lemma on the generators $$U^l=(\bar z^l u) \otimes v = (u \star \bar z^l) \otimes v \mbox{ and } V^k = u \otimes (z^kv) = u \otimes (z^k \star v)$$ of ${{\mathcal H}}$ and factorizable $F = f \otimes g \in {{\mathcal C}}$, where $u,v,f,g \in {{\mathcal F}}$ are arbitrary. We have $$\begin{aligned}
F \ast U^l = (f \otimes g) \ast ((u \star \bar z^l) \otimes v) =\hskip 4cm\\
(g \star u \star \bar z^l)({{x_0}}) \cdot (f \otimes v)=
((g \star u) \bar z^l)({{x_0}}) \cdot (f \otimes v)=0,
\end{aligned}$$ because $\bar z^l({{x_0}})=0$. Then we see that $$U^l \ast F = ((\bar z^l u) \otimes v) \ast (f \otimes g) = (v \star f)({{x_0}}) \cdot ((\bar z^l u) \otimes g) \in {{\mathcal H}}.$$ One can check similarly that $F \star V_k \in {{\mathcal H}}$ and $V_k \star F =0$. It follows that ${{\mathcal H}}$ is a two-sided ideal of ${{\mathcal C}}$. We get from formula (\[E:factx\]) that for any $h \in {{\mathcal F}}$, $$\langle \lambda(U^l), h \rangle = (v \star h \star u \star \bar z^l)({{x_0}}) = ((v \star h \star u)\bar z^l)({{x_0}}) =0,$$ because $\bar z^l({{x_0}})=0$. Thus, $\lambda(U^l)=0$. One can similarly check that $\lambda(V^k)=0$, which implies the second statement of the lemma.
\[L:isomalg\] The subspace ${{\mathcal G}}\subset {{\mathcal C}}$ is a subalgebra of ${{\mathcal C}}$ isomorphic to the algebra ${{\mathcal C}}/{{\mathcal H}}$.
The space ${{\mathcal G}}$ is topologically generated by the elements $a \otimes b$, where $a \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu, z]]$ is formally holomorphic and $b \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu,\bar z]]$ is antiholomorphic. We have $$(a_1 \otimes b_1) \ast (a_2 \otimes b_2) = (b_1 \star a_2)({{x_0}})\cdot (a_1 \otimes b_2) \in {{\mathcal G}}.$$ Therefore, ${{\mathcal G}}$ is a subalgebra of ${{\mathcal C}}$. Clearly, it is isomorphic to the algebra ${{\mathcal C}}/{{\mathcal H}}$.
Let $\alpha: C^\infty(U)[[\nu]] \to {{\mathcal F}}$ be the mapping that maps $f$ to its jet at ${{x_0}}$. It is surjective by Borel’s theorem. We define a mapping $$\gamma: C^\infty(U)[[\nu]] \to {{\mathcal G}}$$ as follows. Given $f \in C^\infty(U)[[\nu]]$, let $\tilde f \in C^\infty(U \times \widebar U)[[\nu]]$ be an almost analytic extension of $f$. We set $\gamma(f)$ equal to the jet of $\tilde f$ at $({{x_0}},{{x_0}})$. This jet lies in ${{\mathcal G}}$ and does not depend on the choice of the almost analytic extension of $f$. The mapping $\gamma$ is surjective. There is a bijection $\beta: {{\mathcal F}}\to {{\mathcal G}}$ such that $\gamma=\beta \circ \alpha$. In coordinates, $$\beta: f(z,\bar z) \mapsto f(z, \bar w).$$
\[L:lgamma\] Given $g \in C^\infty(U)[[\nu]]$, the following formula holds, $$\lambda(\gamma(g)) = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ I \circ g \circ I^{-1}.$$
Let $g = ab$, where $a$ is a holomorphic and $b$ is an antiholomorphic function on $U$. Then $\gamma(g)= a \otimes b$. Using formula (\[E:iaib\]), we get that $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda(\gamma(g)) = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N_{\tau(a \otimes b)}= \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N_{b \otimes a} =
\delta_{{x_0}}\circ (R_aL_b) =\\
\delta_{{x_0}}\circ I \circ (ab) \circ I^{-1} = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ I \circ g \circ I^{-1}.
\end{aligned}$$ For a generic $g \in C^\infty(U)[[\nu]]$, the distribution $\delta_{{x_0}}\circ I \circ g \circ I^{-1}$ depends only on the jet of $g$ at ${{x_0}}$ and the space ${{\mathcal F}}$ is topologically generated by the elements $\alpha(ab)$. Therefore, the lemma follows from the calculation above.
\[L:linj\] The restriction of the mapping $\lambda$ to ${{\mathcal G}}$, $\lambda|_{{\mathcal G}}: {{\mathcal G}}\to {{\mathcal N}}$, is injective.
Let $G$ be an arbitrary element of ${{\mathcal G}}$ which lies in the kernel of $\lambda$. There exists $g \in C^\infty(U)[[\nu]]$ such that $G = \gamma(g)$. Then for any $h \in C^\infty(U)[[\nu]]$ we have from Lemma \[L:lgamma\] that $$\label{E:izero}
I(g \cdot I^{-1}h)({{x_0}})= \langle \lambda(\gamma(g)), h \rangle = \langle \lambda(G),h\rangle = 0.$$ It was proved in [@KS] that the distribution $f \mapsto (If)({{x_0}})$ is a FOI at ${{x_0}}$. By Lemma \[L:nondeg\], the pairing $u, v \mapsto I(u \cdot v)({{x_0}})$ on $C^\infty(U)[[\nu]]$ induces a nondegenerate pairing on ${{\mathcal F}}$. Since $I^{-1}h$ is an arbitrary element of $C^\infty(U)[[\nu]]$, we see from (\[E:izero\]) that the jet of $g$ at ${{x_0}}$ is zero. Therefore, $G=0$, whence the lemma follows.
\[C:restl\] The ideal ${{\mathcal H}}$ is the kernel of the mapping $\lambda$ and the mapping $\lambda|_{{\mathcal G}}: {{\mathcal G}}\to {{\mathcal N}}$ is bijective.
The mapping $\lambda$ is surjective by Lemma \[L:surj\]. It was proved in Lemma \[L:lsurj\] that ${{\mathcal H}}$ lies in the kernel of $\lambda$. The corollary follows from the splitting (\[E:split\]) and Lemma \[L:linj\].
The algebra of distributions
============================
Corollary \[C:restl\] implies that one can transfer the product $\ast$ from the algebra ${{\mathcal C}}$ to ${{\mathcal N}}$. We denote the resulting product on ${{\mathcal N}}$ by $\bullet$.
The algebra $({{\mathcal N}},\bullet)$ is isomorphic to the algebra $({{\mathcal G}},\ast) \cong {{\mathcal C}}/{{\mathcal H}}$. The mapping $$\label{E:trn}
{{\mathcal N}}\ni u \mapsto \langle u,1\rangle$$ is a trace on the algebra $({{\mathcal N}}, \bullet)$. Its pullback via the mapping $\lambda$ is the trace $\operatorname{tr}$ on ${{\mathcal C}}$.
The theorem follows from Lemmas \[L:isomalg\] and \[L:trl\].
In the rest of the paper we will express the trace of the product of $l$ elements of the algebra $({{\mathcal N}},\bullet)$ in terms of the formal $l$-point Calabi function of the star product $\star$.
The standard filtration on ${{\mathcal F}}$ induces a filtration on the formal differential operators on ${{\mathcal F}}$, which we also call standard. If $A$ is a differential operator of order $r$ which does not depend on $\nu$, its filtration degree is at least $-r$. We denote by $\mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$ the algebra of natural operators on ${{\mathcal F}}$. These operators are induced by the operators from $\mathfrak{N}$. Observe that if $N = N_0 + \nu N_1 + \ldots$ is a natural operator, then the filtration degree of $\nu^r N_r$ is at least $r$.
In the remainder of this section $\varphi= \nu^{-1}\varphi_{-1}+\varphi_0 + \ldots$ is a formal function on $M$ such that ${{x_0}}$ is a critical point of $\varphi_{-1}$ with zero critical value, $\varphi_{-1}({{x_0}})=0$. We do not assume that the critical point ${{x_0}}$ is nondegenerate. Observe that the filtration degree of $\varphi$ is a least zero.
\[L:ene\] If $N \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$, then $e^{-\varphi} N e^\varphi \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$.
Assume that $N = N_0 + \nu N_1 + \ldots \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$. Then for each $r\geq 0$ the formal differential operator $$\label{E:ene}
e^{-\varphi} (\nu^r N_r) e^\varphi = \sum_{k=0}^r \frac{1}{k!} (-\operatorname{ad}\varphi)^k (\nu^r N_r)$$ is of order not greater than $r$. The operator (\[E:ene\]) is natural and its $\nu$-filtration degree is at least zero. Its standard filtration degree is at least $r$. Therefore, the series $$e^{-\varphi}Ne^\varphi = \sum_{r=0}^\infty e^{-\varphi} (\nu^r N_r) e^\varphi$$ converges in the topology associated with the standard filtration to an element of $\mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$.
Below we define an action $e^\varphi: u \mapsto u \circ e^\varphi$ on ${{\mathcal N}}$ which behaves like a composition. However, the multiplication operator by the formal oscillatory exponent $e^\varphi$ is not a natural operator, because the Taylor series of $e^\varphi$ at ${{x_0}}$ contains negative powers of $\nu$.
Given $u \in {{\mathcal N}}$, there exists $N \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$ such that $u = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N$. We set $$u \circ e^\varphi := e^{\varphi({{x_0}})} \delta_{{x_0}}\circ (e^{-\varphi} N e^\varphi).$$ Since $\varphi_{-1}({{x_0}})=0$, we see that $e^{\varphi({{x_0}})} \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu]]$. By Lemma \[L:ene\], $u \circ e^\varphi$ is an element of ${{\mathcal N}}$. We will show that it does not depend on the choice of $N$.
If $u$ has two different representations $u = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ {\tilde N}$ for $N, \tilde N \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$, then $e^{\varphi({{x_0}})} \delta_{{x_0}}\circ (e^{-\varphi} N e^\varphi) = e^{\varphi({{x_0}})} \delta_{{x_0}}\circ (e^{-\varphi} \tilde N e^\varphi)$.
We have $\delta_{{x_0}}\circ (N - \tilde N)=0$. Therefore, in coordinates, one can write $N - \tilde N = z^k A_k + \bar z^l B_l$ for some $A_k, B_l \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$. We need to show that $$e^{\varphi({{x_0}})} \delta_{{x_0}}\circ (e^{-\varphi} (N - \tilde N) e^\varphi)=0,$$ which follows from the observation that $$e^{-\varphi} (N - \tilde N) e^\varphi = z^k e^{-\varphi} A_k e^\varphi + \bar z^l e^{-\varphi} B_l e^\varphi$$ and the fact that $z^k({{x_0}})=\bar z^l({{x_0}})$ for all $k,l$.
\[L:compe\] Let $\varphi= \nu^{-1}\varphi_{-1}+\varphi_0 + \ldots$ and $\psi= \nu^{-1} \psi_{-1}+\psi_0 + \ldots$ be formal functions on $M$ such that ${{x_0}}$ is a critical point of $\varphi_{-1}$ and $\psi_{-1}$ with zero critical value, $\varphi_{-1}({{x_0}}) = \psi_{-1}({{x_0}})=0$. Then for any $u \in {{\mathcal N}}$ one has $$(u \circ e^\varphi) \circ e^\psi = u \circ e^{\varphi+\psi}.$$
Let $N \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$ be such that $u = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
(u \circ e^\varphi) \circ e^\psi = (e^{\varphi({{x_0}})} \delta_{{x_0}}\circ (e^{-\varphi} N e^\varphi)) \circ e^\psi =\\
e^{\varphi({{x_0}})+\psi({{x_0}})} \delta_{{x_0}}\circ (e^{-\psi} e^{-\varphi} N e^\varphi e^\psi) = u \circ e^{\varphi+\psi}.\end{aligned}$$
We introduce a $\nu$-linear functional $K:{{\mathcal N}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu]]$, $$K(u) := \langle u \circ e^\varphi, 1 \rangle.$$ If $A$ is a differential operator on $M$, we denote by $A^t$ its transpose that acts on a distribution $u$ as $A^t u := u \circ A$. Let $v$ be a vector field on $M$. Since $\nu v$ and $\nu v\varphi$ are natural operators, then for $u \in {{\mathcal N}}$ we get that $(\nu v -\nu v \varphi)^tu \in {{\mathcal N}}$.
\[L:vt\] For any $u \in {{\mathcal N}}$, $((\nu v -\nu v \varphi)^tu) \circ e^\varphi= (u \circ e^\varphi) \circ (\nu v)$.
Assume that $u = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N$ for some $N \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$. Then $$(\nu v -\nu v \varphi)^tu = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N \circ (\nu v - \nu v \varphi).$$ Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
((\nu v -\nu v \varphi)^tu) \circ e^\varphi = e^{\varphi({{x_0}})} \delta_{{x_0}}\circ (e^{-\varphi} (N \circ (\nu v - \nu v \varphi)) e^\varphi)=\\
e^{\varphi({{x_0}})} \delta_{{x_0}}\circ (e^{-\varphi} N e^\varphi) \circ (\nu v) = (u \circ e^\varphi) \circ (\nu v),\end{aligned}$$ because $e^{-\varphi} \circ (v - v \varphi) \circ e^\varphi = v$.
For any $u \in {{\mathcal N}}$, $K((\nu v -\nu v \varphi)^tu)=0$.
We have by Lemma \[L:vt\] that $$\begin{aligned}
K((\nu v -\nu v \varphi)^tu) = \langle ((\nu v -\nu v \varphi)^tu) \circ e^\varphi, 1 \rangle = \\
\langle (u \circ e^\varphi) \circ (\nu v), 1 \rangle = \langle u \circ e^\varphi, (\nu v) 1 \rangle =0.\end{aligned}$$
\[T:ident\] Let $S :{{\mathcal N}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu]]$ be a $\nu$-linear functional such that the equality $$S\left((\nu v - \nu v\varphi)^tu\right)=0$$ holds for any vector field $v$ and any $u \in {{\mathcal N}}$. Then there exists a formal constant $c(\nu) \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu]]$ such that $$S(u) = c(\nu)\langle u \circ e^\varphi, 1 \rangle.$$
Consider a functional $T: {{\mathcal N}}\to {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu]]$ given by the formula $$T(u) := S(u \circ e^{-\varphi}).$$ We will show that $T\left((\nu v)^tu\right)=0$ for any vector field $v$ and any $u \in {{\mathcal N}}$. Let $N \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$ be such that $u = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N$. Given a vector field $v$ and $u \in {{\mathcal N}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
T\left((\nu v)^tu\right) = S(((\nu v)^t u) \circ e^{-\varphi}) = S((\delta_{{x_0}}\circ (N \circ (\nu v)) \circ e^{-\varphi})=\\
S(e^{-\varphi({{x_0}})}\delta_{{x_0}}\circ (e^{\varphi} (N \circ (\nu v)) e^{-\varphi} )) = \hskip 3.8cm\\
S(e^{-\varphi({{x_0}})}\delta_{{x_0}}\circ (e^{\varphi} N e^{-\varphi} \circ (\nu v - \nu v \varphi)))=\hskip 3.1cm\\
S((u \circ e^{-\varphi}) \circ ((\nu v - \nu v \varphi))) = S((\nu v - \nu v \varphi)^t (u \circ e^{-\varphi})) =0.\end{aligned}$$ In local coordinates one can write any operator $N \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$ as $$N = f + A^p \circ \left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z^p}\right) + B^q \circ \left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\bar z^q}\right),$$ where $f=N1 \in {\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu,z, \bar z]]$ and $A^p, B^q \in \mathfrak{N}_{{x_0}}$. Then for $u = \delta_{{x_0}}\circ N$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
T(u) = T\left(\delta_{{x_0}}\circ \left(f + A^p \circ \left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z^p}\right) + B^q \circ \left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\bar z^q}\right)
\right)\right)=\\
f({{x_0}}) T(\delta_{{x_0}}) + T\left(\left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z^p}\right)^t (\delta_{{x_0}}\circ A^p)\right) + \hskip 1cm\\
T\left(\left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\bar z^q}\right)^t (\delta_{{x_0}}\circ B^q)\right) = f({{x_0}}) T(\delta_{{x_0}}).\end{aligned}$$ It follows that $T(u) = T(\delta_{{x_0}}) \langle u, 1 \rangle$. We set $c(\nu) := T(\delta_{{x_0}})$. Using Lemma \[L:compe\], we get that $$S(u) = T(u \circ e^\varphi) = c(\nu) \langle u \circ e^\varphi, 1 \rangle.$$
Let ${{x_0}}$ be a point in $M$, $U$ be a contractible coordinate chart with coordinates $\{z^p, \bar z^q\}$ such that $z^p({{x_0}})=\bar z^q({{x_0}})=0$ for all $p,q$, and $\Phi$ be a potential of the classifying form $\omega$ of the star product $\star$ on $U$. We choose an almost analytic extension $\tilde\Phi$ of $\Phi$ on $U \times \widebar{U}$. In Section \[S:sep\] we introduced the cyclic function $$G^{(l)}(x_1,\ldots, x_l) = \tilde\Phi(x_1,x_2) + \ldots + \tilde \Phi(x_l,x_1)
- (\Phi(x_1) + \ldots + \Phi(x_l))$$ on the neighborhood $U^l$ of the diagonal point $({{x_0}})^l$ of $M^l$. The jet of the function $G^{(l)}$ at $({{x_0}})^l \in M^l$ is given in local coordinates by the formula $$\begin{aligned}
G^{(l)}(z, \bar z) = \Phi(z_1, \bar z_2) + \Phi(z_2, \bar z_3) + \ldots + \Phi(z_l, \bar z_1)\hskip 2cm\\
- (\Phi(z_1,\bar z_1) + \ldots + \Phi(z_l, \bar z_l)) \in \nu^{-1}{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}[[\nu, z_1, \bar z_1, \ldots z_l, \bar z_l]],\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the notations $z = (z_1, \ldots, z_l), z_i = (z_i^1, \ldots, z_i^m), \bar z = (\bar z_1, \ldots, \bar z_l), \bar z_j = (\bar z_j^1, \ldots, \bar z_j^m),$ and $m = \dim_{{\ensuremath{\mathbb{C}}}} M$. This is the jet of the formal $l$-point Calabi function of $\omega$ at $({{x_0}})^l$.
\[L:diagp\] The diagonal point $({{x_0}})^l \in M^l$ is a critical point of the function $G^{(l)}$ with zero critical value.
Clearly, $G^{(l)}(({{x_0}})^l)=0$. In local coordinates, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{E:diagp}
\frac{{\partial}G^{(l)}}{{\partial}z_i^p} = \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_{i+1}) - \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_i) \mbox{ and } \\
\frac{{\partial}G^{(l)}}{{\partial}\bar z_j^q} = \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}\bar z^q}(z_{j-1}, \bar z_j) - \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}\bar z^q}(z_j, \bar z_j), \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ where we identify $\bar z_{l+1}$ with $\bar z_1$ and $z_0$ with $z_l$. Therefore, $$\frac{{\partial}G^{(l)}}{{\partial}z_i^p}(({{x_0}})^l) = 0 \mbox{ and } \frac{{\partial}G^{(l)}}{{\partial}\bar z_j^q}(({{x_0}})^l) =0.$$
[*Remark.*]{} The point $({{x_0}})^l \in M^l$ is a degenerate critical point of the function $G^{(l)}$, but it is a nondegenerate critical point of the function (\[E:fgl\]).
\[T:main\] The following identity holds for any natural distributions $u_1, \ldots, u_m \in {{\mathcal N}}$, $$\label{E:main}
\langle u_1 \bullet \ldots \bullet u_l , 1 \rangle = \langle (u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l)\circ \exp G^{(l)}, 1 \rangle.$$
[*Remark.*]{} Observe that the left-hand side of (\[E:main\]) is the trace of the product $u_1 \bullet \ldots \bullet u_l$ in the algebra $({{\mathcal N}}, \bullet)$, which agrees with the fact that $G^{(l)}$ is cyclic. The distribution $u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l$ on the right-hand side is a natural distribution on $M^l$ supported at $({{x_0}})^l$.
We introduce a functional $W^{(l)}$ on the space of natural distributions on $M^l$ supported at the point $({{x_0}})^l$ by the formula $$W^{(l)}(u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l):= \langle u_1 \bullet \ldots \bullet u_l , 1 \rangle.$$ Suppose that $u_i = \lambda(f_i \otimes g_i)$ for $1 \leq i \leq l$, where $f_i,g_i \in {{\mathcal F}}$ are arbitrary. Then, by formula (\[E:factx\]), $$\begin{aligned}
W^{(l)}(u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l) = (g_1 \star f_2)({{x_0}}) \cdot (g_2 \star f_3)({{x_0}})\cdot \ldots (g_l \star f_1)({{x_0}}).\end{aligned}$$ Observe that $\delta_{{x_0}}= \lambda(1 \otimes 1)$ and $\delta_{{x_0}}\bullet \delta_{{x_0}}=\delta_{{x_0}}$. Clearly, $$W^{(l)}\left (\delta_{({{x_0}})^l}\right )=1 \mbox{ and } \langle \delta_{({{x_0}})^l}\circ \exp G^{(l)}, 1 \rangle = \langle \delta_{({{x_0}})^l}, 1 \rangle = 1,$$ where we have used that $\delta_{({{x_0}})^l} = \delta_{{x_0}}\otimes \ldots \otimes \delta_{{x_0}}$ and $G^{(l)}(({{x_0}})^l)=0$. According to Theorem \[T:ident\], in order to prove formula (\[E:main\]) it remains to verify that for any $i,j,p,q$, $$\label{E:annih}
W^{(l)} \circ \left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z_i^p} - \nu \frac{{\partial}G^{(l)}}{{\partial}z_i^p} \right)^t = 0 \mbox{ and } W^{(l)} \circ \left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}\bar z_j^q}- \nu \frac{{\partial}G^{(l)}}{{\partial}\bar z_j^q}\right)^t = 0.$$ We will check the first equality on the elements $u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l$ with $u_i = \lambda(f_i \otimes g_i)$, which topologically generate ${{\mathcal N}}$. We use formula (\[E:diagp\]) to calculate the action of $$\left( \nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z_i^p}- \nu \frac{{\partial}G^{(l)}}{{\partial}z_i^p} \right)^t = \left( \nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z_i^p} - \nu \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_{i+1}) + \nu \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_i) \right)^t$$ on $u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l$. The operator $$\left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z_i^p} + \nu \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_i)\right)^t$$ acts only on the factor $u_i$ in $u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l$. We have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z^p} + \nu \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}\right)^t u_i, h\right\rangle =
\left\langle u_i, \nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p} \star h \right\rangle =\hskip 2cm\\
\left(g_i \star \nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p} \star h \star f_i\right)({{x_0}}) =\left\langle \lambda\left(f_i \otimes \left(g_i \star \nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}\right)\right), h \right\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ Therefore, $$\hat u_i := \left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z^p}+ \nu \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}\right)^t u_i = \lambda\left(f_i \otimes \left(g_i \star \nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}\right)\right).$$ We get $$\begin{aligned}
W^{(l)}(u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes \hat u_i \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l) =
\langle u_1 \bullet \ldots \bullet \hat u_i \bullet \ldots \bullet u_l, 1 \rangle=\\
(g_1 \star f_2)({{x_0}}) \cdot (g_2 \star f_3)({{x_0}})\cdot \ldots \cdot (g_{i-1} \star f_i)({{x_0}}) \cdot\hskip 2cm\\
\left(g_i \star \nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p} \star f_{i+1}\right)({{x_0}}) \cdot (g_{i+1} \star f_{i+2})({{x_0}}) \cdot\ \ldots \cdot (g_l \star f_1)({{x_0}}).\end{aligned}$$ It remains to calculate $$W^{(l)} \left(\left(\nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_{i+1})\right)^t (u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l) \right).$$ The jet $\nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_{i+1})$ can be expressed as the following series convergent in the topology associated with the standard filtration, $$\nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_{i+1}) = \sum_\alpha a_\alpha(z_i) b_\alpha(\bar z_{i+1}).$$ We have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \left(\nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_{i+1})\right)^t (u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l), h_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h_l\right\rangle =\hskip 1cm\\
\left\langle u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l, \nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_{i+1}) (h_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h_l)\right\rangle =\hskip 1cm\\
\left\langle u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l, \left(\sum_\alpha a_\alpha(z_i) b_\alpha(\bar z_{i+1})\right) (h_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h_l)\right\rangle =
\\
\sum_\alpha \Big( (g_1 \star h_1 \star f_1)({{x_0}}) \cdot \ldots (g_i \star a_\alpha(z_i) \star h_i \star f_i)({{x_0}}) \cdot \hskip 1cm\\
(g_{i+1} \star h_{i+1} \star b_\alpha(\bar z_{i+1}) \star f_{i+1})({{x_0}}) \cdot \ldots \cdot (g_l \star h_l \star f_l)({{x_0}}) \Big)=\\
\left\langle \sum_\alpha u_1 \otimes \ldots \hat u_{i \alpha} \otimes \hat u_{i+1 \alpha} \otimes \ldots\otimes u_l, h_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes h_l \right\rangle,\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat u_{i \alpha}=\lambda(f_i \otimes (g_i \star a_\alpha))$ and $\hat u_{i+1\alpha}=\lambda((b_\alpha \star f_{i+1}) \otimes g_{i+1})$. We have thus proved that $$\left(\nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_{i+1}) \right)^t (u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l) =
\sum_\alpha u_1 \otimes \ldots \hat u_{i \alpha} \otimes \hat u_{i+1 \alpha} \otimes \ldots\otimes u_l.$$ Now, $$\begin{aligned}
W^{(l)}\left(\left(\nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_{i+1}) \right)^t(u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_m)\right) =\hskip 3.2cm \\
W^{(l)}\left(\sum_\alpha u_1 \otimes \ldots \hat u_{i \alpha} \otimes \hat u_{i+1 \alpha} \otimes \ldots\otimes u_m\right)=\hskip 3cm\\
\sum_\alpha \big((g_1 \star f_2)({{x_0}}) \cdot \ldots \cdot (g_{i-1}\star f_i)({{x_0}}) \cdot
(g_i \star a_\alpha \star b_\alpha \star f_{i+1})({{x_0}}) \cdot \\
(g_{i+1}\star f_{i+2})({{x_0}}) \cdot
\ldots \cdot (g_l \star f_1)({{x_0}})\big ).
\end{aligned}$$ We see that $$\sum_\alpha (g_i \star a_\alpha \star b_\alpha \star f_{i+1})({{x_0}}) = \left(g_i \star \nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p} \star f_{i+1}\right)({{x_0}}),$$ because $a_\alpha \star b_\alpha = a_\alpha b_\alpha$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
W^{(l)}\left(\left(\nu\frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_{i+1})\right)^t (u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l)\right) =\hskip 1.5cm\\
W^{(l)}\left (\left(\nu \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}z_i^p} + \nu \frac{{\partial}\Phi}{{\partial}z^p}(z_i, \bar z_i)\right)^t (u_1 \otimes \ldots \otimes u_l)\right),\end{aligned}$$ which proves the first equality in (\[E:annih\]). The second one can be checked similarly.
Formula (\[E:main\]) allows to express the jet of $\exp G^{(l)}$ at $({{x_0}})^l$ in terms of the algebra $({{\mathcal N}}, \bullet)$ for every $l \geq 1$.
[99]{} Bayen, F., Flato, M., Fronsdal, C., Lichnerowicz, A., and Sternheimer, D.: Deformation theory and quantization. I. Deformations of symplectic structures. [*Ann. Physics*]{} [**111**]{} (1978), no. 1, 61 – 110. Berezin, F.A.: Quantization. Math. USSR-Izv. [**8**]{} (1974), 1109–1165. Berezin, F.A.: Quantization in complex symmetric spaces. Math. USSR-Izv. [**9**]{} (1975), 341–379. Bordemann, M., Waldmann, S.: A Fedosov star product of the Wick type for Kähler manifolds. [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**41**]{} (3) (1997), 243 – 253. Cahen, M., Gutt, S., and Rawnsley, J.: Quantization of Kähler manifolds. II, [*Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.*]{} [**337**]{} (1993), 73 – 98. Engliš, M.: A Forelli-Rudin construction and asymptotics of weighted Bergman kernels. [*J. Funct. Anal.*]{} [**177**]{} (2000), 257–281. Fedosov, B.: A simple geometrical construction of deformation quantization. [*J. Differential Geom.*]{} [**40**]{} (1994), no. 2, 213–238. Fedosov, B.: [*Deformation quantization and index theory*]{}. Mathematical Topics, 9. Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1996. 325 pp. Gutt, S. and Rawnsley, J.: Equivalence of star products on a symplectic manifold. [*J. Geom. Phys.*]{} [**29**]{} (1999), 347 – 392. Karabegov, A.: Deformation quantizations with separation of variables on a Kähler manifold. [*Commun. Math. Phys.*]{} [**180**]{} (1996), no. 3, 745–755. Karabegov A.V.: On the dequantization of Fedosov’s deformation quantization. [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**65**]{} (2003), 133 – 146. Karabegov, A.: Formal symplectic groupoid of a deformation quantization. [Comm. Math. Phys.]{} [**258**]{} (2005), 223 – 256. Karabegov A.: Formal oscillatory integrals and deformation quantization. [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**109**]{} (2019), 1907 – 1937. Karabegov, A., Schlichenmaier, M.: Identification of Berezin-Toeplitz deformation quantization. [*J. reine angew. Math.*]{} [**540**]{} (2001), 49 – 76. Kontsevich, M.: Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds, I. [*Lett. Math. Phys.*]{} [**66**]{} (2003), 157 – 216. Neumaier, N.: Universality of Fedosov’s construction for star products of Wick type on pseudo-Kähler manifolds. [*Rep. Math. Phys.*]{} (2003), 43 – 80. Nest, R., Tsygan, B.: Algebraic index theorem. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} [**172**]{} (1995), 223 – 262.
[^1]: All jets of functions considered in this paper are jets of infinite order given by the full Taylor series.
[^2]: One can check that $\tilde\Phi$ defines a function on the formal neighborhood of the diagonal of $U \times \widebar U$ which does not depend on the choice of the almost analytic extension of $\Phi$.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We consider two-dimensional dipolar bosonic gas with dipoles oriented perpendicularly to the plane in a weak random potential. We investigate analytically and numerically the condensate depletion, the one-body density-matrix, the ground state energy, the sound velocity and the superfluid fraction. Concentrating on the regime where a rotonlike excitation spectrum forms, our results show that the superfluidity disappears below a critical value of disorder strength yielding the transition to a non-trivial quantum regime.'
author:
- Abdelâali Boudjemâa
title: 'Two-dimensional dipolar bosons with weak disorder'
---
Recently, ultracold dipolar gases in two-dimentional (2D) geometry have been the subject of intense experimental and theoretical investigations [@Baranov; @Pupillo2012; @Osp; @Wu; @Tak]. What renders such systems particularly intriguing is the presence of the low-lying roton minimum in the excitation spectrum [@gora; @boudjGora] and the possibility of the crystallization of solid bubble into a lattice superstructure, resulting in a global supersolid phase [@prok; @boudjGora; @petGora]. However, such supersolids require a dense regime with several particles within the interaction range, which can be difficult to achieve. The same holds for supersolids discussed for 2D dipolar Bose gases [@Kurb] near the gas-solid phase transition [@Buch; @Ast]. It was found also that this state appears in B-t-J model of two-component bosons as a result of the long-range DDI [@Yos].
A more complicated situation arises if these phenomena are studied in a random environment. Bose gases in the random medium attracted a great deal of interest because it connects two central ideas of the condensed matter theory: the Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) and localization. This latter occurs both for fermions and bosons [@Fisher] and results in the existence of an insulating phase called “Bose glass” [@Fisher]. The existence of a phase characterized by simultaneous glassiness and superfluidity and thus constitutes a glassy counterpart to the supersolid phase [@And; @Ches; @Legget], was first observed in numerical Quantum Monte Carlo simulations of solid ${}^4$He samples by Boninsegni et*al*[@Mass]. This phase which is featured (at the same time) by superfluidity and a metastable amorphous structure called “superglass”. Superglass may also have realizations in interacting bosons at very low temperatures and high density [@prok; @Biroli]. In this context, Zamponi et*al* [@Zamp] have shown that quantum fluctuations can stabilize the superglass phase in a self-disordered environment induced by geometrical frustraion. On the other hand, many interesting works on BEC and superfluidity (See, e.g., [@Huang; @Gior; @Lopa]) have been reported for disordered cold atomic gases with pure contact interaction in continuum, the study on dipolar boson systems is still inadequate. In the present paper, for the first time to our knowledge, we investigate the properties of a quasi-2D homogeneous dipolar Bose gas in a weak random potential with delta correlated disorder. Our study is based on the Bogoliubov approach, this method which marked an important step towards a quantitative description of dirty dipolar Bose systems [@AxelM; @Boudj], allows for accurate determination of the condensed depletion, one-body density matrix, ground state energy, sound velocity and superfluid fraction. It is found that the presence of a disordered potential in the regime where the roton develops in the excitations spectrum strongly enhances fluctuations and thermodynamics quantities. We demonstrate that both BEC and superfluidity are depressed due to the competition between disorder and DDI yielding, the transition to an unusual quantum phase.
We consider a dilute Bose-condensed gas of dipolar bosons in an external random potentials. These particles can be confined to quasi-2D, by means of an external harmonic potential in the direction perpendicular to the motion (pancake geometry) and all dipoles are aligned perpendicularly to the plane of their translational motion, by means of a strong electric (or magnetic) field. In this quasi-2D geometry, at large interparticle separations $r$ the interaction potential is $V(r) = d^2/ r^3=\hbar^2r_*/mr^3$, with $d$ being the dipole moment, $m$ the particle mass, and $r_*=md^2/\hbar^2$ the characteristic dipole-dipole distance. The disorder potential is described by vanishing ensemble averages $\langle U(\vec r)\rangle=0$ and a finite correlation of the form $\langle U(\vec r) U(\vec r')\rangle=R (\vec r,\vec r')$.
In the ultracold limit where the particle momenta satisfy the inequality $kr_*\ll1$, the scattering amplitude is given by (see e.g. [@boudjGora]) $$\label{ampl}
f({\vec k},{\vec k'})=g(1-C\vert \vec k-\vec k'\vert),$$ where the 2D short-range coupling constant is $g=g_{3D}/\sqrt{2}l_0$ with $l_0=\sqrt{\hbar/m \omega}$, $\omega$ is the confinement frequency and $C =2\pi \hbar^2r_*/mg=2\pi d^2/g$. Employing this result in the secondly quantized Hamiltonian [@boudjGora], we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{he3}
\hat H\!\!=&\!\!\sum_{\vec k}\!E_k\hat a^\dagger_{\vec k}\hat a_{\vec k}\! +\!\frac{1}{S}\!\!\sum_{\vec k,\vec p} \! U_{\vec k\!-\!\vec p} \hat a^\dagger_{\vec k} \hat a_{\vec p} \\ \nonumber
&+\!\frac{g}{2S}\!\!\sum_{\vec k,\vec q,\vec p}\!\!
(1\!\!-\!C\vert \vec q\!-\!\vec p\vert)\hat a^\dagger_{\vec k\!+\!\vec q} \hat a^\dagger_{\vec k\!-\!\vec q}\hat a_{\vec k\!+\!\vec p}\hat a_{\vec k\!-\!\vec p} ,\end{aligned}$$
where $S$ is the surface area, $E_k=\hbar^2k^2/2m$, and $\hat a_{\vec k}^\dagger$, $\hat a_{\vec k}$ are the creation and annihilation operators of particles. At zero temperature there is a true BEC in 2D, and we may use the standard Bogoliubov approach. Assuming the weakly interacting regime where $mg/2\pi\hbar^2\ll 1$ and $r_*\ll \xi$, with $\xi=\hbar/\sqrt{mng}$ being the healing length. We may reduce the Hamiltonian (\[he3\]) to a bilinear form, using the Bogoliubov transformation [@Huang] $\hat a_{\vec k}= u_k \hat b_{\vec k}-v_k \hat b^\dagger_{-\vec k}-\beta_{\vec k}$, where $\hat b^\dagger_{\vec k}$ and $\hat b_{\vec k}$ are operators of elementary excitations. The Bogoliubov functions $ u_k,v_k$ are expressed in a standard way: $ u_k,v_k=(\sqrt{\varepsilon_k/E_k}\pm\sqrt{E_k/\varepsilon_k})/2$, $\beta_{\vec k}=\sqrt{n/S} U_k E_k/\varepsilon_k^2$, and the Bogoluibov excitation energy is given by $\varepsilon_k=\sqrt{E_k^{2}+2ngE_k(1-Ck)}$.
To zero order the chemical potential is $\mu=ng$. If $C/\xi\leq \sqrt{8}/3$, $\varepsilon_k$ is a monotonic function of $k$. However, it shows a roton-maxon structure for the constant $C$ in the interval $\sqrt{8}/3\leq C/\xi\leq 1$. It is then convenient to represent $\varepsilon_k$ in the form [@boudjGora]: $$\label{spec}
\varepsilon_k= \frac{\hbar^2 k}{2m}\sqrt{ (k-k_r)^2 +k_{\Delta}^2},$$ where $k_r=2C/\xi^2$ and $k_{\Delta}=\sqrt{4/\xi^2-k_r^2}$. If the roton is close to zero, then $k_r$ is the position of the roton, and $\Delta\!=\!\hbar^2 k_rk_{\Delta}/2m\!=\!2ngC\sqrt{mng/\hbar^2-C^2(mng/\hbar^2)^2}$, is the height of the roton minimum. At $C/\xi=1$, the roton minimum touches zero and for $C/\xi >1$, the uniform Bose condensate becomes dynamically unstable and the uniform superfluid is no longer the ground state.\
Importantaly, the spectrum (\[spec\]) is independent of the random potential. This independence holds in fact only in zeroth order in perturbation theory; conversely, higher order calculations render the spectrum dependent on the random potential due to the contribution of the anomalous terms $\langle\hat a_{-\vec k}\hat a_{\vec k}\rangle$.
The diagonal form of the Hamiltonian of the dirty dipolar Bose gas (\[he3\]) can be written in the usual form $\hat H = E+\sum_{\vec k} \varepsilon_k\hat b^\dagger_{\vec k}\hat b_{\vec k}$, where $E=E_0+\delta E+ E_R$ with $E_0= S g n^2/2 $ and $\delta E=\frac{1}{2}\sum\limits_{\vec k} [\varepsilon_k -E_k-ng(1-Ck)]$ being the ground-state energy correction due to qunatum fluctuations. $$\label{Renergy}
E_R=-\sum\limits_{\vec k} n\langle |U_k|^2\rangle \frac{ E_k}{\varepsilon_k^2} =-\sum\limits_{\vec k} n R_k \frac{ E_k}{\varepsilon_k^2},$$ gives the correction to the ground-state energy due to the external random potential.
The noncondensed density is defined as $\tilde{n}=\sum_{\vec k} \langle\hat a^\dagger_{\vec k}\hat a_{\vec k}\rangle$. Then invoking for the operators $a_{\vec k}$ the preceding Bogoliubov transformation, setting $\langle \hat b^\dagger_{\vec k}\hat b_{\vec k'}\rangle=\delta_{\vec k \vec k'}N_k$ and putting the rest of the expectation values equal to zero, where $N_k=[\exp(\varepsilon_k/T)-1]^{-1}$ are occupation numbers for the excitations. Using the fact that $2N (x)+1= \coth (x/2)$ [@boudj2015], we obtain: $$\label {dep}
n'=\frac{1}{2S}\sum\limits_{\vec k} \left[\frac{E_k+ng(1-Ck)} {\varepsilon_k}\coth\left(\frac{\varepsilon_k}{2T}\right)-1\right] +n_R,$$ where $$\label {depdis}
n_R=\frac{1}{S}\sum\limits_{\vec k} \langle |\beta_k|^2\rangle=\frac{1}{S}\sum\limits_{\vec k} nR_k \frac{ E_k^2}{\varepsilon_k^4},$$ is the condensate depletion due to the external random potential.
In order to investigate in a simple way how the random potential affects the behavior of the system, we will often make the white-noise assumption in which the external potential is described by a single parameter $R (\vec r, \vec r')=R_0\delta (\vec r, \vec r')$ [@Gior], where $R_0$ denotes the disorder strength which has dimension (energy) $^2$ $\times$ (length)$^2$.
Let us now asume that the roton is close to zero and the roton energy is $\Delta\ll ng$, we have the cofficient $C$ close to $\xi$, and $k_r\simeq 2/\xi$. Then, using Eq.(\[depdis\]), for the contribution of momenta near the roton minimum at $T=0$, we obtain: $$\label{depdis1}
\frac{n_R}{n}=\frac{mg}{4 \hbar^2}R \left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right)^3,$$ where $R=R_0/ng^2$ is a dimensionless disorder strength.\
The noncondensed density is calculated via (\[dep\]) as $$\label{dep1}
\frac{n'}{n} \simeq \frac{mg}{\pi\hbar^2}\left[\ln\left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\zeta\right)+\frac{\pi}{4} R\left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right)^3\right];\,\,\Delta\ll ng,$$ where $\zeta=\sqrt{2\pi\hbar^2/e^2 mg}$.\
The leading term in Eq.(\[dep1\]) which comes from the quantum fluctuations was first obtained in our recent work [@boudjGora], while the second term which grows faster than the first one, represents the disorder correction to the condensate depletion. The condensed fraction can be written as $n_c/n=1-n'/n$.
To check the result of Eq.(\[dep1\]), we solve Eqs.(\[dep\]) and (\[depdis\]) numerically using Monte Carlo method.
![Quantum depletion of the condensate from Eq. (\[dep\]), as a function of $C/\xi$ for $mg/4\pi\hbar^2=0.01$. Clean dipolar BEC:dashed line ($R=0$). Dirty dipolar BEC: solid line ($R=0.5$). []{data-label="depl"}](dep.eps)
Figure.\[depl\] shows that in the absence of the random external potential i.e. $R=0$, the noncondensed fraction grows logarithmically (see Eq. (\[dep1\])) when the the roton energy $\Delta$ goes to zero yielding the transition to a supersolid state [@prok; @boudjGora; @petGora]. It is worth stressing that in the context of the liquid helium, the position of the roton minimum influences also the phenomenon of superfluidity [@Noz].\
In the presence of the external disordered potential and for $C \approx \xi$, the condensate depletion becomes more significant and diverges when $\Delta =0$ indicating the transition to a novel quantum phase in dilute 2D dipolar bosons. The same factors of Eq.(\[dep1\]) appear in the one-body density matrix $g_1(\vec r)=\langle\hat\Psi^{\dagger}({\bf r})\hat\Psi(0)\rangle$, where $\hat\Psi({\bf r})$ is the field operator. The correction due to the disorder effects to the correlation function is $g_1^R (\vec r)=\int n_R e^{i \vec k \vec r} (d^2k/ (2\pi)^2$. Assuming that the roton minimum reaches zero and taking into account only the contribution of momenta near this minimum we have for $\Delta\ll ng$: $$\label{g1}
\frac{g_1(r)} {n}=1+\frac{mg}{\pi\hbar^2}\left[\ln\left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right)+\frac{\pi}{4} R\left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right)^3\right] J_0(2r/\xi),$$ where $J_0(x)$ is the Bessel function.\
The numerical calculation of the one-body density matrix well agrees with the analytical result obtained in Eq (\[g1\]) and shows that $g_1(r)$ decays at large distance when $C\approx \xi$ as is depicted in Fig.\[gd\]. This signals the non-existence of the off-diagonal long-range order (i.e., BEC) in the disordered 2D dipolar bosons.
As we see from Eq. (\[dep1\]), for the roton minimum close to zero a small condensate depletion requires the inequality $$\label{Bogcrit0}
\frac{mg}{\hbar^2} R\left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right)^3 \ll 1.$$ We thus conclude that at $T=0$, the validity of the Bogoliubov approach is guaranteed by the presence of the small parameter (\[Bogcrit0\]).
However, the situation changes in the calculation of the correction to the ground-state energy due to the external random potential. When the roton minimum is approaching to zero, we get from (\[Renergy\]) $$\label{Renergy1}
\frac{E_R}{E_0}=-\frac{2mg}{\hbar^2} R \left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right);\,\,\,\,\,\,\Delta\ll ng.$$ Equation (\[Renergy1\]) shows that $E_R$ grows linearly with $ng/\Delta$, and has a negative value which leads to reduce the total energy of the system.\
The correction to the ground-state energy due to quantum fluctuations can be given as $$\label{energy1}
\frac{\delta E}{E_0}\simeq 1+\frac{2mg}{\pi\hbar^2}+\frac{2mg}{\pi\hbar^2}\ln\left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right);\,\,\,\,\,\,\Delta\ll ng.$$ The disorder correction to the chemical potential can be calculated esealy through $\partial E_R/\partial N$ $$\label{deltamu}
\frac{\mu_R}{\mu} \simeq -\frac{mg}{\hbar^2} R\left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right)^3=-4n_Rg;\,\,\,\,\,\,\Delta\ll ng.$$ Note that quantum fluctuations corrections to the chemical potential had already obtained in our recent paper [@boudjGora].
One can also show that the shift of the sound velocity is consistent with the change in the compressibility $mc_s^2 = n \partial \mu/\partial n $ [@boudj2015; @Lev] and is given by $$\label{sound}
\frac{c_s^2}{c_{s0}^2} = 1+\frac{mg}{\pi\hbar^2}\left[2\ln\left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right)+\left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right)^2-\frac{3\pi}{2} R\left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right)^5\right],$$ where $c_{s0}=\sqrt{\mu/m}$ is the zeroth order sound velocity. The second and the third terms originate from quantum fluctuations while the last term comes from the disorder contribution.
On the other hand, in an infinite uniform 2D fluid thermal fluctuations at any nonzero temperature are strong enough to destroy the fully ordered state associated with BEC, but are not strong enough to suppress superfluidity in an interacting system at low, but non-zero temperatures. The presence of residual “quasi-long-range” order at low temperatures leads to an interesting interplay between superfluidity and condensation in all experimentally relevant finite-size systems. In this quasicondensate, the phase coherence governs only regimes of a size smaller than the size of the condensate, characterized by the coherence length $l_\phi$[@petr1; @boudj2012]. Thermodynamic properties, excitations, and correlation properties on a distance scale smaller than $l_{\phi}$ are the same as in the case of a true BEC. Upon utilizing the previous definitions we find that the correction to the condensate depletion, the correlation function and thermodynamic quantities due to thermal flucatuations is given by the factor $(2mg/\hbar^2)T/\Delta$ [@boudjGora].
The superfluid fraction $n_s/n$ can be found from the normal fraction $n_n/n$ which is determined by the transverse current-current correlator $n_s/n =1-n_n/n$. We apply a Galilean boost with the total momentum of the moving system ${\bf \hat P_v}={\bf \hat P}+mv N$, where ${\bf \hat P}=\sum_k {\bf k} \hat a^\dagger_{\vec k} \hat a_{\vec k}$ and $v$ is the liquid velocity. In $d$-dimensional case, the superfluid fraction reads
$$\label{sup}
\begin{split}
\frac{n_s}{n}= 1-\frac{2}{dTn} \int \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d} \left[\frac{E_k}{4 \text {sinh}^2 (\varepsilon_k/2T)} \right. \\+
\left. \frac{n R_0 E_k^2}{\varepsilon_k^3} \text {coth} \left(\frac{\varepsilon_k}{2T}\right) \right].
\end{split}$$
At very low temperature we can put $\text {coth}(\varepsilon_k/2T)=2T/\varepsilon_k$. Thus, Eq. (\[sup\]) reduces to $$\label{sup1}
\frac{n_s}{n}= 1-\frac{4}{d}\frac{n_R}{n} -\frac{2}{dTn}\int \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi)^d} \left[ \frac{E_k}{4 \text {sinh}^2 (\varepsilon_k/2T)}\right].$$ Interestingly, the ratio between the normal fluid density and the corresponding condensate depletion increases to 2 in 2D and to 4 in 1D, in contrast to the familiar 4/3 in 3D geometry obtained earlier in [@Huang; @Gior]. Another important remark is that the superfluid fraction (\[sup1\]) is no longer a tensorial quantity as in the case of a 3D dirty dipolar Bose gas [@AxelM; @Boudj] since the dipoles are assumed to be perpendicular to the plane. However, if the dipoles would be tilted slightly, superfluidity would acquire an anisotropy and thus becomes a tensorial quantity.
Assuming now that the roton minimum is close to zero and $\Delta\ll T$, then the momenta near the roton minimum are the most important, and the use of Eq.(\[depdis1\]) yields: $$\label{super}
\frac{n_s}{n}= 1-\frac{mg}{2 \hbar^2}R \left(\frac{2ng}{\Delta}\right)^3-\frac{2mg}{\hbar^2}\frac{T}{\Delta}.$$ At $T=0$ and in the absence of disorder, the superfluid fraction is equal to unity. Another interesting consequence of the above results is that for any value of $(ng/\Delta)$ there exists a critical strength of disorder $R_c=(4/\pi) \ln (2ng\zeta/\Delta)/ (2ng/\Delta)^3$ for which $n_s/n < n_c/n$. For dysprosium atoms at 2D densities $\sim 10^9$ cm$^{-2}$, one has $r_*\simeq 200$ Å, $ng \sim$5 nK, $mg/2\pi\hbar^2\simeq 0.025$ and $\Delta$ should be above 2 nK. Therefore, the precedent criterion is satisfied for $R_c= 8\times10^{-4}$, which means that $n_s$ can be smaller than $n_c$ only for a very weak disorder i.e. $R_c \ll 1$.\
One can conclude that the Bogoliubov approach should satisfy the conditions $R<R_c$. However, it is not clear whether these results still apply for $R>R_c$ in a range of densities where the difference between $n_s/n$ and $n_c/n$ can be significant. The response to these questions requires either a non-perturbative scheme or numerical Quantum Monte Carlo simulations, which are out of the scope of the present work.
In conclusion, the impact of a weak random potential on BEC and on superfluidity in a dilute quasi-2D dipolar Bose gas is studied with a combined numerical and analytical approach. Our analysis signifies a more pronounced effect of disorder in such a system when the roton is approching zero with enhancing quantum fluctuations, one-body density-matrix, equation of state, sound velocity and depleting superfluid density. Furthermore, we have reproduced the expression of the condensate fluctuations and thermodynamic quantities obtained in our recent work [@boudjGora] in the absence of the disorder potential. Our results represent a starting point for the analysis of collective modes of homogeneous or trapped 2D dirty dipolar BECs. We have found, in addition, the criterion of applicability of the Bogoliubov approach for these systems. An important step for a future work is to show whether these disordered quasi-2D dipolar systems promote a stable superglass phase, where superflow and glassy density localization coexist in equilibrium without exhibiting phase separation. A qualitative study of such a phase diagram necessitates a more sofisticated scheme with a non-perturbative solution. We are grateful to Nikolay Prokofiev and Axel Pelster for interesting discussions and for comments on the manuscript.
[28]{}
See for review: M. A. Baranov, Physics Reports [**464**]{}, 71 (2008). See for review: M.A. Baranov, M. Delmonte, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Chemical Reviews, [**112**]{}, 5012 (2012). M.H.G. de Miranda, A. Chotia, B. Neyenhuis, D. Wang, G. Quemener, S. Ospelkaus, J.L. Bohn, J. Ye, and D.S. Jin, Nature Phys. [**7**]{}, 502 (2011). C,-H, Wu, J. W. Park, P. Ahmadi, S.Will, M. W. Zwierlein, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 085301 (2012). Tetsu Takekoshi, Lukas Reichsöllner, Andreas Schindewolf, Jeremy M. Hutson, C. Ruth Le Sueur, Olivier Dulieu, Francesca Ferlaino, Rudolf Grimm, Hanns-Christoph Nägerl, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 205301 (2014). A. Boudjemaa and G.V. Shlyapnikov, Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 025601 (2013). L. Santos, G.V. Shlyapnikov, and M. Lewenstein, Phys.Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 250403 (2003). See for review: M. Boninsgni and N.V. Prokof’ev, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**84**]{}, 759 (2012). Zhen-Kai Lu,1 D. S. Petrov,2 and G. V. Shlyapnikov, arXiv:1409.7737v1 (2014). I.L. Kurbakov, Yu.E. Lozovik, G.E. Astrakharchik, and J. Boronat, Phys. Rev. B [**82**]{}, 014508 (2010). H.P. Buchler, E. Demler, M. Lukin, A. Micheli, N. Prokof’ev, G. Pupillo, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 060404 (2007). G. E. Astrakharchik, J. Boronat, I. L. Kurbakov, and Yu. E. Lozovik, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 060405 (2007). Yoshihito Kuno, Keita Suzuki, and Ikuo Ichinose, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 063620 (2014). M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher, Phys. Rev. B [**40**]{}, 546 (1989). A. F. Andreev and I. M. Lifshitz, Sov. Phys. JETP [**29**]{}, 1107 (1969); G. V. Chester and L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. [**155**]{}, 88 (1967); L. Reatto, Phys. Rev. [**183**]{}, 334 (1969). A. J. Leggett, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**25**]{}, 1543 (1970). Massimo Boninsegni, Nikolay Prokof’ev, and Boris Svistunov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 105301 (2006). G. Biroli, C. Chamon, and F. Zamponi, Phys. Rev. B [**78**]{}, 224306 (2008). Giuseppe Carleo, Marco Tarzia, and Francesco Zamponi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 215302 (2009). K. Huang and H. F. Meng, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69**]{}, 644 (1992). S. Giorgini, L. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 12 938 (1994). A.V. Lopatin and V. M. Vinokur, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 235503 (2002). Mahmoud Ghabour and Axel Pelster, Phys. Rev. A [**90**]{}, 063636 (2014). Abdelâali Boudjemâa, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 053619 (2015). Abdelâali Boudjemâa, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**48**]{} 035302 (2015) . P. Nozières, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**142**]{}, 91 (2006); [*ibid*]{} [**156**]{}, 9 (2009). L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**8**]{}1, 4541 (1998). D. S. Petrov, M. Holtzmann, and G. V. Shlyapnikov,Phys. Rev. Lett. [**84**]{}, 2551 (2000). Abdelâali Boudjemâa, Phys. Rev. A [**86**]{}, 043608 (2012). D.S. Petrov, D.M. Gangardt, and G.V. Shlyapnikov, J. Phys. IV (France) [**116**]{}, 5 (2004).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'We review Koszul duality in representation theory of category $ \cal O $, especially we give a new presentation of the Koszul duality functor. Combining this with work of Backelin, we show that the translation and Zuckerman functors are Koszul dual to each other, thus verifying a conjecture of Bernstein, Frenkel and Khovanov. Finally we use Koszul duality to give a short proof of the Enright-Shelton equivalence.'
address: ' Matematisk Afdeling Universitetsparken 5 DK-2100 K[ø]{}benhavn [Ø]{} Danmark steen@@math.ku.dk '
author:
- 'Steen Ryom-Hansen'
title: 'Koszul duality of translation—and Zuckerman functors'
---
\[Thm\][Definition]{}
[^1]
**Introduction.**
==================
The definite exposition of Koszul duality in representation theory is the paper of Beilinson, Ginzburg and Soergel \[5\]. The main theme of that paper is that the category $ \cal O $ of Bernstein, Gelfand and Gelfand is the module category of a Koszul ring, from which many properties of $ \cal O $ can be deduced very elegantly. They also consider singular as well as parabolic versions of $ \cal O $ and show that they are are equivalent to each other under the Koszul duality functor. Two of the main tools to obtain these results were the Zuckerman functors and the translation functors.
In a recent paper by Bernstein, Frenkel and Khovanov \[6\] these functors are studied on certain simultaneously singular and parabolic subcategories of $ \cal O $, in type A. They show, partially conjecture, that each one of them – in combination with an equivalence of certain categories due to Enright-Shelton – can be used to categorify the Temperley-Lieb algebra and also conjecture that these two pictures should be Koszul dual to each other.
The purpose of this note is to show that the translation– and Zuckerman functors are indeed Koszul dual to each other. By this we mean that both admit graded versions and that these correspond under the Koszul duality functor. Although this of course is one of the main philosophical points of \[5\], a rigorous proof was never given.
We furthermore use the Koszul duality theory to give a simple proof of the Enright-Shelton equivalence.
It is a pleasure to thank Wolfgang Soergel for many useful discussions. Most of this work was done while I was a research assistant at the University of Freiburg, Germany.
Added: Recently C. Stroppel \[11\] has obtained a proof of the full Bernstein-Frenkel-Khovanov conjectures, in part using results from the present paper.
**Preliminaries**
=================
In this section we will mostly recall some of the basic definitions and concepts from the theory of Koszul duality, see also \[5\].
Let $ \mathfrak g $ be a complex semisimple Lie algebra containing a Borel algebra $ \mathfrak b $ with Cartan part $ \mathfrak h $ and let $ \cal O $ be the category of $ \mathfrak g $-modules associated to it by Bernstein, Gelfand and Gelfand. For $ \lambda \, \in \mathfrak h ^* $ integral but possibly singular, denote by $ \cal O_{\lambda} $ the subcategory of $ \cal O $ consisting of modules of generalized central character $ \chi_{\lambda} $ – we refer to it as the singular category $ \cal O $. Let $ S $ be the set of simple reflections corresponding to our data, and let $ S_{\lambda } $ be the subset consisting of those reflections that fix $ \lambda $ under the dot operation. Then $ S_{\lambda } $ defines a parabolic subalgebra $ \mathfrak q ( \lambda )$. We define the parabolic category $ \cal O^{\lambda} $ to consist of the $ \mathfrak q ( \lambda )$-finite objects in $ \cal O $. For $ \lambda = 0 $ we omit the index, i.e. we write $ {\cal O}_0 \, = \, \cal O $, this should not cause confusion.
Let $ P $ denote the sum of all indecomposable projectives in $ \cal O $, hence $ P $ is a projective generator of $ \cal O $. Analogously, we can construct projective generators $ P_{\lambda} $ (resp. $ P^{\lambda} $) of $ \cal{ O}_{\lambda} $ (resp. $ {\cal O}^{\lambda} $). Let $ A = {\operatorname{End}}_{\cal O} P $ (resp. $ A_{\lambda} =
{\operatorname{End}}_{{\cal O }_{\lambda}} P_{\lambda}, \, \,
A^{\lambda} = {\operatorname{End}}_{{\cal O }^{\lambda}} P^{\lambda} $). By general principles, we can then identify $ \cal O $ with $ { {\operatorname{Mod}}}{\textstyle-}A $, the category of finitely generated $ A $-right modules (and analogously for $ A_{\lambda} $, $ A^{\lambda} $).
Let $ T_0^{\lambda}:\, \cal{O}\, \rightarrow \cal{O}_{\lambda}\,\, $, $ T^0_{\lambda}:\, \cal{O}_{\lambda} \rightarrow \cal{O}\, $ be the Jantzen translation functors onto and out of the wall. Passing to $ {{\operatorname{Mod}}} { \textstyle -}A $, $ T_0^{\lambda} $ corresponds to the functor $${ {\operatorname{Mod}}}{\textstyle -} A \, \rightarrow
{ {\operatorname{Mod}}} {\textstyle - } A_{\lambda}:\, \, M \, \mapsto
M \otimes_{A} X$$ where $ X $ is the $ ( A,A_{\lambda} ) $ bimodule $ X \, = \, {\operatorname{Hom}}_{\cal O}( \, P_{\lambda}, T_0^{\lambda} \, P \,) $. There is a similar description of $ T^0_{\lambda}:\, \cal{O}_{\lambda} \rightarrow \cal{O} $.
Let $ \tau_{\lambda}: \cal O \, \rightarrow \, \cal {O}^{\lambda} $ be the parabolic truncation functor, by definition it takes $ M \, \in \cal O $ to its largest $ \mathfrak {q}( \lambda ) $-finite quotient. It is right exact and left adjoint to the inclusion functor $ \iota_{\lambda} : {\cal O }^{\lambda} \,
\rightarrow \, \cal O $, which is exact, and it thus takes projectives to projectives. It even takes indecomposable projectives to indecomposable projectives. Its top degree left derived functor is the Zuckerman functor that takes a module $ M \,\in {\cal O } $ to its largest $ \mathfrak {q}( \lambda ) $-finite submodule.
On the $ { {\operatorname{Mod}}}{\textstyle -}A $ level, $ \tau_{\lambda} $ is given by the tensor product with the $ ( A,A^{\lambda} ) $-bimodule $ Y = {\operatorname{Hom}}_{{\cal O}^{\lambda}}
( \, P^{\lambda},\, \tau_{\lambda} P\, ) $. However, from the above considerations we deduce that $ Y = A^{\lambda} $, the left $ A $-structure coming from $ \tau_{\lambda} $ and the right $ A^{\lambda} $-structure coming from the multiplication in $ A^{\lambda} $.
Let us finally recall the definition of a Koszul ring.
Let $R = \bigoplus_{i \geq 0}R_i$ be a positively graded ring with $R_0$ semisimple and put $R_+ = \bigoplus_{i > 0} R_i$. $R$ is called Koszul if the right module $R_0 \cong R/R_+$admits a graded projective resolution $P^{\bullet}
\twoheadrightarrow R_0$ such that $P^{i}$ is generated by its component $P^{i}_i$ in degree $i$. The Koszul dual ring of $ R $ is defined as $ R^!:= {\operatorname{Ext}}^{\bullet}_R( R_0,R_0) $.
The main point of \[5\] is now that all the rings appearing above can be given a Koszul grading.
**Koszul duality.**
====================
The main purpose of this section is to give a new construction of the Koszul duality functor.
Koszul duality is an equivalence at the level of derived categories between the graded module categories of a Koszul ring and its dual. It exists under some mild finiteness conditions. The concept appeared for the first time in the paper \[3\] where it is shown that for any finite dimensional vector space $ V $ the derived graded module categories of the symmetric algebra $ SV $ and the exterior algebra $ \bigwedge V^* $ are equivalent. The argument used there carries over to general Koszul rings and is the one used in \[5\].
We shall here present another approach to the Koszul duality functor, using the language of differential graded algebras (DG-algebras). Although also the papers \[4\] and \[9\] link DG-algebras with Koszul duality, we were rather inspired by the construction of the localization functor in the book of Bernstein and Lunts \[7\].
Let us start out by repeating the basic definitions.
A DG-algebra $ {\cal A} = ( A,d ) $ is a graded associative algebra $ A = \bigoplus_{i = - \infty }^{\infty} A^i $ with a unit $ 1_A \in A^0 $ and an additive endomorphism $ d $ of degree 1, s.t. $$d^2 = 0$$ $$d( a \cdot b )= da \cdot b + ( -1)^{deg(a)} a \cdot db$$ $$and \,\,\, d( 1_A ) = 0.$$
A left module ${\cal M}= ( M,d_M ) $ over a DG-algebra $ {\cal A} = ( A,d ) $ is a graded unitary right $ A $-module $ M = \bigoplus_{i = - \infty }^{\infty} M^i $ with an additive endomorphism $ d_M:{\cal M} \rightarrow {\cal M} $ of degree 1, s.t. $ d_M^2 = 0 $ and $$d_M(am) = da \cdot m + ( -1)^{deg(a)} a\cdot d_Mm$$
A right module ${\cal M}= ( M,d_M ) $ over a DG-algebra $ {\cal A} = ( A,d ) $ is a graded unitary right $ A $-module $ M = \bigoplus_{i = - \infty }^{\infty} M^i $ with an additive endomorphism $ d_M: {\cal M} \rightarrow {\cal M} $ of degree 1, s.t. $ d_M^2 = 0 $ and $$d_M(ma) = d_M m \cdot a + ( -1)^{deg(m)}m \cdot da$$
[ *Unless otherwise stated, $ A $ will from now on be the ring $ {\operatorname{End}}_{\cal O } (P)$ from the former section.* ]{}
By the selfduality theorem of Soergel \[10\] we know that $ A = {\operatorname{Ext}}^{\bullet}_{\cal O } ( L, L ) $, where $ L $ is the sum of all simples in $ \cal{O} $. This provides $ A $ with a grading which by \[10\] or \[5\] is a Koszul grading.
We regard $ A $ as a DG-algebra $ \cal{A}$ with $ A = A^0 $. At this stage we neglect the grading on $ A $, hence $ \cal{A}$ just has one grading, the DG-algebra grading.
Let $ K^{\bullet} $ be the Koszul complex of $ A $, see e.g. \[5\]. It is a projective resolution of $ k $ (which corresponds to the sum of all simples in $ \cal O $). In \[5\] $ K^{\bullet} $ is a resolution of left $ A $-modules of $ k $; we however prefer to modify it to a resolution of right $ A $-modules. Furthermore we change the sign of the indices so that the differential has degree $ + 1 $.
Let $ k_w $ denote the simple $ A $-module corresponding to $ L_w \in \cal O $ and let $ K^{\bullet}_{w} $ be a projective resolution of $ k_{w} $. The Koszul complex $K^{\bullet}$ is then quasiisomorphic to $ \bigoplus_{\lambda}
K^{\bullet}_w $.
We can consider $ K^{\bullet} $ as a DG right module of the DG-algebra $\cal A$, and as such it is $ \cal{K} $-projective in the sense of \[7\]: the homotopy category of DG-modules of $ A $ is simply the homotopy category of complexes of $ A $-modules, hence any quasiisomorphism from $ K^{\bullet} $ to an DG-module $ \cal M $ is a homotopy isomorphism.
Given two DG-modules $\cal M, N $ of the (arbitrary) DG-algebra $ \cal A $, recall the construction of the complex $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Hom} }}}_{\cal A}^{\bullet}( M,N ) $: $${\operatorname{{ \mathit{Hom} }}}^n_{\cal A }( M,N ) := {\operatorname{Hom}}_A ( M, N[n] )$$ $$df:= d_Nf - (-1)^n f d_M, \, \, f \in {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Hom} }}}_A^n( M,N ).$$
If we perform this construction on $K^{\bullet} $, we obtain a DG-algebra $${\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) =
{\operatorname{{ \mathit{Hom} }}}^{\bullet}_{\cal A}( K^{\bullet} ,K^{\bullet} ),$$ the multiplication being given by composition of maps (notice that this construction does not involve the Koszul grading on $ A $).
The signs match up to give $K^{\bullet}$ the structure of an $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )$ left DG-module.
Let for any DG-algebra $ \cal A $, $ {\cal D}^b {{\operatorname{Mod}}-}\cal A ) $ denote the bounded derived category of right $ \cal A $-modules, see for example Bernstein-Lunts \[7\] for an exposition of this theory.
Let $ {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} A ) $ denote the bounded derived category of finitely generated $ A $-modules, and let $ {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} {\cal A} ) $ be the corresponding category of $ \cal A $-modules. Let $ {\cal D}^b( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )) $ be the subcategory of $ {\cal D}^b( {{\operatorname{Mod}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )) $ consisting of finitely generated ${\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) $-modules in the algebra sense. Then we have
${\cal D}^b( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )) $ is generated, in the sense of triangulated categories, by the ${\operatorname{{ \mathit{Hom} }}}_{\cal A
}^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet},K^{\bullet}_w) $’s.
[Proof]{} Since our ring $ A \, $ is Koszul, the DG-algebras $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( K^{\bullet}\right)$ and $ ( {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k ), d=0 )$ are quasiisomorphic \[5, Theorem 2.10.1\] and hence their bounded derived categories are equivalent. Under this equivalence the $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( K^{\bullet}\right)$-module ${\operatorname{{ \mathit{Hom} }}}_{\cal A}^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet},K^{\bullet}_w) $ becomes the $ ({\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( k,k \right), d=0)$-module $ ({\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( k, k_w \right), d=0)$.
Now a certain polynomial DG-algebra $ \cal B $ with $d=0$ is studied in chapter 11 of \[7\]. Corollary 11.1.5 there is the statement that ${\cal D}^b( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} {\cal B}) $ is generated by $ \cal B $ itself. The proof of this Corollary 11.1.5 relies on the differential being zero for $ \cal B $ and of the fact that finitely generated projective modules over a polynomial algebra are free. We do not have this last property in our situation and should therefore adjust the statement of the Lemma accordingly. Let us give a few details on the modifications:
Let thus $ ({\cal M}, d_M) $ be an object of ${\cal D}^b( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} ({\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( k,k ), d=0)) $. Then we have a triangle in that category of the form $$ {\operatorname{Ker}}d_M
\rightarrow M \rightarrow M/{\operatorname{Ker}}d_M \rightarrow$$ But the first and the third terms have zero differential so we may assume that $ d_M = 0 $.
Let now $$0 \rightarrow P^{-n} \rightarrow P^{-n+1} \rightarrow
\ldots \stackrel{\epsilon} {\rightarrow} M \rightarrow 0$$ be a projective graded resolution of $M $ considered as ${\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( k,k ) $-module. Defining $ {\cal P} \in
{\cal D}^b( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} ({\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( k,k ), d=0))$ as having $k$’th DG-part $ \oplus_i P^i_{k-i} $ and differential from the resolution, we get a quasiisomorphism $ \cal P \cong M $ induced by $ \epsilon $.
On the other hand the finitely generated, graded projectives over $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( k,k \right)$ are the direct sums of the $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( k, k_w \right)$’s and we are done.
Now since $ K^{\bullet} $ is $ \cal K $-projective, it can be used in itself to calculate $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }(K^{\bullet}, M ) $ for an $ \cal A $-module $\cal M $. But $ K^{\bullet} $ is an $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )$- module, so we get a functor: $${\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }(K^{\bullet}, - ): {\cal D}^b ({{\operatorname{Mod}}-}{\cal A} )
\rightarrow {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{Mod}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ))$$
This might require a little consideration: one should check that $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }(K^{\bullet}, - ) $ takes homotopies to homotopies, even when considered as a functor to the category of right $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet}) $-modules, and likewise for quasiisomorphisms. For homotopies, one checks this by hand (after having consulted e.g. Bernstein-Lunts \[7\] for the definition of the homotopy category of DG-modules). For quasiisomorphisms one uses the standard argument: if $ f: M \rightarrow N $ is a quasiisomorphism, then $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Hom} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet}, C(f) )$ is acyclic ($ C(f) $ denoting the cone of $ f $) and so on: the action of $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) $ is irrelevant for this argument.
Now we also have a functor in the other direction: $$-\stackrel{L}{\otimes}_{ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) }
K^{\bullet}
: \, \,
{\cal D}^b ({{\operatorname{Mod}}-}{\cal A} )
\leftarrow {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{Mod}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ))$$
Recall that this construction involves the replacement of $${\cal N} \in
{\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{Mod}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ))$$ by a $ \cal K $-flat object (actually a $ \cal K $-projective object will do), to which it is quasiisomorphic. The action of $ A $ on $ K^{\bullet} $ then provides $ N \stackrel{L}{\otimes}_{ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )}
K^{\bullet} $ with the structure of DG-module over $ \cal A $: $$\begin{array}{rcl}
d(n \otimes ka) & = & d(n) \otimes ka + (-1)^{deg(n)} n \otimes d(ka) \\
& = & d(n) \otimes ka + (-1)^{deg(n)} n \otimes d(k)a \\
& = & d(n \otimes k)a
\end{array}$$ since the differential of $ \cal A $ is zero. Once again, one should here check that the functor makes sense as a functor into the category of $ \cal A $-modules.
We can then prove the following Theorem:
The functor $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }(K^{\bullet}, - )$ establishes an equivalence of the triangulated categories $ {\cal D}^b ({\operatorname{Mof}}- {\cal A} ) $ and $ {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( K^{\bullet})
\right)$. The inverse functor is $ -\stackrel{L}{\otimes}_{ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) }
K^{\bullet}.$
[Proof]{} Note first that $ {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} A ) $ is generated by the $ K_w^{\bullet} $, since they are resolutions of the simple $A$-modules and short exact sequences $\cal O$-modules induce triangles in $ {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{Mod}}-} A) $.
But then $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }(K^{\bullet}, M ) $ belongs to ${\cal D}^b( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )) $ for $ M \in {\cal D}^b( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )) $, since it clearly does so for each of the generators $ K_w^{\bullet} $.
We furthermore see that $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }(K^{\bullet}, M ) $ is a $ \cal K $-projective $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet}) $-module for any $ M $ in $ {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} {\cal A} ) $ since it clearly holds for $ K_w^{\bullet} $ and the $\cal K $-projectives form a triangulated subcategory of $ {\cal K}( {{\operatorname{Mod}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )) $, the homotopy category of $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) $-modules.
We then obtain a morphism $ \psi_M $ in $ {\cal D}^b( {{\operatorname{Mod}}}-\cal A ) $ in the following way. $$\psi_M : \, {\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }(K^{\bullet}, M )
\stackrel{L}{\otimes}_{{ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}}( K^{\bullet} )} K^{\bullet} \rightarrow
M: \, \, \, f \otimes k \mapsto f(k)$$
One checks that $ \psi_M $ defines a natural transformation from the functor $${\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }(K^{\bullet}, - )
\stackrel{L}{\otimes}_{{ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}}( K^{\bullet} )}
K^{\bullet}$$ to the identity functor $ Id $. It is a quasiisomorphism for $ M = K_w^{\bullet} $, and thus for all $ M $.
On the other hand we have for a $ \cal K $-projective $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) $-module $ N $ the canonical morphism $ \phi_N $ given as follows:
$$\begin{array}{rcl} \phi_N : \, \,
N & \rightarrow & {\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }\left( K^{\bullet}, N \stackrel{L}
{\otimes}_{ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet})} K^{\bullet} \right ) \\
n_i \in N^i & \mapsto & (\, k_j \in K^j \mapsto n_i \otimes k_j \, )
\end{array}$$
One readily sees that $ \phi_N $ is a quasiisomorphism for $ N = {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Hom} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet}, K^{\bullet}_w )$. But these objects generate $ {\cal D}^b( {{\operatorname{Mof}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )) $ and we can argue as above.
Let us finally comment on the shifts $ [1] $. It should here be noticed that since we are working with right DG-modules, the appropriate definition of $ { \cal M }[1] $ for a DG-module $ \cal M $ over a DG-algebra $ \cal A $ is the following: $$( M[1])^i = M^{i+1}, \, \, d_{ M[1] } = -d_M \, \, \, { \rm and }
\, \, \, m \circ a = ma$$ where $ m \circ a $ is the multiplication in $ M[1] $ while $ ma $ is the multiplication in $ M $. So unlike the left module situation, the $ A $ structure on $ M $ is here left unchanged. One now checks that the functors commute with the shifts $ [1] $.
Now $ A $ has a Koszul grading so we may consider the category ${{\operatorname{mof}}-}A $ of finitely generated, graded $ A $-modules. Let us use a lower index to denote the graded parts with respect to this $ \mathbb Z $-grading. This passes to the derived category of graded DG-modules which we denote by $ {\cal D}^b({{\operatorname{mof}}}- {\cal A} ) $. It may be identified with the derived category of ${{\operatorname{mof}}-}A $ and carries a twist $ \langle 1 \rangle $ which we arrange the following way: $$M \langle 1 \rangle_i = M_{i-1}$$
Now the grading on $ K^{\bullet} $ induces a grading on $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) $ as well; it satisfies the rule $${\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} )_i :=
{\operatorname{{ \mathit{end} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet},K^{\bullet}\langle -i \rangle )$$
With this grading on $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) $, we may consider its graded module category, which we denote $ {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{mof}}}- {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}
\left( K^{\bullet}) \right)$. Let us moreover denote the subcategory of this generated, with twists, by the graded summands of the DG-module $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet}) $ itself by $${\cal D}^b ( \langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( K^{\bullet}) \rangle
\right)$$ (It would have been more consistent with the earlier notation to write $ {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{mof}}}- {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}
\left( K^{\bullet}) \right)$ for this category; we however prefer the above notation in order to save space).
It is now straightforward to prove the following strengthening of the former theorem:
The functor $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }(K^{\bullet}, - )$ establishes an equivalence of the triangulated categories $ {\cal D}^b({{\operatorname{mof}}}- {\cal A} ) $ and $ {\cal D}^b ( \langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( K^{\bullet}) \rangle
\right)$. It commutes with the twists $ [1]$ and $ \langle 1 \rangle $.
Our next task will be to study the DG-algebra $ \left( {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ \cal A }^{\bullet}
( K^{\bullet} ), d= 0 \right) $. More precisely, we are going to compare $ {\cal D}^b \left( \langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ \cal A }^{\bullet}
( K^{\bullet} ), d= 0 \rangle \right) $ with the standard derived category of the category of finitely generated, graded modules over ${\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{A}^{\bullet}(k,k)$, i.e. $ {\cal D}^b \left( {{\operatorname{mof}}-}{\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k ) \right) $. Here, we define the $ \mathbb Z $-grading on $({\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A}^{\bullet}(K^{\bullet}), d= 0)$ to be the negative of the DG-grading.
An object of $ {\cal D}^b \left({{\operatorname{mof}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k )\right) $ is a bounded complex $$0 \rightarrow P^{-n} \rightarrow P^{-n+1} \rightarrow
\ldots \rightarrow P_0
\rightarrow \ldots
\rightarrow P^{m-1} \rightarrow P^{m} \rightarrow 0$$ of projective graded ${\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k ) $-modules (so the differential has degree $ 0 $). Using this, one constructs a DG-module $\cal P $ of the DG-algebra $ ( {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k), d=0 ) $ in the following way: $$0 \rightarrow P^{-n} \langle -n \rangle \rightarrow
P^{-n+1} \langle -n+1 \rangle \rightarrow \ldots
\rightarrow P^0 \langle 0 \rangle
\rightarrow \cdots P^{m} \langle m \rangle \rightarrow 0.$$ In other words, $ {\cal P} $ is the module $ {\cal P} = \bigoplus_n P^n $ whose $k$’th DG-piece is $ {\cal P}^k = \bigoplus_i P^i_{k-i}. $ We make $ {\cal P} $ into a graded DG-module by the rule ${\cal P}_j = \bigoplus_i P^i_{-j} $. This construction defines a functor $$F: \, \,
{\cal D}^b \left( {{\operatorname{mof}}-}{\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k )\right) \rightarrow
{\cal D}^b \left( {{\operatorname{mod}}-} ({\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k ), d=0) \right)$$ since a graded homotopy between two morphisms $ f,g: P^{\bullet} \rightarrow
Q^{\bullet} $ of modules will be mapped to a homotopy in the DG-category.
I will now argue that actually $ F $ is a functor into the category $ {\cal D}^b \left( \langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k),d=0 \rangle \right) $. To see this note first that the $ P_i \langle i \rangle $ all lie in this category since they are summands of (shifts of) $ ( {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k), d=0 ) $. On the other hand $ F $ can be viewed as an iterated graded mapping cone construction in the DG-sense, starting with the morphism $ P^{m-1} \langle m \rangle \rightarrow P^{m} \langle m \rangle $, which is already a DG-morphism, and the claim follows. The graded mapping cone of a graded DG-module morphism $ {\cal M} \stackrel{u}{\rightarrow} {\cal N} $ is given by $ C(u)= N \oplus M[1] $ as DG-module, and reversing the degrees with respect to the $ \mathbb Z $-grading.
It is now clear that $ F $ commutes with the twists $ [1] $. On the other hand $ F $ takes a sequence of $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k) $-modules isomorphic to a standard triangle $$M \stackrel{u}{\rightarrow} N \rightarrow C(u)
\rightarrow M[1]$$ to a sequence of graded DG-modules isomorphic to $$F(M) \stackrel{F(u)}{\rightarrow} F(N) \rightarrow F(C(u))
\rightarrow F(M[1]).$$
But this is easily seen to be a standard triangle of DG-modules; in other words $ F $ is a triangulated functor.
One furthermore checks that $ F $ is full and faithful and it is thus an equivalence of triangulated categories once we have shown that the generators $ ( {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k, k_w), d=0 ) $ lie in the image of $ F $. But this is clear.
Since $$M_1 \rightarrow M_2 \rightarrow M_3 \rightarrow$$ is a triangle if and only if $$F(M_1) \rightarrow F(M_2) \rightarrow F(M_3) \rightarrow$$ is a triangle we deduce that the inverse functor $ G $ is triangulated as well.
Our next task will be to analyze the behavior of the twists $ \langle 1 \rangle $ with respect to $ F $. Now apart from the change of the sign of the differentials, we obtain the relation: $$F(M \langle 1 \rangle ) = F(M)[-1]\langle - 1 \rangle.$$ On the other hand, let for a complex $ P^{\bullet} $ of graded $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k) $-modules $ P = \bigoplus P^k_n $ be the total module. We may then consider the map $ \sigma $ on $ P $ defined as follows: $$p \in P^k_n \mapsto (-1)^n p.$$ One now checks that $ \sigma $ defines an isomorphism between the functors $ F( - \langle 1 \rangle ) $ and $ F(- )[-1]\langle -1 \rangle. $
Recall once again that since $ A \, $ is Koszul, the DG-algebras $${\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left(K^{\bullet}\right)\mbox{ and }
({\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k), d=0)$$ are quasiisomorphic so there is an equivalence $$\phi: \,
{\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{Mod}}-} {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( K^{\bullet} )\right)
\rightarrow
{\cal D}^b \left( {{\operatorname{Mod}}-}({\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k ),d=0) \right).$$ A closer look at the above quoted proof reveals that the quasiisomorphism is even a graded one so we obtain an equivalence $$\phi: \,
{\cal D}^b ( \langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}\left( K^{\bullet}) \rangle
\right)
\rightarrow
{\cal D}^b \left( \langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ \, A }^{\bullet}(k,k ),d=0 \rangle
\right)$$
Let us gather the results in one theorem.
The composition of the above functors $$G \circ \phi \circ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{RHom} }}}_{\cal A }(K^{\bullet}, - ):
{\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{mof}}-} A ) \rightarrow
{\cal D}^b \left( {{\operatorname{mof}}-}{\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ A }^{\bullet}(k,k )\right)$$ is an equivalence of triangulated categories: the Koszul duality functor. It commutes with $ [1] $ and satisfies the rule $$F(M \langle 1 \rangle ) = F(M)[-1]\langle -1 \rangle.$$
**Translation and Zuckerman functors.**
=======================================
Let us return to the translation functors to and from the wall $ T_0^{\lambda}:\, \cal{O}\, \rightarrow \cal{O}_{\lambda} $, $ T^0_{\lambda}:\, \cal{O}\, \rightarrow \cal{O}_{\lambda} $. We saw in the first section, that they can be viewed as functors between the categories $ {\operatorname{Mod}}-A $ and $ {\operatorname{Mod}}-A_{\lambda} $. Now, in \[2\] it is shown that they can be lifted to graded functors $$T_0^{\lambda}:\, {\operatorname{mod}}-A \rightarrow {\operatorname{mod}}-A_{\lambda}$$ $$T^0_{\lambda}:\, {\operatorname{mod}}-A_{\lambda} \rightarrow {\operatorname{mod}}-A$$ that still are adjoint and exact and such that $ T_0^{\lambda} $ takes pure objects of weight $ n $ to pure objects of the same weight; this construction is based on Soergel’s theory of modules over the coinvariants of the Weyl group. See also \[1\], where graded translation functors are constructed in the setting of modular representation theory.
The graded translation functor $ T_0^{\lambda} $ induces a homomorphism of graded DG-algebras $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) \, \rightarrow
{\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}(T_0^{\lambda}K^{\bullet} ) $. But $ T_0^{\lambda} $ and $ T^0_{\lambda} $ are exact and $ K^{\bullet} $ is a projective graded resolution of the pure module $ k $, so $ T_0^{\lambda}K^{\bullet} $ is a projective graded resolution of $ k_{\lambda} $. Hence $ T_0^{\lambda}K^{\bullet} $ is graded homotopic to the Koszul complex $ K^{\bullet}_{\lambda}$ of $ A_{\lambda} $ and this implies that $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}(T_0^{\lambda}K^{\bullet} )$ and $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}(K^{\bullet}_{\lambda} )$ are quasiisomorphic graded DG-algebras.
We already saw that $ A $ being a Koszul ring implies that $${\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( K^{\bullet} ) \cong
( {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( k,k ),d=0 )$$ and by the above and since $A_{\lambda}$ is Koszul as well we have that $${\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}(T_0^{\lambda}K^{\bullet} ) \cong
({\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}( T_0^{\lambda} k,T_0^{\lambda} k),d=0 )
\cong ({\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}(k_{\lambda}, k_{\lambda}),d=0 )$$ We now obtain the following commutative diagram of functors: $$\hss\begin{array}{ccccc}
{\cal D}^b({{\operatorname{mod}}-}A) &
\stackrel{{\scriptscriptstyle - \, \otimes \, K^{\bullet}}}{\leftarrow}
& {\cal D}^b(\langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A}^{\bullet}(K^{\bullet})\rangle) &
\leftarrow & {\cal D}^b(\langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A}^{\bullet}(k,k), d=0 \rangle)\\
\downarrow {\scriptscriptstyle T_0^{\lambda}} & &
\downarrow
& &
\downarrow {\scriptscriptstyle T_0^{\lambda} } \\
{\cal D}^b({{\operatorname{mod}}-}A_{\lambda}) &
\stackrel{{\scriptscriptstyle - \,\otimes \, T_0^{\lambda}
K^{\bullet}}}{\leftarrow}
& {\cal D}^b(\langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda}}^{\bullet}(T_0^{\lambda}
K^{\bullet} )\rangle) &
\leftarrow & {\cal D}^b
(\langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda}}^{\bullet}
(T_0^{\lambda}k,T_0^{\lambda}k), d=0 \rangle)
\end{array}
\hss$$ where the middle vertical arrow is the graded tensor product functor $$- \otimes_{ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}
( K^{\bullet} )}{\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( T_0^{\lambda} K^{\bullet})$$ while the first and third vertical arrows are the graded translation functors. The commutativity of the first square is here obvious, whereas the quasiisomorphism of $ ( {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( k,k ),d=0 )) \times
{\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}(T_0^{\lambda}K^{\bullet} ) $-bimodules $${\operatorname{{ \mathit{End} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( T_0^{\lambda} K^{\bullet}) \cong
{\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}(T_0^{\lambda}k,T_0^{\lambda }k)$$ gives the natural transformation that makes the second square commutative.
By the same reasoning as in the last section, the two lower arrows define equivalences of triangulated categories.
Now Backelin \[2\] shows that one can choose the isomorphisms $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( k,k ) \simeq A $ and $ {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}(T_0^{\lambda} k,T_0^{\lambda} k) \simeq
A^{\lambda} $ to obtain the following commutative diagram: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A }^{\bullet}( k,k) & \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} & A \\
{\scriptscriptstyle T^{\lambda}_0} \downarrow & & \, \,\, \, \,
\downarrow {\scriptscriptstyle \tau} \\
{\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{\cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}(T_0^{\lambda} k,T_0^{\lambda} k)
& \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} & A^{\lambda}
\end{array}$$ The key point is here that both vertical maps are surjections: for $ \tau $ this is clear, while for $ T^{\lambda}_0 $ an argument involving the Koszul property of $ A $ is required (one can here give a simple alternate argument along the lines of the Cline, Parshall, Scott approach to Kashdan-Luzstig theory \[8\]). It then follows that the kernels of the two vertical maps are the ideals generated by corresponding idempotents (thus in the degree $ 0 $ part).
Although the diagram involves non-graded maps, it can be used to give $ \tau $ a grading – and then of course it is a commutative diagram of graded homomorphisms.
This diagram, on the other hand, gives rise to the following commutative diagram of functors: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\cal D}^b (\langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ \cal A }^{\bullet}( k,k),d=0 \rangle ) &
\stackrel{F}{\leftarrow} &
{\cal D}^b({{\operatorname{mod}}-} A) \\
{\scriptscriptstyle T^{\lambda}_0} \downarrow & & \, \,\, \, \,
\downarrow {\scriptscriptstyle \tau} \\
{\cal D}^b ( \langle {\operatorname{{ \mathit{Ext} }}}_{ \cal A_{\lambda} }^{\bullet}
(T_0^{\lambda} k,T_0^{\lambda} k),d=0 \rangle )
& \stackrel{F}{\leftarrow} & {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{mod}}-}A^{\lambda})
\end{array}$$
We now join the two diagrams of functors to obtain a diagram, in which the upper arrows compose to the Koszul duality functor of $ \cal O $ while the composition of the lower arrows is isomorphic to the Koszul duality functor of $ \cal O_{\lambda} $. Let us formulate this as a Theorem
The translation– and Zuckerman functors are Kozsul to each other, in other words there is a commutative diagram of functors: $$\begin{array}{ccc}
{\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{mod}}-}A ) &
\stackrel{D}{\leftarrow} &
{\cal D}^b({{\operatorname{mod}}-} A) \\
{\scriptscriptstyle T^{\lambda}_0} \downarrow & & \, \,\, \, \,
\downarrow {\scriptscriptstyle \tau} \\
{\cal D}^b {({\operatorname{mod}}-}A_{\lambda} ) &
\stackrel{D_{\lambda}}{\leftarrow} & {\cal D}^b ( {{\operatorname{mod}}-}A^{\lambda})
\end{array}$$ where $D$ (resp. $D_{\lambda} $) is the Koszul duality functor as described above.
This is the Theorem announced in the introduction of the paper.
**The Enright-Shelton Equivalence**
====================================
We now consider the categorification of the Temperley-Lieb algebra. Let thus $ \mathfrak g := gl_n $ and $ {\cal O := \cal O} ({ \mathfrak gl}_n ) $. Let $ \epsilon_k, k \in \{1,2, \ldots, n \} $ be the standard basis of the weight lattice and define for $ k \in \{1,2, \ldots, n \}, \lambda_k :=
\epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2 + \ldots \epsilon_k $. We then let $ {\cal O}_{k,n-k} $ be the singular block of $ \cal O $ consisting of modules with central character $ \theta ( \lambda_k ) $. So the Verma module with highest weight $ \lambda_k - \rho $ lies in $ {\cal O}_{k,n-k} $. Let $ {\mathfrak g}_i, 1 \leq i \leq i-1 $ be the subalgebra of $ \mathfrak g $ consisting of the matrices whose entries are nonzero only on the intersection of the $ i $-th and $ ( i+1 ) $-th rows and columns. We then denote by $ {\cal O}_{k,n-k}^i $ the parabolic subcategory of $ {\cal O}_{k,n-k} $ whose modules are the locally ${\mathfrak g}_i $-finite ones in $ {\cal O}_{k,n-k} $.
We shall also consider the following dual picture: let $ { \mathfrak p }_k $ be the parabolic subalgebra of $ { \mathfrak g } $, whose Levi part is $ { \mathfrak g }_k \oplus { \mathfrak g }_{ n-k } $ and such that $ { \mathfrak n }_+ \subseteq { \mathfrak p }_k $ and let $ {\cal O}^{k,n-k} $ be the the full subcategory of $ \cal O $ consisting of the locally $ { \mathfrak p }_k $-finite modules. Choose an integral dominant regular weight $ \mu $ and integral dominant subregular weights $ \mu_i $ on the $ i $-th wall, $ i = 1, 2, \ldots , n-1 $ (so the coordinates of $ \mu_i $ in the $ \epsilon_i $ basis are strictly decreasing, except for the $ i $-th and the $ ( i+1 )$-th that are equal). Let finally $ {\cal O}^{k,n-k}_i $ be the subcategory of $ {\cal O}^{k,n-k} $ with central character $ \theta ( \mu_i ) $.
All of this is the setup of \[6\]
Let $ R^i_{k,n-k} ( $resp.$ R_i^{k,n-k} $) be the endomorphism ring of the minimal projective generator of $ {\cal O}_{k,n-k}^i $ (resp. $ {\cal O}^{k,n-k}_i $). The following theorem is a direct consequence of Backelin’s work \[2\]:
$ ( R_{k,n-k}^i)^! = {R}^{k,n-k}_i $
[Proof]{} The main result of \[2\] is that $$( R^{\psi}_{\phi} )^! =
R^{\phi}_{-w_0 \psi}$$ with the notation as in \[5\].
Now one should first observe that $ c \, Id \in { \mathfrak gl}_n $ acts on $ { \cal O }_\lambda $ through multiplication with $ c \sum \lambda_i $; hence $ {\cal O}_\lambda $ is equivalent to the category $ {\cal O}_{\overline{\lambda}} $ of $ { \mathfrak sl}_n $-modules, where $\overline{\lambda} $ denotes the image of $ \lambda $ under the projection of the weight lattice with kernel $ {\mathbb Z} \sum \epsilon_i $. We can thus restrict ourselves to the semisimple situation and may indeed use the results quoted.
Now $ \mu_i $ and $ { \mathfrak sl}_i \subseteq
{ \mathfrak sl}_n $ are both given by the simple root $ \alpha_i =
\epsilon_i -\epsilon_{i+1} $ and also $ { \mathfrak p}_{k,n-k} $ and $ \lambda_k $ are given by the same simple roots ($ = \Delta \setminus
\{ \alpha_i \} $). Finally, we have in type A that $ w_0 \lambda = - \lambda $ and the theorem follows.
As a corollary we obtain a simple proof of the following equivalence of categories first proven by Enright and Shelton.
$ {\cal O}^{k,n-k}_1 \cong {\cal O}^{k-1,n-k-1} $
[Proof]{} There is first of all a standard equivalence of categories: $${\cal O}_{k,n-k}^1 \cong {\cal O}_{k-1,n-k-1}$$ The functor $ \nu_n $ from left to right takes the sum of all weight spaces of weight $ \epsilon_1 + x_3 \epsilon_3 + \ldots
x_n \epsilon_n - \rho_n $ with $ x_i \in \mathbb Z $. This is a $ { \mathfrak gl}_{n-2} $-module and $ \nu_n $ is then the tensor product of it with the module defined by $ \epsilon_1 + \epsilon_2 + \ldots \epsilon_{n-2} $. The inverse functor comes from an induction procedure, see \[6\] for the details. Now this equivalence gives us a ring isomorphism $$(R_{k,n-k}^1)^! \cong ({R}_{k-1,n-k-1})^!$$ which combined with the theorem yields a ring isomorphism $$\xi: R^{k,n-k}_1 \cong {R}^{k-1,n-k-1}$$ But then the module categories of $ R^{k,n-k}_1 $ and $ {R}^{k-1,n-k-1} $ are equivalent, by the restriction and extension of scalars along $ \xi $. The corollary is proved.
This might be useful in proving the full conjectures of \[6\].
[99]{} . Andersen, H. H. J. C. Jantzen, and W. Soergel, [*Representations of Quantum Groups at a $p$-th root of unity and of semisimple Groups in Characteristic $p$: Independence of $p$*]{}, Astérisque [**220**]{}, 1994, 1-320 . Backelin, E., [*Koszul Duality for Parabolic and Singular Category $\cal O$, Representation Theory*]{}, [**3**]{}, (1999), 139–152
. Bernstein, J., I. Gelfand, and S. Gelfand, [*Algebraic bundles over ${\mathbb P}^n$ and problems of linear algebra*]{}, Funcional Analysis and its Appl. [**12**]{} (1978), 66–67
. Beilinson, A., J. Ginzburg, and V. Schechtmann, [*Koszul Duality*]{}, J. of Geometry and Physics [**5**]{} (1988), 317-350 . Beilinson, A., V. Ginzburg, and W. Soergel, [*Koszul duality patterns in representation theory*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**9**]{}, (1996), 473–527
. Bernstein, J., I. Frenkel, and M. Khovanov, [*A categorification of the Temperley-Lieb Algebra and Schur quotients of $U({\mathfrak sl}_2)$ via projective and Zuckerman functors*]{}, Selecta Math. (N.S.), [**5**]{} (1999), 199–241
. Bernstein, J., and V. Lunts, “Equivariant Sheaves and Functors,” Lecture Notes in Mathematics [**1578**]{}, (1994), Springer Verlag . Cline, E., B. Parshall, and L. Scott, [*Abstract Kashdan-Luzstig Theories*]{}, Tôhoko Math. J. [**45**]{} (1993), 511–534
. B. Keller, E., [*Deriving DG-categories*]{}, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. [**27**]{} (1994), 63–102
. Soergel, W., [*Kategorie $\cal O$, Perverse Garben und Moduln über den Koinvarianten zur Weylgruppe*]{}, J. Amer. Math. Soc. [**3**]{} (1990), 421–445
. Stroppel, C., [Categorification of the Temperley-Lieb category, tangles, and cobordisms via projective functors]{}. Duke Math. J. [**126**]{} (2005), no. 3, 547–596.
[^1]: Supported by EPSRC grant M22536 and by the TMR-network algebraic Lie Theory ERB-FMRX-CT97-0100.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
The electromagnetic polarizabilities belong to the fundamental structure constants of the nucleon. Although attempts to measure the electromagnetic polarizabilities of the neutron have a long history the results obtained up to now have remained unsatisfactory. Since Compton scattering experiments appeared too difficult, the first generation of investigations concentrated on the method of electromagnetic scattering of low-energy neutrons in the electric fields of heavy nuclei, as measured in neutron transmission experiments. The history of these studies is summarized in Ref. [@aleksandr]. The latest in a series of experiments have been carried out at Oak Ridge [@Sch91] and Munich [@Koe95] leading to $\alpha_n=12.6\pm1.5\pm2.0$ and $\alpha_n=0.6\pm5$, respectively, for the electric polarizability of the neutron in units of $10^{-4}$fm$^3$ which will be used throughout in the following. The numbers given here have been corrected by adding the Schwinger term [@Lvov93] $e^2 \kappa^2_{\rm n}/4M^3= 0.6$, containing the neutron anomalous magnetic moment $\kappa_n$ and the neutron mass $M$, which had been omitted in the original evaluation of these experiments. After including the Schwinger term the numbers are directly comparable with the ones defined through the Compton scattering process [@Lvov93]. While the Munich result [@Koe95] has a large error, the Oak Ridge result [@Sch91] is of very high precision. However, this high precision has been questioned by a number of researchers active in the field of neutron scattering [@Enik97]. Their conclusion is that the Oak Ridge result [@Sch91] possibly might be quoted as $7\leq \alpha_n\leq 19$. Note that the neutron transmission experiments do not constrain the magnetic polarizability $\beta_n$.
The method of Compton scattering makes use of the equation $$f=f_B+\omega\omega' \alpha \, {\boldsymbol{\epsilon}}\cdot
{\boldsymbol{\epsilon}'}
+\omega \omega' \beta \, {\bf s}\cdot {\bf s'} +{\cal O}(\omega^3),
\label{compzton}$$ where $f_B$ is the Born amplitude, $\alpha$ the electric and $\beta$ the magnetic polarizability, $\omega$, $\omega'$ the photon energies in the initial and final state, respectively, and ${\boldsymbol \epsilon}$, ${\boldsymbol \epsilon}'$ and ${\bf s}$, ${\bf s}'$ the directions of the corresponding electric and magnetic fields. A pioneering experiment on Compton scattering by the neutron had been carried out by the Göttingen and Mainz groups at the electron beam of MAMI A operated at 130 MeV [@rose90]. This experiment followed a proposal of Refs.[@levchuk94] to exploit the reaction $\gamma d\to \gamma np$ in the quasi-free kinematics, though there is an evident reason why such an experiment is difficult at energies below pion threshold. For the proton the largest portion of the polarizability-dependent cross section in this energy region stems from the interference term between the Born amplitude containing Thomson scattering as the largest contribution, and the non-Born amplitude containing the polarizabilities. For the neutron the Thomson amplitude vanishes so that the interference term is very small and correspondingly cannot be used for the determination of the neutron polarizabilities. This implies that the cross section is rather small being about 2–3 nb/sr at 100 MeV. The way chosen to overcome this problem was to use a high flux of bremsstrahlung without tagging[@rose90; @levchuk94]. The result obtained in the experiment [@rose90] was $$\alpha_n=10.7^{+3.3}_{-10.7}.
\label{Rose}$$
This means that the experiment was successful in providing a value for the electric polarizability and its upper limit but it did not permit to determine a definite lower limit. The reason for this deficiency is that below pion threshold the neutron Compton cross section is practically independent of $\alpha_n$ if $0\alt \alpha_n \alt 10$ (see Refs. [@levchuk94; @wissmann98]). In order to overcome this difficulty it was proposed to measure the neutron polarizabilities at energies above pion threshold with the energy range from 200 to 300 MeV being the most promising, since there the cross sections are very sensitive to $\alpha_n$ [@levchuk94; @wissmann98] if, in addition, large scattering angles are chosen.
A first experiment on quasi-free Compton scattering by the proton bound in the deuteron for energies above pion threshold was carried out at MAMI (Mainz) [@wissmann99]. This experiment served as a successful test of the method of quasi-free Compton scattering for determining $\alpha - \beta$. Later on this method was applied to the proton and the neutron bound in the deuteron at SAL (Saskatoon) [@kolb00]. In this experiment differential cross sections for quasi-free Compton scattering by the proton and by the neutron were obtained at a scattering angle of $\theta^{\rm lab}_\gamma = 135^\circ$ for incident photon energies of $236-260$ MeV, which were combined to give one data point of reasonable precision for each nucleon. From the ratio of these two differential cross sections a most probable value of $\alpha_n - \beta_n = 12$ was obtained with a lower limit of $0$ and no definite upper limit. Combining their results [@kolb00] with that of Eq.(\[Rose\]) [@rose90] the authors obtained the following 1-sigma constraints for the electromagnetic polarizabilities $7.6 \leq \alpha_n \leq 14.0$ and $1.2 \leq \beta_n \leq 7.6$.
It should be noted that coherent elastic (Compton) scattering by the deuteron provides a further method for determining the electromagnetic polarizabilities of the neutron. An evaluation of first experiments [@Lucas94; @Horn00] using the theoretical model of [@LL95; @LL00] gave the values of $\alpha_n + \beta_n = 20 \pm 3$ and $\alpha_n - \beta_n = -2 \pm 3$. Progress in the application of this method may be expected from an experiment carried out at MAX-Lab [@Lund00] and from further improvements of the theoretical basis for the data analysis. Ref. [@LL00] also provides access to further theoretical work on Compton scattering by the nucleon.
In this Letter we report on first measurements of differential cross sections for quasi-free Compton scattering by the proton and the neutron covering a large energy interval from $E_\gamma=200$ to $400$ MeV. This large coverage is indispensable for determining data for the electromagnetic polarizabilities with good precision. The apparatus used is shown in Fig. \[apparatus\]. Tagged photons produced by the tagging facility at MAMI (Mainz) entered a scattering chamber, containing a $4.6{\rm cm}\,\O \!\times 16.3 {\rm cm}$ lq.hydrogen or lq.deuterium target in a Kapton target cell. The $48{\rm cm}\,\O\!\times 64 {\rm cm}$ NaI(Tl) detector was positioned at a distance of 60 cm from the target center at a scattering angle of $\theta^{\rm lab}_\gamma=136^\circ$ as the largest angle convenient for an experimental set-up. A scintillation counter in front of the collimator is used to identify and veto charged particles. As a recoil detector the Göttingen SENECA detector was used, positioned at a distance of 250 cm. SENECA was built as a neutron detector capable of pulse-shape discrimination. It is a honeycomb structure of 30 hexagon-shaped detector cells of 15.0 cm minimum diameter and 20.0 cm length filled with NE213 liquid scintillator. The entrance face is covered by four plastic scintillators to discriminate between charged and neutral particles. In the present experiment SENECA served as the stop detector of a time-of-flight measurement, with the start signal provided by the $48{\rm cm}\O\!\times 64 {\rm cm}$ NaI(Tl) detector.
Data were collected during 238 h of beam time with a deuterium target and about 35 h with a hydrogen target. The tagging efficiency was about $55 \%$, measured several times during the runs by means of a Pb-glass detector in the direct photon beam, and otherwise monitored by a P2 type ionization chamber positioned at the end of the photon beam line. The neutron detection efficiency $\epsilon_n$ was experimentally determined [*in situ*]{} via the reaction $p(\gamma,\pi^+ n)$. The charged pion was identified by the veto counter in front of the NaI(Tl) detector and through the missing $\pi^+$-energy $${\rm E}_{\pi^+}^{{\rm miss}} = {\rm E}_{\pi^+}^{{\rm calc}} - {\rm
E}_{\pi^+}^{{\rm NaI}},$$ where ${\rm E}_{\pi^+}^{{\rm calc}}$ is the energy of the $\pi^+$ meson calculated from the incident photon energy and from the $\pi^+$ emission angle, and ${\rm E}_{\pi^+}^{{\rm NaI}}$ the $\pi^+$ energy measured by the NaI(Tl) detector. The result obtained for the neutron detection efficiency is $\epsilon_n = 0.180 \pm 0.014$ and proved to be in good agreement with previous measurements [@edel92].
=3.35in
Figure \[miss-spectra\] shows typical spectra of photon events measured in coincidence with a recoil nucleon obtained from a deuteron target. In the left panels the recoil nucleon was identified to be a proton, in the right panels a neutron. For the data analysis a two dimensional procedure was applied with the missing nucleon energy ${\rm E}^{\rm miss}_N ={\rm E}^{\rm calc}_N - {\rm E}^{\rm\, SEN}_N$ and missing photon energy ${\rm E}^{\rm miss}_{\gamma}={\rm E}^{\rm calc}_{\gamma} -
{\rm E}^{\rm NaI}_{\gamma}$ as the parameters, where ${\rm E}^{\rm\, SEN}_N$ and ${\rm E}^{\rm NaI}_{\gamma}$ denote measured energies and ${\rm E}^{\rm calc}_N$ and ${\rm E}^{\rm calc}_{\gamma}$ the corresponding energies calculated assuming a Compton event. In this way optimal use of the separation of the two types of events as provided by the resolution of the apparatus has been made. For the spectra shown this separation of the two types of events was optimized by appropriately rotating the scatter plot of events around the origin of the ${\rm E}^{\rm miss}_N-{\rm E}^{\rm miss}_{\gamma}$ plane before the projection of the data on the new abscissa – ${\rm E}^{\rm miss}_{\rm rot}$ – was carried out. The experiment was accompanied by a complete Monte Carlo simulation. The curves shown in Fig. \[miss-spectra\] are the results of this Monte Carlo simulation after adjusting them to the Compton events (grey areas) and to the $\pi^0$ events (white areas), respectively. It is apparent, that at the lowest photon energies of $\sim$ 230 MeV there is a complete separation of the two types of events. This separation remains possible up to about 380 MeV.
=3.35in
For the free proton differential cross sections may be calculated from the number of measured Compton events using a complete Monte Carlo simulation of the experiment to determine the detection efficiency. For the quasi-free reaction the same procedure may be applied. However, in this case an effective differential cross section is obtained in this first step of data analysis which requires a second step to take into account the effects of binding of the nucleon in the deuteron. These effects of binding manifest themselves in the Fermi momentum distribution of the nucleons. In addition, effects due to final state interaction of the emitted particles and due to meson exchange currents have to be taken into account. A detailed description of these processes has been given in Ref. [@levchuk94]. The result of the second step of the data analysis is the triple differential cross section in the center of the quasi-free peak of the recoil nucleon determined from the effective differential cross section as obtained from the number of measured Compton events. For this determination an appropriate Monte Carlo simulation has to be taken into account.
=3.35in
Figures \[results\]a-c show the results of the present experiment. The experimental data for the free proton shown in Fig. \[results\]a are compared with predictions based on the nonsubtracted dispersion theory as described in Ref. [@lvov97] and thoroughly tested in Refs. [@Galler01; @wolf01]. In these former experiments it was shown that the parametrizations SAID-SM99K [@SAID] and MAID2000 [@MAID] led to a good agreement with the experimental differential cross sections for Compton scattering by the proton in the $\Delta$ resonance region, whereas the more recent parametrization SAID-SM00K led to too small differential cross sections. Exactly the same observation is made in the present work. Therefore, the parametrization SAID-SM00K was disregarded in the further data analysis. Going a step further, Fig. \[results\]a may be used to find arguments in favor of either the MAID2000 or the SAID-SM99K parametrization. Though the differences are small, there is a slight preference for the MAID2000 pameterization which is seen in Fig. \[results\]a and reflected by the $\chi^2$ values. Therefore, we decided to base the further evaluation on the MAID2000 parametrization and to use the SAID-SM99K parametrization only for getting an estimate for the model error connected with imperfections of the photomeson amplitudes.
In Fig. \[results\]b a test of the method of quasi-free Compton scattering is carried out. The data shown are triple differential cross sections for quasi-free Compton scattering by the proton in the center of the quasi-free peak with their statistical errors. The systematic errors amount to $ \pm 4.4 \%$. The solid curve in this figure shows triple differential cross sections for quasi-free Compton scattering by the proton in the center of the quasi-free peak. This theoretical prediction has been obtained in the model of Ref. [@levchuk94] on the basis of the MAID2000 parametrization. The $NN$-interaction entering into this model has been taken from the CD-Bonn potential [@Machl01]. For comparison also the separable representation of the Paris potential [@PEST] has been applied, leading to essentially no difference. The overall agreement between experiment and prediction as given by the solid curve may be considered as satisfactory, although there is some deviation visible in the energy range between 270 and 300 MeV. At present we do not have an explanation for this residual deviation which, therefore, could not be eliminated by means of a correction. Consequently, we have to treat it as a possible source of uncertainty which has to be taken into account through a further contribution to the model error. In order to get a quantitative result for this additional model error, the prediction shown in Fig. \[results\]b as a solid curve has been scaled down by a factor of 0.93 to give the dashed curve. Through this procedure we arrive at a modified set of photomeson amplitudes which may be used in the further analysis to estimate the additional model error connected with a possible imperfection of the theory of the quasi-free Compton scattering.
Figure \[results\]c shows triple differential cross sections for the neutron in the center of the quasi-free peak compared with predictions obtained in the model of Ref. [@levchuk94] on the basis of the MAID2000 parametrization. The difference between the methods of evaluation in Fig. \[results\]b and Fig. \[results\]c is that for the proton the parameter $\alpha_p - \beta_p= 10.5\pm 1.5$ is fixed through additional experiments [@Olmos01] whereas for the neutron $\alpha_n - \beta_n$ is a free parameter which has to be determined through fits to the experimental data using a $\chi^2$ procedure. The result obtained is $\alpha_n - \beta_n$ = 9.8. The errors of this result are as follows. The statistical error from the $\chi^2$ procedure is $\pm$3.6. The systematic error of the neutron triple differential cross sections amounts to $\pm 9\%$, with the detection efficiency $\epsilon_n$ of the neutrons contributing $\pm 8\%$, the number of target nuclei per cm$^2$ contributing $\pm 2\%$, the uncertainties caused by cuts in the spectra and by the Monte Carlo simulations contributing $\pm 3\%$ and the tagging efficiency contributing $\pm 2.5\%$. For $\alpha_n - \beta_n$ this leads to a combined probable systematic error of ${}^{+2.1}_{-1.1}$. The model error due to imperfections of the parametrization of photomeson amplitudes was estimated from a comparison of results obtained with the MAID2000 and SAID-SM99K parametrizations, respectively. The result obtained for $\alpha_n - \beta_n$ is $\pm 2.0$. The errors due to different parametrizations of the $NN$-interaction is found to be about $\pm 0.2$. The determination of the model error due to possible imperfections of the theory of quasi-free Compton scattering has been discussed above in connection with Fig. \[results\]b and amounts to $\pm 0.8$.
Taking all these errors into account we arrive at our final result $$\alpha_n- \beta_n= 9.8 \pm 3.6 ({\rm stat}) {}^{+ 2.1}_{-1.1}{} ({\rm syst})
\pm 2.2 ({\rm model}).$$ Combining it with
$\alpha_n + \beta_n = 15.2 \pm 0.5$ [@LL00] we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_n&=12.5\pm 1.8 ({\rm stat}){}^{+ 1.1}_{-0.6}{} ({\rm syst})
\pm 1.1 ({\rm model}),\\
\beta_n &=~~2.7\mp 1.8 ({\rm stat}){}^{+0.6}_{-1.1}{} ({\rm syst})
\mp 1.1 ({\rm model}).\end{aligned}$$
It is of interest to compare the present result obtained for the neutron with the corresponding result for the proton. Combining the global averages of the electric and magnetic polarizabilities determined in Ref. [@Olmos01] with the value for the sum of polarizabilities $\alpha_p + \beta_p = 14.0 \pm 0.3$ obtained in Ref. [@LL00] we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha_p& =12.2\pm 0.3 ({\rm stat})\mp 0.4 ({\rm syst})\pm 0.3 ({\rm model}),\\
\beta_p& =~~1.8\pm 0.4 ({\rm stat})\pm 0.4 ({\rm syst})\pm 0.4 ({\rm model}). \end{aligned}$$ The comparison shows that there is no significant isovector component in the electromagnetic polarizabilities. Nevertheless, there is a slight tendency suggesting that the magnetic polarizability of the neutron may be larger than that of the proton.
[ One of the authors (M.I.L.) highly appreciates the hospitality of II. Physikalisches Institut der Universität Göttingen where part of his theoretical work was done. This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB 201 and SFB 433 Mainz), and by Schwerpunktprogramm (1034) through the contracts DFG-Wi1198, DFG-Schu222, and through the German Russian exchange program 436 RUS 113/510. ]{}
Yu.A. Aleksandrov, [*Fundamental properties of the neutron*]{} (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992). J. Schmiedmayer, P. Riehs, J.A. Harvey, and N.W. Hill, , 1015 (1991). L. Koester [*et al.*]{}, , 3363 (1995). A.I. L’vov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**8**]{}, 5267 (1993). T.L. Enik [*et al.*]{}, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. [**60**]{}, 567 (1997). K.W. Rose [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**234**]{}, 460 (1990); Nucl. Phys. [**A514**]{}, 621 (1990). M.I. Levchuk, A.I. L’vov, and V.A. Petrun’kin, preprint FIAN No. 86, 1986; Few-Body Syst. [**16**]{}, 101 (1994). F. Wissmann, M.I. Levchuk, and M. Schumacher, Eur. Phys. J. A [**1**]{}, 193 (1998). F. Wissmann [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A 660**]{}, 232 (1999). N.R. Kolb [*et al.*]{}, , 1388 (2000).
M.A. Lucas, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, 1994. D.L. Hornidge [*et al.*]{}, , 2334 (2000). M.I. Levchuk and A.I. L’vov, Few-Body Syst. Suppl. [**9**]{}, 439 (1995). M.I. Levchuk and A.I. L’vov, Nucl. Phys. [**A674**]{}, 449 (2000). M. Lundin [*et al.*]{}, MAX-Lab Activity Report 2000, p. 350. Edited by J.N. Andersen, U. Johansson, R. Nyholm, and H. Ullman. G. v. Edel, Dipl. Thesis, Universität Göttingen, 1992 (unpublished); G. Galler, Dipl. Thesis, Universität Göttingen, 1993 (unpublished); R. Maass, Dipl. Thesis, Universität Göttingen, 1995 (unpublished). A.I. L’vov, V.A. Petrun’kin, and M. Schumacher, , 359 (1997). G. Galler [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**503**]{}, 245 (2001). S. Wolf [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. A [**12**]{}, 231 (2001). R.A. Arndt, I.I. Strakovsky, and R.L. Workman, , 430 (1996). D. Drechsel [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. [**A465**]{}, 145 (1999).
R. Machleidt, , 024001 (2001). J. Haidenbauer and W. Plessas, , 1822 (1984); [**32**]{}, 1424 (1985). V. Olmos de León [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. A [**10**]{}, 207 (2001).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'For prime $p\ge 7$, by using Baker’s method we obtain two explicit bounds in terms of $p$ for the $j$-invariant of an integral point on $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ which is the modular curve of level $p$ corresponding to the normalizer of a non-split Cartan subgroup of ${{\mathrm {GL}}}_2({{\mathbb Z}}/p{{\mathbb Z}})$.'
address:
- 'Institut de Mathematiques de Bordeaux, Universite Bordeaux 1 , 33405 Talence Cedex, France'
- 'Institut de Mathematiques de Bordeaux, Universite Bordeaux 1 , 33405 Talence Cedex, France'
author:
- Aurélien Bajolet
- Min Sha
title: 'Bounding $j$-invariant of integral points on $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$'
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
Let $p$ be a prime number, $p\ge 7$. We denote by $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ the modular curve of level $p$ corresponding to the normalizer of a non-split Cartan subgroup of ${{\mathrm {GL}}}_2({{\mathbb Z}}/p{{\mathbb Z}})$. See, for instance, Serre [@Se97], Section A.5 for definitions and basic properties. In particular, this curve has a canonical ${{\mathbb Q}}$-model, which will be used throughout. One can similarly define $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(N)$ of a composite level $N$, but we restrict to prime levels in this article.
We denote by $j$ the standard $j$-invariant function on $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$. We call a rational point ${P\in X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)({{\mathbb Q}})}$ an integral point with respect to $j$ if ${j(P) \in {{\mathbb Z}}}$.
The modular curve $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ has ${(p-1)/2}$ cusps, and all its cusps are conjugate over ${{\mathbb Q}}$. Hence, by classical Siegel’s finiteness theorem [@Si29], for ${p\ge 7}$ the curve $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ can have only finitely many integral points. Moreover, as follows from [@Bi95 Proposition 5.1(a)], their sizes can be bounded effectively in terms of $p$.
In fact, under “Runge condition" which roughly says that all the cusps are not conjugate, there is an explicit bound for the $j$-invariant of the integral points on arbitrary modular curves over arbitrary number fields, see [@BP10 Theorem 1.2]. Unfortunately, Runge condition fails for $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$. So we must introduce other techniques.
In this paper we use Baker’s method, more precisely Baker’s inequality in the form due to Matveev [@Ma Corollary 2.3], to obtain two explicit bounds in terms of $p$ for the $j$-invariant of an integral point on $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$.
Our first main result is the following general theorem.
\[main1\] Assume that ${p\ge 7}$ and let ${d\ge 3}$ be a divisor of ${(p-1)/2}$. Then for any integral point $P$ on $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ we have $$\log|j(P)| <C(d)p^{6d+5}(\log p)^{2},$$ where $C(d)=30^{d+5}\cdot d^{-2d+4.5}$.
In particular, if we choose $d=\frac{p-1}{2}$ in Theorem \[main1\], we obtain a bound which is explicit in $p$.
\[main2\] \[tmain\] Assume that ${p\ge 7}$. Then for any integral point $P$ on $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ we have $$\log|j(P)| <41993\cdot 13^{p} \cdot p^{2p+7.5}(\log{p})^{2}.$$
By comparing these two theorems, the bound in Theorem \[tmain\] can be drastically reduced if $\frac{p-1}{2}$ has a small divisor.
The interest in integral points on the modular curves corresponding to normalizers of Cartan subgroups is motivated by their relation to imaginary quadratic field of low class number. See Appendix A in Serre’s book [@Se97] for a nice historical account and further explanations. In particular, integral points on the curves $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(24)$ and $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(15)$ were studied by Heegner [@He52] and Siegel [@Si68] in their classical work on the class number $1$ problem. Kenku [@Ke85] determined all integral points on $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(7)$, and Baran [@Ba09; @Ba10] did this for $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(9)$ and $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(15)$.
A general method for computing integral points on $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ is developed in [@BaBi11]. Much more is known on integral and even rational points on modular curves corresponding to the normalizers of split Cartan subgroups, see [@BP11; @BPR11]. In particular, the authors in [@BP11] used the bound of $j$-invariant of integral points to solve Serre’s uniformity problem in the split Cartan case and finally left this problem with the non-split Cartan case.
In addition, recently the second author has used a different approach by applying Baker’s method to get some effective bounds for the $j$-invariant of integral points on arbitrary modular curves over arbitrary number fields assuming that the number of cusps is not less than 3, see [@Sha].
Notations and conventions
=========================
Through out this paper, $\log$ stands for the principal branch of the complex logarithm, in this case will use the following estimate without special reference $$|\log(1+z)|\le\frac{|\log(1-r)|}{r}|z|,$$ for $|z|\le r<1$, see [@BP10 Formula (4)]. We fix $p$ a prime number not less than 7. Let $G$ be the normalizer of a non-split Cartan subgroup of ${{\mathrm {GL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb Z}}/p{{\mathbb Z}})$ and $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ be the modular curve corresponding to $G$. In fact, up to conjugation, we know $$G=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}\alpha &\Xi\beta \\ \beta & \alpha\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}\alpha &\Xi\beta \\ -\beta & -\alpha\end{pmatrix}
: \alpha,\beta\in {{\mathbb F}}_{p}, (\alpha,\beta)\ne (0,0)
\right\},$$ where $\Xi$ is a quadratic non-residue modulo $p$. In particular, one can choose $\Xi=-1$ if $p\equiv 3\mod 4$. Moreover, $|G|=2(p^{2}-1)$ following from [@Ba10 Formula (2.3)] and $\det G={{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}$, where $\det G$ is the image of $G$ under the determinant map $\det:{{\mathrm {GL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb Z}}/p{{\mathbb Z}})\to {{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}$. In the sequel, we fix a subgroup $H$ of ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}$ such that $-1\in H$ and $[{{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}:H]\ge 3$. Put $d=[{{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}:H]$, then we have $$d \left|\dfrac{p-1}{2} \right. \qquad {\rm and} \qquad d=[K:{{\mathbb Q}}],$$ where $K={{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{H}$ and $\zeta_{p}=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{p}}$. We can identify the Galois group ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$ with ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}/H$, we also identify ${\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})/K)$ with $H$. In particular, $K\subseteq {{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}$, where ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}={{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p}+\bar{\zeta_{p}})$.
Put $$G_{H}=\{g\in G:\det g\in H\}.$$ Then the determinant map induces an isomorphism: $G/G_H\cong {{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}/H$. We denote by $X_{H}$ the modular curve corresponding to $G_{H}$, which is defined over $K$. Here $X_{H}$ and $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ have the same geometrically integral model, and the function field of $X_{H}$ is $K(X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p))$. The curve $X_{H}$ also has the same cusps as $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$. In particular, ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K(X_{H})/{{\mathbb Q}}(X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)))\cong {\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$.
Hence, in this paper we identify the following four groups: ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K(X_{H})/{{\mathbb Q}}(X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)))$, ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$, ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}/H$ and $G/G_H$. The readers should interpret the exact meaning based on the context.
Let $\mathcal{H}$ denote the Poincar$\acute{\rm e}$ upper half-plane: $\mathcal{H}=\{\tau\in{{\mathbb C}}: {\rm Im} \tau>0\}$. We put $\bar{{{\mathcal H}}}={{\mathcal H}}\cup{{\mathbb Q}}\cup\{i\infty\}$. We denote by $D$ the standard fundamental domain of ${{\mathrm {SL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb Z}})$. If $\Gamma$ is the pullback of $G_{H}\cap{{\mathrm {SL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb Z}}/p{{\mathbb Z}})$ to ${{\mathrm {SL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb Z}})$, then the set $X_{H}({{\mathbb C}})$ of complex points is analytically isomorphic to the quotient $\bar{{{\mathcal H}}}/\Gamma$, supplied with the properly defined topology and analytic structure. See any standard reference like [@Shimura] for all the missing details.
For $\textbf{a}=(a_{1},a_{2})\in {{\mathbb Q}}^{2}$, we put $\ell_{\textbf{a}}
=B_{2}(a_{1}-\lfloor a_{1} \rfloor)/2$, where $B_{2}(T)=T^{2}-T+\frac{1}{6}$ is the second Bernoulli polynomial. Obviously $|\ell_{\textbf{a}}|\le 1/12$, this will be used without special reference.
We put ${{{\mathbb A}}=\left(p^{-1}{{\mathbb Z}}/{{\mathbb Z}}\right)^{2}\setminus \{(0,0)\}}$. In this paper, we also identify $p^{-1}{{\mathbb Z}}/{{\mathbb Z}}$ with $p^{-1}{{\mathbb F}}_{p}$. Moreover we always choose a representative element of ${\textbf{a}=\left(a_{1},a_{2}\right)}\in (p^{-1}{{\mathbb Z}}/{{\mathbb Z}})^{2}$ satisfying ${0 \le a_{1},a_{2} <1}$. So in the sequel for every $\textbf{a}\in (p^{-1}{{\mathbb Z}}/{{\mathbb Z}})^{2}$, we have $\ell_{\textbf{a}}=B_{2}(a_{1})/2$.
In the sequel, we use the notation $O_{1}(\cdot)$. Precisely, $A=O_{1}(B)$ means that $|A|\le B$.
Preparations
============
Siegel functions and modular units
----------------------------------
Let $\textbf{a}=(a_{1},a_{2})\in {{\mathbb Q}}^{2}$ be such that $\textbf{a}\not\in{{\mathbb Z}}^{2}$, and let $g_{\textbf{a}}$ be the corresponding *Siegel function*, see [@KL81 Section 2.1]. We have the following infinite product presentation for $g_{\textbf{a}}$, see [@BP10 Formula (7)]. $$g_{\textbf{a}}(\tau)=-q_{\tau}^{B_{2}(a_{1})/2}e^{\pi ia_{2}(a_{1}-1)}\prod\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(1-q_{\tau}^{n+a_{1}}e^{2\pi ia_{2}}\right) \left(1-q_{\tau}^{n+1-a_{1}}e^{-2\pi ia_{2}}\right),$$ where $q_{\tau}=e^{2\pi i \tau}$ and $B_{2}(T)=T^{2}-T+\frac{1}{6}$ is the second Bernoulli polynomial.
From the proof of [@BP10 Proposition 2.3] and replacing $3|q_{\tau}|$ by $2.03|q_{\tau}|$ in [@BP10 Formula (11)], we get directly the following lemma.
\[ga\] Let ${\rm\bf a}\in {{\mathbb Q}}^{2}\setminus {{\mathbb Z}}^{2}$. Then for $\tau\in D$, we have $$\log|g_{{\rm\bf a}}(\tau)|=\ell_{{\rm\bf a}}\log|q_{\tau}|+\log|1-q_{\tau}^{a_{1}}e^{2\pi ia_{2}}|+\log|1-q_{\tau}^{1-a_{1}}e^{-2\pi ia_{2}}|+O_{1}(2.03|q_{\tau}|).
\notag$$
Recall that by a modular unit on a modular curve we mean a rational function having poles and zeros only at the cusps.
For $\textbf{a}\in (p^{-1}{{\mathbb Z}})^{2}\setminus {{\mathbb Z}}^{2}$, we denote $g_{\textbf{a}}^{12p}$ by $u_{\textbf{a}}$, which is a modular unit on the principal modular curve $X(p)$ of level $p$. Moreover, we have $u_{\textbf{a}}=u_{\textbf{a}^{\prime}}$ when $\textbf{a}\equiv \textbf{a}^{\prime}$ mod ${{\mathbb Z}}^{2}$. Hence, $u_{\textbf{a}}$ is well-defined when ${\textbf{a}}\in{{\mathbb A}}$. In addition, every $u_{\textbf{a}}$ is integral over ${{\mathbb Z}}[j]$. For more details, see [@BP10 Section 4.2].
Furthermore, the Galois action on the set $\{u_{\textbf{a}}\}$ is compatible with the right linear action of ${{\mathrm {GL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb Z}}/p{{\mathbb Z}})$ on it. That is, for any $\sigma\in{{\mathrm {Gal}}}({{\mathbb Q}}(X(p))/{{\mathbb Q}}(X(1)))\cong{{\mathrm {GL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb Z}}/p{{\mathbb Z}})/\pm 1$ and any $\textbf{a}\in{{\mathbb A}}$, we have $$u_{\rm\bf a}^{\sigma}=u_{\rm\bf a\sigma}.$$
Here we borrow a result and its proof from [@BaBi11] for the conveniences of readers.
\[u1\] We have $$\prod\limits_{{\rm\bf a}\in{{\mathbb A}}}u_{{\rm\bf a}}=p^{12p}.$$
We denote by $u$ the left-hand side of the equality. Since the set ${{\mathbb A}}$ is stable with respect to ${{\mathrm {GL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb Z}}/p{{\mathbb Z}})$, $u$ is stable with respect to the Galois action over the field ${{\mathbb Q}}(X(1))={{\mathbb Q}}(j)$. So $u\in {{\mathbb Q}}(j)$. Moreover, since $u$ is integral over ${{\mathbb Z}}[j]$, $u\in {{\mathbb Z}}[j]$. Notice that $X(1)$ has only one cusp and $u$ has no zeros and poles outside the cusps, so $u$ must be a constant and $u\in{{\mathbb Z}}$. Since $$\sum\limits_{(a_{1},a_{2})\in{{\mathbb A}}}B_{2}(a_{1})=0 \qquad \text{and } \qquad \sum\limits_{(a_{1},a_{2})\in{{\mathbb A}}}a_{2}(1-a_{1})=\frac{p^{2}-1}{4},$$ we have for $q=0$, $$\begin{aligned}
u&=\prod\limits_{(a_{1},a_{2})\in{{\mathbb A}}, a_{1}=0}(1-e^{2\pi ia_{2}})^{12p} = \prod\limits_{1\le k<p}(1-e^{2k\pi i/p})^{12p} =p^{12p}.\end{aligned}$$
$X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ and $X_{H}$ {#X_H}
---------------------------------------
It is well-known that the curve $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ has $(p-1)/2$ cusps. Moreover, these cusps correspond to the orbits of the (left) action of $G\cap {{\mathrm {SL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb Z}}/p{{\mathbb Z}})$ on the set ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{2}\setminus \{{0 \choose 0}\}$, see [@BI11 Lemma 2.3]. By definition, these orbits are the sets $\mathcal{L}_{a}$, defined by $x^{2}-\Xi y^{2}=\pm a$, where $a$ runs through ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}/\{\pm 1\}$, the cusp at infinity corresponds to $a=1$.
Form now on, we fix an integral point $P$ of $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ and assume that $|j(P)|>3500$. Since every integral point of $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ is also an integral point of $X_{H}$, $P$ is also an integral point of $X_{H}$. Hence for our purposes, we only need to focus on the modular curve $X_{H}$.
Notice that since all the cusps have ramification index $p$ in the natural covering ${X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)\to X(1)}$, so as the natural covering ${X_{H}\to X(1)}$.
We fix a uniformization $X_{H}({{\mathbb C}})=\bar{{{\mathcal H}}}/\Gamma$, and let $\tau_{0}\in \bar{{{\mathcal H}}}$ be a lift of $P$. Pick $\sigma_{c}\in {{\mathrm {SL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb Z}})$ such that $\tau=\sigma_{c}^{-1}(\tau_{0})\in D$. As the proof of [@BP10 Proposition 3.1], we can choose the cusp $c=\sigma_{c}(i\infty)$ and construct $\Omega_{c}=\sigma_{c}(\Delta)/\Gamma$. Furthermore, for the cusp $c$, following [@BP10 Section 3] let $t_{c}$ be its local parameter and put $q_{c}=t_{c}^{p}$, then $q_{c}$ and $t_c$ are defined and analytic on $\Omega_{c}$. Moreover, $q_c(P)=q_{\tau}$.
According to [@BP10 Proposition 3.1], we have $$\label{j(P)0}
\frac{1}{2}|j(P)|\le |q_{c}(P)^{-1}|\le \frac{3}{2}|j(P)|.$$ We will use (\[j(P)0\]) several times without special reference.
In the sequel we can assume that $|q_{c}(P)|\le 10^{-p}$. Indeed, the inequality ${|q_{c}(P)|> 10^{-p}}$ yields a much better estimate for $\log|j(P)|$ than those given in Section 1.
Modular units on $X_{H}$ {#X_H1}
------------------------
The group ${{\mathrm {GL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb F}}_p)$ acts naturally (on the right) on the set ${{\mathbb A}}$. Since $G_{H}\subset{{\mathrm {GL}}}_{2}({{\mathbb F}}_p)$, let us consider the natural right group action of $G_{H}$ on ${{\mathbb A}}$. There are $d$ orbits of this group action. These orbits are the sets ${{\mathcal O}}_{a}$, defined by $\{(x/p,y/p): x^{2}-\Xi^{-1} y^{2}\in aH\}$, where $a$ runs through ${{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}/H$. In fact, if $(x,y)\in {{\mathcal O}}_{a}$, then for any $g\in G_{H}$, noticing the two possible representations of $g$, it is straightforward to show that $(x,y)\cdot g\in {{\mathcal O}}_{a}$.
Based on our conventions in Section 2, we consider the natural right group action of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$ on the set of orbits of the group action ${{\mathbb A}}/G_{H}$. Moreover, for any $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$ and any orbit ${{\mathcal O}}_{a}$, we have $${{\mathcal O}}_{a}\sigma={{\mathcal O}}_{a\sigma}.$$ It is easy to see that this group action is transitive. So we obtain the following lemma.
\[orbit\] We have $|{{\mathcal O}}_{a}|=(p^{2}-1)/d$.
Let $S$ be any subset of ${{\mathbb A}}$, we define $$u_{S}=\prod\limits_{\textbf{a}\in S}u_{\textbf{a}}.$$ Let ${{\mathcal O}}$ be an orbit of ${{\mathbb A}}/G_{H}$, we have $$\label{uo}
u_{{{\mathcal O}}}=\prod\limits_{\textbf{a}\in{{\mathcal O}}}u_{\textbf{a}}.$$ By [@BP10 Proposition 4.2 (ii)], $u_{{{\mathcal O}}}$ is a rational function on the modular curve $X_{H}$. Furthermore, $u_{{{\mathcal O}}}$ is a modular unit on $X_{H}$.
We denote by ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}(u_{{{\mathcal O}}})$ the vanishing order of $u_{{{\mathcal O}}}$ at $c$. The following lemma is derived directly from Lemma \[ga\] and [@BP10 Proposition 4.2 (iii)].
\[uo1\] We have $$\label{uo2}
\log|u_{{{\mathcal O}}}(P)|=\frac{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}(u_{{{\mathcal O}}})}{p}\log|q_{c}(P)|+\log|\gamma_{c}| +O_{1}(17p^{3}|q_{c}(P)|^{1/p})\\$$ where $${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}(u_{{{\mathcal O}}})=12p^{2}\sum\limits_{{\rm\bf a}\in {{\mathcal O}}\sigma_{c}}\ell_{{\rm\bf a}}
\quad {\it and} \quad {\gamma_{ c}=\prod\limits_{\substack{(a_{1},a_{2})\in {{\mathcal O}}\sigma_{c}\\ a_{1}=0}}(1-e^{2\pi ia_{2}})^{12p}}.$$
Here we use the following identity: $$u_{{{\mathcal O}}}(P)=u_{{{\mathcal O}}}(\tau_{0})=u_{{{\mathcal O}}}(\sigma_c(\sigma_c^{-1}(\tau_0)))=u_{{{\mathcal O}}\sigma_c}(\tau).$$
Notice that for $|z|\le r<1$, we have $$|\log|1+z||\le\frac{-\log(1-r)}{r}|z|.$$ Taking $r=0.1$ and combining Lemma \[ga\] with Lemma \[orbit\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
\log|u_{{{\mathcal O}}}(P)|=&\frac{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}(u_{{{\mathcal O}}})}{p}\log|q_{c}(P)|+\log\left|\gamma_{c}\right|\\
+&O_{1}\left(26 p \dfrac{p^{2}-1}{d} |q_{c}(P)|^{1/p} +25p \dfrac{p^{2}-1}{d}|q_{c}(P)|\right).\end{aligned}$$ Then this lemma follows from $d\ge 3$.
We want to indicate that $\gamma_{c}$ is a real algebraic number. Because if $(0,a_{2})\in {{\mathcal O}}\sigma_{c}$, then we have $(0,-a_{2})\in {{\mathcal O}}\sigma_{c}$ based on the fact that if $(x,y)\in{{\mathcal O}}$, then $(-x,-y)\in{{\mathcal O}}$.
\[rank\] The group generated by the principal divisor $(u_{{{\mathcal O}}})$, where ${{\mathcal O}}$ runs over the orbits of ${{\mathbb A}}/G_{H}$, is of rank $d-1$.
By Lemma \[u1\], the rank of the free abelian group $(u_{{{\mathcal O}}})$ is at most $d-1$. Then Manin-Drinfeld theorem, as stated in [@KL81], tells us that this rank is maximal possible.
Baker’s method on $X_{H}$ {#bakermeth}
=========================
In this section we obtain a bound for $\log|j(P)|$, involving various parameters. Recall that $P$ is the integral point of $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$ fixed in Section \[X\_H\].
Cyclotomic units
----------------
We introduce a set of independent cyclotomic units of ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}$ as follows, $$\xi_{k-1}=\zeta_{p}^{(1-k)/2}\cdot \dfrac{1-\zeta_{p}^{k}}{1-\zeta_{p}}
=\frac{\bar{\zeta_{p}}^{k/2}-\zeta_{p}^{k/2}}{\bar{\zeta_{p}}^{1/2}-\zeta_{p}^{1/2}}, \qquad k=2,\dots, \dfrac{p-1}{2},$$ for details see [@Wa Lemma 8.1]. In particular, $\{-1, \xi_{1},\cdots,\xi_{\frac{p-3}{2}}\}$ is a set of independent generators for the full group of cyclotomic units of ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}$. Let $m^{\prime}$ be the index of $\langle\xi_{1}, \cdots, \xi_{\frac{p-3}{2}}\rangle$ in the full unit group of ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}$ modulo roots of unity, which is equal to the class number of ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}$.
We put $$\eta_{k}=\mathcal{N}_{{{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}/K}(\xi_{k})
=\prod\limits_{\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}/K)}\xi_{k}^{\sigma}, \qquad k=1,\dots, \dfrac{p-3}{2}.$$ Let $m$ be the exponent of $\langle\eta_{1}, \cdots, \eta_{\frac{p-3}{2}}\rangle $ in the full unit group of $K$ modulo roots of unity. Since $[{{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}:K]=|H|/2=\frac{p-1}{2d}$, we have $$\label{index}
m\left|\frac{m^{\prime}(p-1)}{2d}. \right.$$ Since $m$ is finite and the rank of the full unit group of $K$ is $d-1$, the group $\langle\eta_{1}, \cdots, \eta_{\frac{p-3}{2}}\rangle$ modulo roots of unity has rank $d-1$. In particular, in the sequel we assume that $\eta_{1},\cdots,\eta_{d-1}$ are multiplicatively independent without loss of generality.
More about modular units on $X_{H}$
-----------------------------------
We fix an orbit ${{\mathcal O}}$ of the group action ${{\mathbb A}}/G_{H}$. Put $U=u_{{{\mathcal O}}}$, where $u_{{{\mathcal O}}}$ is defined in (\[uo\]).
Based on our conventions in Section 2, for any $\sigma\in{{\mathrm {Gal}}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$, we can define $U^{\sigma}$ as the natural Galois action. Indeed, we can view $\sigma$ as an element of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K(X_{H})/{{\mathbb Q}}(X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)))$ and $U\in K(X_{H})$. Moreover, we have $U^{\sigma}=u_{{{\mathcal O}}\sigma}$ and $U(P)^{\sigma}=U^{\sigma}(P)$.
Since the Galois group ${{\mathrm {Gal}}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$ acts transitively on the set of orbits of ${{\mathbb A}}/G_{H}$, we can rewrite Lemma \[u1\] as follows.
\[u2\] We have $$\prod\limits_{\sigma\in {{\mathrm {Gal}}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})}U^{\sigma}=p^{12p}.$$
By Lemma \[orbit\] and the formula for ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}u_{{{\mathcal O}}}$ appearing in Lemma \[uo1\] we obtain a bound for the vanishing order of $U$ at $c$.
\[order\] We have $$\left|{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c} U\right|\le \frac{p^{2}(p^{2}-1)}{d}.$$
For $1-\zeta_{p}$, we take the ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})/K$-norm, setting $\mu=\mathcal{N}_{{{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})/K}(1-\zeta_{p})$.
We have $\left( U(P)\right)=\left( \mu^{12p}\right)$.
Since $P$ is an integral point of $X_{H}$, by [@BP10 Proposition 4.2 (i)] and Lemma \[u2\], the principal ideal $\left( U(P) \right) $ is an integral ideal of the field $K$ of the form $\mathfrak{p}^{n}$, where $\mathfrak{p}=\left( \mu\right)$ and $n$ is a positive integer.
In addition, since $\mathfrak{p}$ is stable under the Galois action over ${{\mathbb Q}}$, we have $\left( U^{\sigma}(P)\right)=\mathfrak{p}^{n} $ for every $\sigma\in{{\mathrm {Gal}}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$. Noticing that $\mathfrak{p}^{d}=\left( p\right)$, it follows from Lemma \[u2\] that $n=12p$.
So Dirichlet’s unit theorem gives $$U(P)^{m}=\pm\eta_{0}^{m}\eta_{1}^{b_{1}}\dots \eta_{d-1}^{b_{d-1}},$$ where $\eta_{0}=\mu^{12p}$ and $b_{1},\cdots,b_{d-1}$ are some rational integers.
Let $$V=U/\eta_{0},$$ then we have $$V(P)^{m}=\pm\eta_{1}^{b_{1}}\dots \eta_{d-1}^{b_{d-1}},$$ and ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V={\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U$. For every $\sigma\in {{\mathrm {Gal}}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$, we have $$\label{V(P)}
V^{\sigma}(P)^{m}=\pm(\eta_{1}^{\sigma})^{b_{1}}\dots (\eta_{d-1}^{\sigma})^{b_{d-1}},$$ where $V^{\sigma}=U^{\sigma}/\eta_{0}^{\sigma}$. Furthermore, by (\[uo2\]), we have $$\label{V1}
\log|V^{\sigma}(P)|=\frac{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V^{\sigma}}{p}\log|q_{c}(P)|+\log|\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}|+O_{1}\left(17p^{3}|q_{c}(P)|^{1/p}\right),$$ where $\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}=\gamma_{c,\sigma}/\eta_{0}^\sigma$ and $$\gamma_{c,\sigma}=\prod\limits_{\substack{(a_{1},a_{2})\in {{\mathcal O}}{\sigma\sigma_{c}}\\a_{1}=0}}(1-e^{2\pi ia_{2}})^{12p}.$$ Notice that $\gamma_{c,\sigma}=\gamma_{c}$ when $\sigma$ is the identity. So $\Upsilon_{c,1}=\gamma_{c}/\eta_{0}$.
Finally we put $$B=\max\{|b_{1}|,\cdots,|b_{d-1}|,m\}.$$
Upper bound for B
-----------------
We fix an order on the elements of the Galois group by supposing $${\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})=\{\sigma_{0}=1, \sigma_{1}, \cdots, \sigma_{d-1}\}.$$ Since the real algebraic numbers $\eta_{1},\cdots, \eta_{d-1}$ are multiplicatively independent, the $(d-1)\times (d-1)$ real matrix $A=\left(\log|\eta_{\ell}^{\sigma_{k}}|\right)_{1\le k,\ell\le d-1}$ is non-singular. Let $\left(\alpha_{k\ell}\right)_{1\le k,\ell\le d-1}$ be the inverse matrix. Then by (\[V(P)\]) we have $$b_{k}=m\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^{d-1}\alpha_{k\ell}\log|V^{\sigma_{\ell}}(P)|, \quad 1\le k\le d-1.$$
Define the following quantities: $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta_{c,k}=\frac{m}{p}\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^{d-1}\alpha_{k\ell}{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V^{\sigma_{\ell}}, \\
&\beta_{c,k}=m\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^{d-1}\alpha_{k\ell}\log|\Upsilon_{c,\sigma_\ell}|,\\
&\kappa=\max\{\max_{k}\sum\limits_{\ell=1}^{d-1}|\alpha_{k\ell}|,1\}.\end{aligned}$$ According to (\[V1\]), we have $$b_{k}=\delta_{c,k}\log|q_{c}(P)|+\beta_{c,k}+O_{1}\left(17p^{3}m\kappa|q_{c}(P)|^{1/p}\right).
\notag$$
Let $\delta=\max\limits_{k}|\delta_{c,k}|$ and $\beta=\max\limits_{k}|\beta_{c,k}|$. Then we have $$\label{B}
B\le \delta\log|q_{c}(P)^{-1}|+\beta+2p^{3}m\kappa.$$
Preparation for Baker’s inequality
----------------------------------
We define the following function $$W=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
V & \textrm{if ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V=0$},\\
\\
V^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V^{\sigma}}(V^{\sigma})^{-{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V} & \textrm{if ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V\ne 0$},
\end{array} \right.
\notag$$ where $\sigma\in {\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$ and $\sigma\ne 1$. So we always have ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}W=0$. Moreover, $W$ is not a constant by Lemma \[rank\]. In Section \[specialcase\] we will choose special $U$ (i.e. $V$) and $\sigma$ to deal with the exceptional case.
Define $$\alpha_{d}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
|\Upsilon_{c,1}|^{-1} & \textrm{if ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V=0$},\\
\\
\left|\frac{\Upsilon_{c,1}^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V^{\sigma}}}{\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V}}\right|^{-1} & \textrm{if ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V\ne 0$}.
\end{array} \right.
\notag$$ Then by (\[V1\]) and Lemma \[order\] we obtain $$\label{W(P)}
\log|W(P)|=-\log\alpha_{d}+O_{1}\left(12p^{7}|q_{c}(P)|^{1/p}\right).$$
Put $$\Lambda=m\log|W(P)|+m\log\alpha_{d}.$$
If ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V=0$, by (\[V(P)\]), we have $$\Lambda=b_{1}\log|\eta_{1}|+\cdots+b_{d-1}\log|\eta_{d-1}|+m\log\alpha_{d}.$$ In this case, we put $\alpha_{k}=|\eta_{k}|$ for $1\le k\le d-1$.
If ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V\ne 0$, by (\[V(P)\]), we have $$\Lambda=b_{1}\log\left|\frac{\eta_{1}^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V^{\sigma}}}{(\eta_{1}^{\sigma})^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V}}\right|+\cdots+
b_{d-1}\log\left|\frac{\eta_{d-1}^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V^{\sigma}}}{(\eta_{d-1}^{\sigma})^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V}}\right|+m\log\alpha_{d}.$$ In this case, we put $\alpha_{k}=\left|\frac{\eta_{k}^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V^{\sigma}}}{(\eta_{k}^{\sigma})^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V}}\right|$ for $1\le k\le d-1$.
Hence, in both two cases we have $$\label{Lambda}
\Lambda=b_{1}\log\alpha_{1}+\cdots+b_{d-1}\log\alpha_{d-1}+m\log\alpha_{d}.$$ Notice that all $\alpha_{k}$, $1\le k\le d$, are contained in ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}$.
Using Baker’s inequality {#Using Baker}
------------------------
If $\Lambda=0$, we can get a better bound for $\log|j(P)|$, see the Section \[specialcase\]. So here we assume that $\Lambda\ne 0$.
Using [@Ma Corollary 2.3] and combining (\[B\]) and (\[W(P)\]), we have $$\label{Baker}
\exp(-C_{1}(d)\Omega(\frac{p-1}{2})^{2}(1+\log \frac{p-1}{2})(1+\log B))<|\Lambda|\le \lambda|q_{c}(P)|^{1/p}\le
\lambda\exp\left(\frac{-B+\beta+2p^{3}m\kappa}{\delta p}\right),$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&C_{1}(d)=\min\left\{\frac{e}{2}d^{4.5}30^{d+3}, 2^{6d+20}\right\},\\
&A_{k}\ge \max\{\frac{p-1}{2}{\mathrm{h}}(\alpha_{k}),|\log \alpha_{k}|, 0.16\}, 1\le k\le d,\\
&\Omega=A_{1}\cdots A_{d},\quad \lambda=12p^{7}m,\end{aligned}$$ and ${\mathrm{h}}(\cdot)$ is the usual absolute logarithmic height.
We obtain $B\le K_{1}\log B+K_{2}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
&K_{1}=\delta pC_{1}(d)\Omega(\frac{p-1}{2})^{2}(1+\log \frac{p-1}{2}),\\
&K_{2}=\delta pC_{1}(d)\Omega(\frac{p-1}{2})^{2}(1+\log \frac{p-1}{2})+\beta+ 2p^{3}m\kappa+\delta p\log \lambda.\end{aligned}$$ By [@BH1 Lemma 2.3.3], we obtain $$B\le B_{0}=2(K_{1}\log K_{1}+K_{2}).$$
Then by (\[Baker\]), we have $$|q_{c}(P)^{-1}|<\lambda^{p}\exp(pC_{1}(d)\Omega (\frac{p-1}{2})^{2}(1+\log \frac{p-1}{2})(1+\log B_{0})).$$
Finally we have $$\label{j(P)}
\log|j(P)|<pC_{1}(d)\Omega(\frac{p-1}{2})^{2}(1+\log \frac{p-1}{2})(1+\log B_{0})+p\log\lambda+\log 2.$$
Hence, to get a bound for $\log|j(P)|$, we only need to calculate the quantities in the above inequality, and we will do this in the next section.
It is easy to see that $$C_{1}(d)=\min\left\{\frac{e}{2}d^{4.5}30^{d+3}, 2^{6d+20}\right\}
<2d^{4.5}30^{d+3}.$$
Computations
============
Upper Bound for $m$
--------------------
Let $h^{+}$, $R^{+}$ and $D^{+}$ be the class number, regulator and discriminant of ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}$, respectively.
By [@Wa Lemma 8.1 and Theorem 8.2], we have $m^{\prime}=h^{+}$. By [@Wa Proposition 2.1 and Lemma 4.19], we have $|D^{+}|=p^{\frac{p-3}{2}}$. Then the class number formula (see [@Wa Page 37]) gives $$h^{+}=\left(\frac{p}{4}\right)^{\frac{p-3}{4}}\cdot\frac{1}{R^{+}}\prod\limits_{\chi\ne 1}L(1,\chi).$$ Using [@CF Theorem 2] to the field extension ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}/\mathbb{Q}$, we have $R^{+}>0.32$. Applying [@Lou Theorem 1] to the field extension ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})^{+}/\mathbb{Q}$ and noticing the constant $\mu_{\mathbb{Q}}$ below Formula (6) of [@Lou], we get $$|L(1,\chi)|<\frac{1}{2}\log p+0.03<\log p,\quad {\rm if\,} \chi\ne 1.$$ Hence we have $$h^{+}< p^{\frac{p-3}{4}}(\log p)^{\frac{p-3}{2}}.$$
Finally by (\[index\]), we obtain $$\label{m}
m\le \frac{h^{+}(p-1)}{2d}<p^{\frac{p+1}{4}}(\log p)^{\frac{p-3}{2}}.$$
In the sequel we use the following formulas. For any $n\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $a_{1},\cdots,a_{k},\alpha\in \bar{\mathbb{Q}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&{\mathrm{h}}(a_{1}+\cdots+a_{k})\le {\mathrm{h}}(a_{1})+\cdots+{\mathrm{h}}(a_{k})+\log k,\\
&{\mathrm{h}}(a_{1}\cdots a_{k})\le {\mathrm{h}}(a_{1})+\cdots+{\mathrm{h}}(a_{k}),\\
&{\mathrm{h}}(\alpha^{n})=|n|{\mathrm{h}}(\alpha),\\
& {\mathrm{h}}(\zeta)=0 \textrm{\quad for any root of unity $\zeta\in {{\mathbb C}}$}.\end{aligned}$$
Height of $\eta_{k-1}$ for $k=2,\dots, (p-1)/2$ {#height}
-----------------------------------------------
Let $a\in {{\mathbb F}}_{p}^{\times}$ and $\sigma_{a}\in {\mathrm{Gal}}\left({{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})/{{\mathbb Q}}\right)$ induced by the automorphism of ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p}):\zeta_{p}\to \zeta_{p}^{a}$. Since $\xi_{k-1}^{\sigma_{a}}=\frac{\bar{\zeta_{p}}^{ak/2}-\zeta_{p}^{ak/2}}{\bar{\zeta_{p}}^{a/2}-\zeta_{p}^{a/2}}$, we have ${\mathrm{h}}(\xi_{k-1}^{\sigma_{a}})\le 2\log 2$. So $${\mathrm{h}}(\eta_{k-1}^{\sigma_{a}})\le \frac{(p-1)\log 2}{d}.\notag$$
Notice that if $-\frac{\pi}{2}<x<\frac{\pi}{2}$, then $\frac{\sin x}{x}>\frac{2}{\pi}$. Since $\xi_{k-1}^{\sigma_{a}}=\frac{\sin(\pi ak/p)}{\sin(\pi a/p)}$, we have $$|\xi_{k-1}^{\sigma_{a}}|\le \frac{1}{|\sin(\pi a/p)|}\le \frac{1}{\sin(\pi /p)}< \frac{p}{2},$$ and $$|\xi_{k-1}^{\sigma_{a}}|\ge |\sin(\pi ak/p)|\ge \sin(\pi/p)>\frac{2}{p}.$$ So we have $|\log|\xi_{k-1}^{\sigma_{a}}||<\log\frac{p}{2}$. Hence $$|\log|\eta_{k-1}^{\sigma_{a}}||<\frac{(p-1)\log\frac{p}{2}}{2d}.\notag$$
Since we can view ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$ as a quotient group of ${\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})/{{\mathbb Q}})$, for any $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$, we have $$\label{xi}
{\mathrm{h}}(\eta_{k-1}^{\sigma})\le \frac{(p-1)\log 2}{d}\quad \textrm{and} \quad |\log|\eta_{k-1}^{\sigma}||<\frac{(p-1)\log\frac{p}{2}}{2d}.$$
Height of $\eta_{0}$
--------------------
Following the method in Section \[height\], we have $ {\mathrm{h}}(1-\zeta_{p}^{\sigma_{a}})\le \log 2$. So $${\mathrm{h}}(\eta_{0}^{\sigma_{a}})\le \frac{12p(p-1)\log 2}{d}.\notag$$
First we have $|1-\zeta_{p}^{\sigma_{a}}|\le 2$. Second we have $$|1-\zeta_{p}^{\sigma_{a}}|^{2}\ge 2-2\cos\frac{\pi}{p}
=4\left(\sin\frac{\pi}{2p}\right)^{2}>\left(\frac{2}{p}\right)^{2}.$$ So we have $|\log|1-\zeta_{p}^{\sigma_{a}}||<\log\frac{p}{2}$. Hence $$|\log|\eta_{0}^{\sigma_{a}}||<\frac{12p(p-1)\log\frac{p}{2}}{d}.\notag$$
Since we can view ${\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$ as a quotient group of ${\mathrm{Gal}}({{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})/{{\mathbb Q}})$, for any $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$, we obtain $${\mathrm{h}}(\eta_{0}^{\sigma})\le \frac{12p(p-1)\log 2}{d}\quad \textrm{and} \quad |\log|\eta_{0}^{\sigma}||<\frac{12p(p-1)\log\frac{p}{2}}{d}.$$
Height of $|\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}|$
---------------------------------
Recall that $\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}=\gamma_{c,\sigma}/\eta_{0}^{\sigma}$, $\sigma\in{\mathrm{Gal}}(K/{{\mathbb Q}})$ and $$\gamma_{c,\sigma}=\prod\limits_{\substack{(a_{1},a_{2})\in {{\mathcal O}}\sigma\sigma_{c}\\a_{1}=0}}(1-e^{2i\pi a_{2}})^{12p}.$$ Notice the description of ${{\mathcal O}}$ in Section \[X\_H1\], we have $|\{(a_{1},a_{2})\in{{\mathcal O}}\sigma\sigma_c:a_{1}=0\}|\le2|H|= \frac{2(p-1)}{d}$. Following the method in Section \[height\], we get $${\mathrm{h}}(\gamma_{c,\sigma})\le \frac{24p(p-1)\log 2}{d}.
\notag$$
Since $\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}=\gamma_{c,\sigma}/\eta_{0}^{\sigma}$, we have $${\mathrm{h}}(\Upsilon_{c,\sigma})\le {\mathrm{h}}(\gamma_{c,\sigma})+{\mathrm{h}}(\eta_{0}^{\sigma})\le \frac{36p(p-1)\log 2}{d}.
\notag$$ Noticing that $|\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}|^{2}=\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}\bar{\Upsilon}_{c,\sigma}$, we get $${\mathrm{h}}(|\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}|)\le \frac{36p(p-1)\log 2}{d}.$$
Since $a_{1}=0$, we have $a_{2}\in \{\frac{1}{p},\cdots,\frac{p-1}{p}\}$. First we have $|1-e^{2i\pi a_{2}}|\le 2$. Second $$|1-e^{2i\pi a_{2}}|^{2}=2(1-\cos2\pi a_{2})\ge 2(1-\cos\pi/p)=4\sin^{2}\frac{\pi}{2p}\ge \frac{4}{p^{2}}.$$ So we have $|\log|1-e^{2i\pi a_{2}}||\le \log\frac{p}{2}$, and then $$|\log|\gamma_{c,\sigma}||\le \frac{24p(p-1)\log\frac{p}{2}}{d}.$$ Hence we have $$|\log|\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}||\le \frac{36p(p-1)\log\frac{p}{2}}{d}.$$
Calculation of $\Omega$ {#omega}
-----------------------
Recall that $\Omega=A_{1}\cdots A_{d}$, where $$A_{k}\ge \max\{\frac{p-1}{2}{\mathrm{h}}(\alpha_{k}), |\log \alpha_{k}|, 0.16\}, \quad 1\le k\le d.$$
If ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V=0$, then $\alpha_{k}=|\eta_{k}|=\pm \eta_{k}$, $1\le k\le d-1$, and $\alpha_{d}=|\Upsilon_{c,1}|^{-1}$. Then for $1\le k\le d-1$, we can choose $A_{k}=p^{2}/d$. For $A_{d}$, we can choose $A_{d}=36p^{3}/d$.
If ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V\ne 0$, then $\alpha_{k}=\left|\frac{\eta_{k}^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V^{\sigma}}}{(\eta_{k}^{\sigma})^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V}}\right|$, $1\le k\le d-1$, and $\alpha_{d}=\left|\frac{\Upsilon_{c,1}^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V^{\sigma}}}{\Upsilon_{c,\sigma}^{{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V}}\right|^{-1}$. For $1\le k\le d-1$, combining Lemma \[order\] we can choose $A_{k}=p^{6}/d^{2}$. For $A_{d}$, we can choose $A_{d}=36p^{7}/d^{2}$.
Therefore, we can choose $$\Omega=36p^{6d+1}/d^{2d}.$$
Calculation of $B_{0}$
----------------------
For our purpose we need to calculate $\delta,\beta$ and $\kappa$. In fact, all we want to do is to get a bound for $|\alpha_{k\ell}|$, $1\le k,\ell\le d-1$.
Let $R_{K}$ be the regulator of $K$. By [@Wa Lemma 4.15], we have $|\det A|\ge mR_{K}$. Applying [@CF Theorem 2] to the field extension $K/\mathbb{Q}$, we have $R_{K}>0.32.$ So we get $$|\det A|>0.32m.$$
Notice that $\alpha_{k\ell}=\frac{1}{\det A}A_{\ell k}$, where $A_{lk}$ is the relative cofactor. The reader should not confuse the matrix $A$, the constants $A_{k}$ introduced in Section \[Using Baker\] and the cofactors $A_{lk}$.
By Hadamard’s inequality and (\[xi\]), we have $$|A_{\ell k}|\le \left[\frac{(p-1)\sqrt{d-2}\log\frac{p}{2}}{2d}\right]^{d-2}.$$ Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\alpha_{k\ell}|
&<\left[\frac{(p-1)\sqrt{d-2}\log\frac{p}{2}}{2d}\right]^{d-2}\cdot \frac{1}{0.32m}\\
&<\left(p\sqrt{p}\log p\right)^{\frac{p-1}{2}-2}/m\\
&=p^{\frac{3p-15}{4}}(\log p)^{\frac{p-5}{2}}/m.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&\delta<p^{\frac{3p-3}{4}}(\log p)^{\frac{p-5}{2}},\\
&\beta<36p^{\frac{3p-7}{4}}(\log p)^{\frac{p-3}{2}},\\
&\kappa<p^{\frac{3p-11}{4}}(\log p)^{\frac{p-5}{2}}/m.\end{aligned}$$
Notice that $d\le (p-1)/2$ and $p\ge 7$, we get $C_{1}(d)\le p^{p+8}$. Therefore, we have $$K_{1}<p^{5p+9}(\log p)^{p-1}, \qquad K_{2}<4p^{5p+9}(\log p)^{p-1},$$ and then $$B_{0}<16p^{5p+10}(\log p)^{p},\qquad
1+\log B_{0}< 8p\log p.
\notag$$
Final results
-------------
Finally, by (\[j(P)\]) we can get an explicit bound for $\log|j(P)|$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\log|j(P)|&<2pC_{1}(d)\Omega(\frac{p-1}{2})^{2}(1+\log \frac{p-1}{2})(1+\log B_{0})\\
&<C(d)p^{6d+5}(\log p)^{2},\end{aligned}$$ where $C(d)=30^{d+5}\cdot d^{-2d+4.5}$. Hence we obtain Theorem \[main1\].
If we choose $d=(p-1)/2$, applying the bound $p-1\ge 6p/7$ and a few numerical computations, we can get Theorem \[main2\].
The case $\Lambda =0$ {#specialcase}
=====================
In this section, we suppose that $\Lambda=0$. Then we will obtain a better bound for $\log|j(P)|$ than Theorem \[main1\].
First we assume that ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V=0$, i.e. ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U=0$. Then we have $|U(P)|=|\gamma_{c}|$. Since $U(P)$ and $\gamma_{c}$ are real, we have $U(P)^{2}=\gamma_{c}^{2}$, i.e. $U^{2}(P)=\gamma_{c}^{2}$.
Recall $\Omega_{c}$ and the $q$-parameter $q_c$ mentioned in Section \[X\_H\]. Let $v$ be an absolute value of ${{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})$ normalized to extend a standard absolute value on ${{\mathbb Q}}$. for the modular function $U^{2}$, we get the following lemma.
There exist an integer function $f(\cdot)$ with respect to $q_{c}$ and $\lambda_{1}^{c}, \lambda_{2}^{c}, \lambda_{3}^{c}\cdots\in {{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p})$ such that the following identity holds in $\Omega_{c}$, $$\label{Taylor1}
\log\frac{U^{2}(q_c)}{\gamma_{c}^{2}q_{c}^{\frac{2{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U}{p}}}=2\pi f(q_{c})i+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\lambda_{k}^{c}q_{c}^{k/p},$$ and $$|\lambda_{k}^{c}|_{v}\le\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
|k|_{v}^{-1} & \textrm{if $v$ is finite},\\
48p^{2}(k+p) & \textrm{if $v$ is infinite}.
\end{array} \right.
\notag$$ In particular, for every $k\ge 1$ we have $${\mathrm{h}}(\lambda_{k}^{c})\le \log(48p^{3}+48kp^{2})+\log k.$$
By definition, we have $$\label{U(q_c)}
\frac{U^{2}(q_c)}{\gamma_{c}^{2}q_c^{\frac{2{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U}{p}}}=
\prod\limits_{{\rm\bf a}\in {{\mathcal O}}\sigma_{c}}\prod\limits_{\substack{n=0\\n+a_{1}\ne 0}}^{\infty}(1-q_{c}^{n+a_{1}}e^{2\pi ia_{2}})^{24p}
\prod\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}(1-q_{c}^{n+1-a_{1}}e^{-2\pi ia_{2}})^{24p}.$$ Since $$\sum\limits_{{\rm\bf a}\in {{\mathcal O}}\sigma_{c}}\left(\sum\limits_{\substack{n=0\\n+a_{1}\ne 0}}^{\infty}24p|q_{c}|^{n+a_{1}}+
\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}24p|q_{c}|^{n+1-a_{1}}\right)$$ is convergent, it follows from [@Ahlfors Chapter 5 Section 2.2 Theorem 6] that the right-hand side of (\[U(q\_c)\]) is absolutely convergent. Then we can write it as the form $\prod\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}(1+d_{n})$ such that $\prod\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}(1+d_{n})$ is absolutely convergent. Hence, [@Ahlfors Chapter 5 Section 2.2 Theorem 5] gives $$\begin{aligned}
&\log \frac{U^{2}(q_c)}{\gamma_{c}^{2}q_c^{\frac{2{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U}{p}}}\\
&=2\pi f(q_{c})i+
\sum\limits_{{\rm\bf a}\in {{\mathcal O}}\sigma_{c}}\left(\sum\limits_{\substack{n=0\\n+a_{1}\ne 0}}^{\infty}24p\log(1-q_{c}^{n+a_{1}}e^{2\pi ia_{2}})+
\sum\limits_{n=0}^{\infty}24p\log(1-q_{c}^{n+1-a_{1}}e^{-2\pi ia_{2}})\right).\end{aligned}$$ Applying the Taylor expansion of the logarithm function to the right-hand side of the above formula, we get the desired identity (\[Taylor1\]). For a fixed non-negative integer $n$ (where we assume $n>0$ if $a_{1}=0$), write $$\label{Taylor}
\log(1-q_{c}^{n+a_{1}}e^{2\pi ia_{2}})=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\beta_{k}q^{k/N}.
\notag$$ An immediate verification shows that $$|\beta_{k}|_{v}\le\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
|k|_{v}^{-1} & \textrm{if $v$ is finite},\\
1 & \textrm{if $v$ is infinite}.
\end{array} \right.
\notag$$ Same estimates hold true for the coefficients of the $q$-series for $\log(1-q_{c}^{n+1-a_{1}}e^{-2\pi ia_{2}})$.
For each ${\rm\bf a}\in {{\mathcal O}}\sigma_{c}$, the number of coefficients in the $q$-series for $\log(1-q_{c}^{n+a_{1}}e^{2\pi ia_{2}})$ which may contribute to $\lambda_{k}^{c}$ (those with $0\le n\le k/p$) is at most $k/p+1$, and the same is true for the $q$-series for $\log(1-q_{c}^{n+1-a_{1}}e^{-2\pi ia_{2}})$. The bound for $|\lambda_{k}^{c}|_{v}$ now follows by summation.
\[Taylor2\] With the assumption ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U=0$, we have $\lambda_{k}^{c}\ne 0$ for some $k\le p^{5}$.
Since ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U=0$ and $U$ is not a constant, there must exist some $\lambda_{k}^{c}\ne 0$. Under the assumption ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U=0$, we have $U(c)=\gamma_{c}$, and then $f(q_c(c))=0$ by (\[Taylor1\]). We extend the additive valuation ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}$ from the field $K(X_{H})$ to the field of formal power series $K((q_{c}^{1/p}))$. Then ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}q_{c}^{1/p}=1$ and ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}\left(-2\pi f(q_{c})i+\log (U^{2}/\gamma_{c}^{2})\right)\le{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}\log (U^{2}/\gamma_{c}^{2})={\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}(U^{2}/\gamma_{c}^{2}-1)$. The latter quantity is bounded by the degree of $U^{2}/\gamma_{c}^{2}-1$, which is equal to the degree of $U^{2}$.
The degree of $U^{2}$ is equal to $\sum\limits_{c_{0}}\left|{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c_{0}}\, U\right|$, here the sum runs through all the cusps of $X_{H}$. Then the result follows from Lemma \[order\].
Now we can get a bound for $\log|j(P)|$.
Under the assumptions $\Lambda=0$ and ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U=0$, we have $$\log|j(P)|\le p^{2}\log(48p^{12}+48p^{8})+p\log(96p^{2}(p^{5}+p+1))+\log 2.$$
Let $n$ be the smallest $k$ such that $\lambda_{k}^{c}\ne 0$. Then $n\le p^{5}$. We assume that $|q_c(P)|\le 10^{-p}$, otherwise there is nothing to prove. Since ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U=0$ and $U^{2}(P)=\gamma_{c}^{2}$, it follows from (\[Taylor1\]) that $2\pi f(q_{c}(P))i+\sum\limits_{k=n}^{\infty}\lambda_{k}^{c}q_{c}(P)^{k/p}=0$.
Suppose that $f(q_{c}(P))=0$. Then $|\lambda_{n}^{c}q_{c}(P)^{n/p}|=|\sum\limits_{k=n+1}^{\infty}\lambda_{k}^{c}q_{c}(P)^{k/p}|$. On one side, we have $$\begin{aligned}
|\sum\limits_{k=n+1}^{\infty}\lambda_{k}^{c}q_{c}(P)^{k/p}|\le \sum\limits_{k=n+1}^{\infty}|\lambda_{k}^{c}||q_{c}(P)|^{k/p}
&\le \sum\limits_{k=n+1}^{\infty}48p^{2}(k+p)|q_{c}(P)|^{k/p}\\
&=96p^{2}(n+p+1)|q_{c}(P)|^{(n+1)/p}.\end{aligned}$$ On the other side, using Product Formula we get $$|\lambda_{n}^{c}|\ge e^{-[{{\mathbb Q}}(\zeta_{p}):{{\mathbb Q}}]{\mathrm{h}}({\lambda_{n}^{c}})}\ge (48np^{3}+48n^{2}p^{2})^{-p+1}.$$ Then we obtain $$\log|q_c(P)^{-1}|\le p^{2}\log(48p^{12}+48p^{8})+p\log(96p^{2}(p^{5}+p+1)).$$ Finally, the desired result follows from (\[j(P)0\]).
Suppose that $f(q_{c}(P))\ne 0$. Then $2\pi\le|\sum\limits_{k=n}^{\infty}\lambda_{k}^{c}q_{c}(P)^{k/p}|\le 96p^{2}(n+p)|q_{c}(P)|^{n/p}$. Then we get $\log|q_c(P)^{-1}|\le p\log(96p^{2}(p^{5}+p))$. So we have $$\log|j(P)|\le p\log(96p^{2}(p^{5}+p))+\log 2.$$
Now we assume that ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}V\ne 0$, i.e. ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U\ne 0$. By Lemma \[u2\], we can choose a $U$ such that ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U< 0$. Then we choose a $\sigma$ such that ${\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U^{\sigma}> 0$. Put $n_{1}=-{\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U$ and $n_{2}={\mathrm{Ord}}_{c}U^{\sigma}$. Since $U(P)$ and $\gamma_{c}$ are real, we have $U(P)^{2n_{2}}U^{\sigma}(P)^{2n_{1}}=\gamma_{c}^{2n_{2}}\gamma_{c,\sigma}^{2n_{1}}$, i.e. $U^{2n_{2}}(U^{\sigma})^{2n_{1}}(P)=\gamma_{c}^{2n_{2}}\gamma_{c,\sigma}^{2n_{1}}$. Lemma \[rank\] guarantees that $U^{2n_{2}}(U^{\sigma})^{2n_{1}}$ is not a constant.
Applying the same method as the above without difficulties, we can also get a better bound than Theorem \[main1\]. We omit the details here.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We are very grateful to our advisor Yuri Bilu for careful reading and lots of stimulating suggestions and helpful discussions, especially for his key suggestion in Section \[specialcase\]. We are also grateful to the referee for careful reading and very useful comments.
[99]{} L. Ahlfors, *Complex Analysis*, Third edition, Mcgraw-Hill, 1979.
A. Bajolet and Yu. Bilu, *Finding integral points on $X_{{\mathrm{ns}}}^{+}(p)$*, in preparation.
B. Baran, *A modular curve of level 9 and the class number one problem*, J. Number Th. **129** (2009), 715-728.
B. Baran, *Normalizers of non-split Cartan subgroups, modular curves, and the class number one problem*, J. Number Th. **130** (2010), 2753–2772.
Yu. Bilu, *Effective analysis of integral points on algebraic curves*, Israel J. Math. **90** (1995), 235-252.
Yu. Bilu and G. Hanrot, *Solving Thue Equations of High Degree*, J. Number Th. **60** (1996), 373-392.
Yu. Bilu and M. Illengo, *Effective Siegel’s Theorem for Modular Curves*, Bull. London Math. Soc. **43** (2011), 673-688.
Yu. Bilu and P. Parent, *Runge’s Method and Modular Curves*, Int. Math. Res. Notes **2011**(9) (2011), 1997-2027.
Yu. Bilu and P. Parent, *Serre’s uniformity problem in the split Cartan case*, Ann. Math. **173** (2011), 569-584.
Yu. Bilu, P. Parent, and M. Rebolledo, *Rational points on $X_0^+ (p^r)$*, Ann. Inst. Fourier, to appear; .
A. Costa and E. Friedman, *Ratios of Regulators in Totally Real Extensions of Number Fields*, J. Number Th. **37** (1991), 288–297.
K. Heegner, *Diophantische Analysis und Modulfunktionen*, Math. Z. **56** (1952), 227-253.
M.A. Kenku, *A note on the integral points of a modular curve of level 7*, Mathematika **32** (1985), 45-48.
D.S. Kubert and S. Lang, *Modular units*, Grund. Math. Wiss. [**244**]{}, Springer, New York-Berlin, 1981.
S. Louboutin, *Upper Bounds on $|L(1,\chi)|$ and Applications*, Can. J. Math. **50**(4) (1998), 794–815.
E.M. Matveev, *An explicit lower bound for a homogeneous rational linear form in the logarithms of algebraic numbers II*, Izv. Math. **64**(6) (2000), 1217-1269.
J.P. Serre, *Lectures on the Mordell-Weil Theorem*, third edition, Aspects of Mathematics **E15**, Vieweg, 1997.
M. Sha, *Bounding $j$-invariant of integral points on modular curves*, preprint, 2012.
G. Shimura, *Introduction to the arithmetic theory of automorphic functions*, Publ. Math. Soc. Japan 11, Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo; Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1971.
C.L. Siegel, *$\ddot{\rm U}$ber einige Anwendungen diophantischer Approximationen*, Abh. Pr. Akad. Wiss. (1929), no. 1. (=Ges. Abh. I, 209-266, Springer, 1966.)
C.L. Siegel, *Zum Beweise des Starkschen Satzes*, Invent. Math. **5** (1968), 180-191.
L.C. Washington, *Introduction to Cyclotomic Fields*, Springer-Verlag, 1982.
[^1]: The second author is supported by China Scholarship Council.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: 'In this paper, an extended nonlinear Schrödinger equation with higher-order that includes fifth-order dispersion with matching higher-order nonlinear terms is investigated under zero boundary condition at infinity. Carrying out the spectral analysis, a kind of matrix Riemann-Hilbert problem is formulated on the real axis. Then on basis of the resulting matrix Riemann-Hilbert problem under restriction of no reflection, multiple soliton solutions of the extended nonlinear Schrödinger equation are generated explicitly.'
author:
- |
Zhou-Zheng Kang$^{1,2}$, Tie-Cheng Xia$^{1}\thanks{Corresponding author: [email protected]}$\
\
title: 'Construction of multiple soliton solutions of the quintic nonlinear Schrödinger equation[^1]'
---
[GBK]{}[song]{}
**Keywords:** quintic nonlinear Schrödinger equation; Riemann-Hilbert problem; soliton solutions
Introduction
============
Soliton solutions of nonlinear evolution equaitons (NLEEs) play an especially important significance in studying a variety of complex nonlinear phenomena in fluid dynamics, plasma physics, oceanography, optics, condensed matter physics and so forth. By now, many efficient approaches have been available for finding soliton solutions, some of which include inverse scattering transformation \[1,2\], Darboux transformation \[3–6\], Bäcklund transformation \[7\], Riemann-Hilbert method \[8\], and Hirota’s bilinear method \[9–12\]. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in exploring abundant multiple soliton solutions of NLEEs via the Riemann-Hilbert method, including the coupled derivative Schrödinger equation \[13\], the Kundu-Eckhaus equation \[14\], and others \[15–21\].
In this work, under zero boundary condition at infinity, we would like to consider the quintic nonlinear Schrödinger equation $$i{{q}_{t}}+\frac{1}{2}{{q}_{xx}}+{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}q-i\varepsilon \big({{q}_{xxxxx}}+10{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}{{q}_{xxx}}+30{{\left| q \right|}^{4}}{{q}_{x}}+20{{q}^{*}}{{q}_{x}}{{q}_{xx}}+10{{\big(q{{\left| {{q}_{x}} \right|}^{2}}\big)}_{x}}\big)=0,$$ where $\left| q \right|$ denotes the envelope of the waves, and $x$ is the propagation variable, and $t$ is the transverse variable (time in a moving frame). $\varepsilon$ is a real parameter. Several studies have been conducted. Chowdury et al. \[22\] showed that a breather solution of Eq. (1) can be changed into a nonpulsating soliton solution on a background. And locus of the eigenvalues on the complex plane which convert breathers into solitons was worked out. They also studied the interaction between the resulting solitons, as well as between breathers and these solitons. The superregular breather, multi-peak soliton and hybrid solutions were investigated by Wang et al. \[23\] via the modified Darboux transformation and Joukowsky transform.
Desired Lax pair
================
The Lax pair \[23\] for Eq. (1) reads as
$$\begin{aligned}
{{\psi }_{x}}& =U\psi =(\lambda {{U}_{0}}+Q)\psi , \\
{{\psi }_{t}}& =V\psi =(V_{1}+V_{2})\psi ,\end{aligned}$$
where $\psi =({{\psi }_{1}},{{\psi }_{2}})^{T}$ is the spectral function, $${{U}_{0}}=\left( \begin{matrix}
-i & 0 \\
0 & i \\
\end{matrix} \right),\quad Q=\left( \begin{matrix}
0 & q \\
-{{q}^{*}} & 0 \\
\end{matrix} \right),\quad V_{1}=\left( \begin{matrix}
A & 0 \\
0 & -A \\
\end{matrix} \right),\quad V_{2}=\left( \begin{matrix}
0 & B \\
-{{B}^{*}} & 0 \\
\end{matrix} \right),$$ $\lambda\in\mathbb{C}$ is a spectral parameter, and $$\begin{aligned}
&A=-16i\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{5}}+8i\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{3}}{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}+4\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{2}}(qq_{x}^{*}-{{q}_{x}}{{q}^{*}})-i{{\lambda }^{2}}-2i\varepsilon \lambda \big(qq_{xx}^{*}+{{q}^{*}}{{q}_{xx}}-{{\left| {{q}_{x}} \right|}^{2}}+3{{\left| q \right|}^{4}}\big) \\
&\quad\quad+\frac{1}{2}i{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}+\varepsilon \big({{q}^{*}}{{q}_{xxx}}-qq_{xxx}^{*}+{{q}_{x}}q_{xx}^{*}-{{q}_{xx}}q_{x}^{*}+6{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}{{q}^{*}}{{q}_{x}}-6{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}q_{x}^{*}q\big),\\
&B=16\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{4}}q+8i\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{3}}{{q}_{x}}-4\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{2}}\big({{q}_{xx}}+2{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}q\big)-2i\varepsilon \lambda \big({{q}_{xxx}}+6{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}{{q}_{x}}\big)+\lambda q \\
&\quad\quad+\varepsilon \big({{q}_{xxxx}}+8{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}{{q}_{xx}}+2{{q}^{2}}q_{xx}^{*}+4{{\left| {{q}_{x}} \right|}^{2}}q+6q_{x}^{2}{{q}^{*}}+6{{\left| q \right|}^{4}}q\big)+\frac{1}{2}i{{q}_{x}}.\end{aligned}$$
We first need to convert the above Lax pair into the equivalent form $$\begin{aligned}
{{\psi }_{x}}& =(-i\lambda \Lambda +Q)\psi , \\
{{\psi }_{t}}& =((-16i\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{5}}-i{{\lambda }^{2}})\Lambda +\tilde{V})\psi ,\end{aligned}$$ in which $\Lambda =\text{diag}(1,-1),$ $$\begin{aligned}
&\tilde{V}=\Big(8i\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{3}}{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}+4\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{2}}(qq_{x}^{*}-{{q}_{x}}{{q}^{*}})-2i\varepsilon \lambda \big(qq_{xx}^{*}+{{q}^{*}}{{q}_{xx}}-{{\left| {{q}_{x}} \right|}^{2}}+3{{\left| q \right|}^{4}}\big)+\frac{1}{2}i{{\left| q \right|}^{2}} \\
&\quad\quad+\varepsilon \big({{q}^{*}}{{q}_{xxx}}-qq_{xxx}^{*}+{{q}_{x}}q_{xx}^{*}-{{q}_{xx}}q_{x}^{*}+6{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}{{q}^{*}}{{q}_{x}}-6{{\left| q \right|}^{2}}q_{x}^{*}q\big)\Big)\Lambda+V_{2},\end{aligned}$$
Under the hypothesis of $q\rightarrow0$ as $x\rightarrow\pm\infty$, we can see from (3)–(4) that $\psi \propto {{e}^{-i\lambda \Lambda x-(16i\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{5}}+i{{\lambda }^{2}})\Lambda t}}$. Hence, a variable transformation $$\psi =J{{e}^{-i\lambda \Lambda x-(16i\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{5}}+i{{\lambda }^{2}})\Lambda t}},$$ is employed to change (2) and (3) into the desired form $$\begin{aligned}
{{J}_{x}}& =-i\lambda [\Lambda ,J]+QJ, \\
{{J}_{t}}& =(-16i\varepsilon {{\lambda }^{5}}-i{{\lambda }^{2}})[\Lambda ,J]+\tilde{V}J.\end{aligned}$$
Matrix Riemann–Hilbert problem
==============================
The matrix Jost solutions can be expressed into a collection of columns $${{J}_{-}}=([{{J}_{-}}]_{1},[{{J}_{-}}]_{2}),\quad{{J}_{+}}=([{{J}_{+}}]_{1},[{{J}_{+}}]_{2}),$$ having the asymptotic conditions $$\begin{aligned}
& {{J}_{-}}\to \mathbf{I_{2}},\quad x\to -\infty , \\
& {{J}_{+}}\to \mathbf{I_{2}},\quad x\to +\infty ,
\end{aligned}$$ in which $\mathbf{I_{2}}$ stands for the identity matrix of rank 2. As a matter of fact, $J_{\pm}(x,\lambda )$ are uniquely determined by the solution of Volterra integral equations
$$\begin{aligned}
& {{J}_{-}}(x,\lambda )=\mathbf{I_{2}}+\int_{-\infty }^{x}{{{e}^{-i\lambda \Lambda (x-y )}}Q(y){{J}_{-}}(y,\lambda ){{e}^{i\lambda \Lambda (x-y )}}dy }, \\
& {{J}_{+}}(x,\lambda )=\mathbf{I_{2}}-\int_{x}^{+\infty }{{{e}^{-i\lambda \Lambda (x-y )}}Q(y){{J}_{+}}(y,\lambda ){{e}^{i\lambda \Lambda (x-y )}}dy },\end{aligned}$$
Then, Eqs. (9a) and (9b) are analyzed to indicate that $[{{J}_{-}}]_{1},[{{J}_{+}}]_{2}$ allow analytical extensions to $\mathbb{C_{+}}$, however $[{{J}_{+}}]_{1},[{{J}_{-}}]_{2}$ are analytically extendible to $\mathbb{C_{-}}$, where $$\mathbb{C_{-}}=\{\lambda\in\mathbb{C}|\textrm{Im}(\lambda)<0\},\quad\mathbb{C_{+}}=\{\lambda\in\mathbb{C}|\textrm{Im}(\lambda)>0\},$$
Because ${{J}_{-}}{{e}^{-i\lambda \Lambda x}}$ and ${{J}_{+}}{{e}^{-i\lambda \Lambda x}}$ are both the fundamental matrix solutions of (3), they must be linearly dependent by the scattering matrix $S(\lambda )=(s_{jl})_{2\times2}$, i.e., $${{J}_{-}}{{e}^{-i\lambda \Lambda x}}={{J}_{+}}{{e}^{-i\lambda \Lambda x}}S(\lambda ),\quad \lambda\in\mathbb{R}.$$
In consideration of the analytic property of $J_{\pm}$, we define the analytic function in $\mathbb{C_{+}}$ as $${{P}_{1}}=({{[{{J}_{-}}]_{1}}},{{[{{J}_{+}}]_{2}}})={{J}_{-}}{{H}_{1}}+{{J}_{+}}{{H}_{2}},$$ where $${{H}_{1}}=\text{diag}(1,0),\quad{{H}_{2}}=\text{diag}(0,1).$$
In what follows, we examine the large-$\lambda$ asymptotic behavior of ${{P}_{1}}$. We expand ${{P}_{1}}$ as $${{P}_{1}}=P_{1}^{(0)}+{\lambda}^{-1}{{P}_{1}^{(1)}}+{\lambda}^{-2}{{P}_{1}^{(2)}}+O\big({\lambda}^{-3}\big),\quad\lambda \to \infty ,$$ and carry this expansion into (3). Comparing the coefficients of the same power of $\lambda$ gives rise to $$\begin{aligned}
& O(1):P_{1x}^{(0)}=-i[\Lambda ,P_{1}^{(1)}]+QP_{1}^{(0)}, \\
& O(\lambda ):0=-i[\Lambda ,P_{1}^{(0)}].
\end{aligned}$$ We can see that $${{P}_{1}}\to \mathbf{I_{2}},\quad\lambda \to \infty .$$
For formulating the desired matrix Riemann–Hilbert problem, it is required to construct the other analytic function $P_{2}$. Now we consider the adjoint equation associated with (5) $${{\chi }_{x}}=-i\lambda [\Lambda ,\chi ]-\chi Q.$$ The inverse matrix of $J_{\pm}^{-1}$ are expressible into $${{J}_{-}^{-1}}=\left( \begin{matrix}
{{[{{J}_{-}^{-1}}]^{1}}} \\
{{[{{J}_{-}^{-1}}]^{2}}} \\
\end{matrix} \right),\quad{{J}_{+}^{-1}}=\left( \begin{matrix}
{{[{{J}_{+}^{-1}}]^{1}}} \\
{{[{{J}_{+}^{-1}}]^{2}}} \\
\end{matrix} \right),$$ where $[{{J}_{\pm}^{-1}}]^{j}(j=1,2)$ denote the $j$-th row of ${J}_{\pm}^{-1}$. It can be verified that $J_{\pm}^{-1}$ meet Eq. (13). Then from Eq. (10), we immediately obtain $${{J}_{-}^{-1}}={{e}^{-i\lambda \Lambda x}}S^{-1}(\lambda ){{e}^{i\lambda \Lambda x}}{{J}_{+}^{-1}},$$ where ${{S}^{-1}}(\lambda )=(r_{jl})_{2\times2}$. Thus, the matrix function $P_{2}$ can be expressed in the form $${{P}_{2}}=\left( \begin{matrix}
{{[J_{-}^{-1}]^{1}}} \\
{{[J_{+}^{-1}]^{2}}} \\
\end{matrix} \right)={{H}_{1}}J_{-}^{-1}+{{H}_{2}}J_{+}^{-1},$$ with ${{H}_{1}}$ and ${{H}_{2}}$ being given by (12). Moreover, the asymptotic behavior for $P_{2}$ is $${{P}_{2}}\to \mathbf{I_{2}},\quad\lambda \to \infty .$$
Inserting (4) into (7) yields $${{[{{J}_{+}}]_{2}}}={{r}_{12}}{{e}^{-2i\lambda x}}{{[{{J}_{-}}]_{1}}}+{{r}_{22}}{{[{{J}_{-}}]_{2}}}.$$ Therefore, ${{P}_{1}}$ is rewritten as $${{P}_{1}}=({{[{{J}_{-}}]_{1}}},{{[{{J}_{+}}]_{2}}})=({{[{{J}_{-}}]_{1}}},{{[{{J}_{-}}]_{2}}})\left( \begin{matrix}
1 & {{r}_{12}}{{e}^{-2i\lambda x}} \\
0 & {{r}_{22}} \\
\end{matrix} \right).$$
Carrying (11) into (12) leads to $${{[J_{+}^{-1}]^{2}}}={{s}_{21}}{{e}^{2i\lambda x}}{{[J_{-}^{-1}]^{1}}}+{{s}_{22}}{{[J_{+}^{-1}]^{2}}}.$$ Then, ${{P}_{2}}$ takes the form $${{P}_{2}}=\left( \begin{matrix}
{{[J_{-}^{-1}]^{1}}} \\
{{[J_{+}^{-1}]^{2}}} \\
\end{matrix} \right)=\left( \begin{matrix}
1 & 0 \\
{{s}_{21}}{{e}^{2i\lambda x}} & {{s}_{22}} \\
\end{matrix} \right)\left( \begin{matrix}
{{[J_{-}^{-1}]^{1}}} \\
{{[J_{-}^{-1}]^{2}}} \\
\end{matrix} \right),$$
Based on the above results, a kind of Riemann–Hilbert problem for Eq. (1) on the real axis can be stated as follows $${{P}^{-}}(x,\lambda){{P}^{+}}(x,\lambda)=G(x,\lambda),\quad \lambda\in\mathbb{R},$$ in which $$G(x,\lambda)=\left( \begin{matrix}
1 & {{r}_{12}}{{e}^{-2i\lambda x}} \\
{{s}_{21}}{{e}^{2i\lambda x}} & 1 \\
\end{matrix} \right),$$ and ${{s}_{21}}{{r}_{12}}+{{s}_{22}}{{r}_{22}}=1$. The normalization conditions are given by $$\begin{aligned}
% \nonumber to remove numbering (before each equation)
&{P_{1}}(x,\lambda)\to {\mathbf{I}}_{2},\quad \lambda \in {\mathbb{C}_{+}}\to \infty , \\
&{P_{2}}(x,\lambda)\to {\mathbf{I}}_{2},\quad \lambda \in {\mathbb{C}_{-}}\to \infty .\end{aligned}$$
Soliton solutions
=================
Our focus in this section will be on generating soliton solutions to Eq. (1) on basis of the obtained Riemann–Hilbert problem. Suppose that the Riemann–Hilbert problem (17) is irregular, which reveals that both $\det {P_{1}}$ and $\det {P_{2}}$ have some zeros in their own analytic domains. According to the definitions of ${P_{1}}$ and ${P_{2}}$ as well as the scattering relation (7), we have $$\det {{P}_{1}}(\lambda)={{r}_{22}}(\lambda),\quad\det {{P}_{2}}(\lambda)={{s}_{22}}(\lambda),$$ which show that $\det {{P}_{1}}$ and $\det {{P}_{2}}$ are in possession of the same zeros as ${{r}_{22}}$ and ${{s}_{22}}$ respectively.
In what follows, we need to specify the zeros. Manifestly, the matrix $Q$ is skew-Hermitian, $
Q^{\dagger }=-Q.
$ On basis of this property, we deduce that $$J_{\pm }^{\dagger }({{\lambda}^{*}})=J_{\pm }^{-1}(\lambda).$$ Taking the Hermitian of Eq. (11) and using Eq. (18), we have $$P_{1}^{\dagger }({{\lambda}^{*}})={{P}_{2}}(\lambda),$$ and $${{S}^{\dagger }}({{\lambda}^{*}})={{S}^{-1}}(\lambda),$$ for $\lambda \in {\mathbb{C}^{-}}.$ From Eq. (20), we further find $$s_{22}^{*}({{\lambda}^{*}})={{r}_{22}}(\lambda),\quad \lambda \in {\mathbb{C}^{+}}.$$ Therefore, we assume that $\det {{P}_{1}}$ has $N$ simple zeros $\lambda_{j}$ in $\mathbb{C}^{+}$ and $\det {{P}_{2}}$ has $N$ simple zeros $\hat{\lambda}_{j}$ in $\mathbb{C}^{-}$, where $\hat{\lambda}_{j}=\lambda^{\ast}_{j}$. Each of $\ker {P_{1}}({{\hat{\lambda }}_{j}})$ includes only a single basis column vector ${{\omega}_{j}}$, and each of $\ker {P_{2}}({{\hat{\lambda }}_{j}})$ includes only a single basis row vector ${{\hat{\omega}}_{j}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
&{P_{1}}({{\lambda}_{j}}){{\omega}_{j}}=0,\\
&{{\hat{\omega}}_{j}}{P_{2}}({{\hat{\lambda}}_{j}})=0.\end{aligned}$$ Taking the Hermitian of Eq. (22) and using (19), we find that the eigenvectors fulfill the relation $${{\hat{\omega}}_{j}}=\omega_{j}^{\dagger },\quad 1\le j\le N.$$ Taking the $x$-derivative and $t$-derivative of Eq. (22) respectively and using (3)–(4), we arrive at
$${{P}_{1}}({{\lambda}_{j}})\left( \frac{\partial {{\omega}_{j}}}{\partial x}+i{{\lambda}_{j}}\Lambda {{\omega}_{j}} \right)=0,\quad
{{P}_{1}}({{\lambda}_{j}})\left( \frac{\partial {{\omega}_{j}}}{\partial t}+\big( 16i\varepsilon\lambda_{j}^{5}+i\lambda_{j}^{2}\big)\Lambda {{\omega}_{j}} \right)=0,$$ which yields $${{\omega}_{j}}={{{e}}^{\left(-i{{\lambda}_{j}}x-\left(16i\varepsilon \lambda_{j}^{5}+i\lambda_{j}^{2}\right)t\right)\Lambda}}{{\omega}_{j0}},\quad 1\le j\le N,$$ with ${\omega}_{j0}$ being independent of $x$ and $t$. In view of (24), we thus have $${{\hat{\omega}}_{j}}=\omega_{j0}^{\dagger }{{{e}}^{\left(i\lambda_{j}^{*}x+\left(16i\varepsilon \lambda {{_{j}^{*}}^{5}}+i\lambda {{_{j}^{*}}^{2}}\right)t\right)\Lambda}},\quad 1\le j\le N.$$
In order to derive soliton solutions explicitly, we take $G=\mathbf{I}_{2}$ in (17), which indicates that no reflection exists in the scattering problem. Therefore, the solutions \[24\] for this special Riemann-Hilbert problem can be given by
$$\begin{aligned}
&{{P}_{1}}(\lambda)=\mathbf{I}_{2}-\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}{\frac{{{\omega}_{k}}{{{\hat{\omega}}}_{j}}{{\big({{M}^{-1}}\big)_{kj}}}}{\lambda -{{{\hat{\lambda}}}_{j}}}}},\label{4.5.10a} \\
&
{{P}_{2}}(\lambda)=\mathbf{I}_{2}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}{\frac{{{\omega}_{k}}{{{\hat{\omega}}}_{j}}{{\big({{M}^{-1}}\big)_{kj}}}}{\lambda-{{\lambda }_{k}}}}},\label{4.5.10b}\end{aligned}$$
with $M$ being defined by $${{m}_{kj}}=\frac{{\hat{\omega}_{k}}{{{{\omega}}}_{j}}}{{{\lambda}_{j}}-{{{\hat{\lambda}}}_{k}}},\quad 1\le k,j\le N.$$
In what follows, we intend to present reconstruction formula of the potential. Because $P_{1}(x,\lambda)$ satisfies (3), we insert the expansion $${{P}_{1}}(x,\lambda)={\mathbf{I}}_{2}+{\lambda}^{-1}{{P}_{1}^{(1)}}+{\lambda}^{-2}{{P}_{1}^{(2)}}+O\big({\lambda}^{-3}\big),\quad \lambda\to\infty.$$ into (3) and generate $$Q=i\big[\Lambda,{P}_{1}^{(1)}\big]=\left( \begin{matrix}
0 & 2i{{\big(P_{1}^{(1)}\big)_{12}}} \\
-2i{{\big(P_{1}^{(1)}\big)_{21}}} & 0 \\
\end{matrix} \right),$$ from which we see $$q=2i{{\big(P_{1}^{(1)}\big)_{12}}},$$ where $\big(P_{1}^{(1)}\big)_{12}$ denotes the $(1,2)$-element of $P_{1}^{(1)}$.
Through supposing that ${{\omega}_{j0}}=(\alpha_{j},\beta_{j})^{\text{T}},\theta_{j}=-i{{\lambda}_{j}}x-(16i\varepsilon \lambda_{j}^{5}+i\lambda_{j}^{2})t$, therefore we acquire the multi-soliton solutions of Eq. (1) as follows $$q=-2i\sum\limits_{k=1}^{N}{\sum\limits_{j=1}^{N}{\alpha_{k}{{\beta_{j} }^{*}}{{{e}}^{{{\theta }_{k}}-\theta _{j}^{*}}}{{\big({{M}^{-1}}\big)_{kj}}}}},$$ where $${{m}_{kj}}=\frac{\alpha _{k}^{*}{{\alpha }_{j}}{{{e}}^{\theta _{k}^{*}+{{\theta }_{j}}}}+\beta _{k}^{*}{{\beta }_{j}}{{{e}}^{-\theta _{k}^{*}-{{\theta }_{j}}}}}{{{\lambda}_{j}}-\lambda_{k}^{*}},\quad 1\le k,j\le N.$$
A selection of $N=1$ in (27) generates one-soliton solution as $$q=-\frac{2i\alpha _{1}{{\beta }_{1}^{*}}({{\lambda}_{1}}-\lambda_{1}^{*}){{{e}}^{{{\theta }_{1}}-\theta _{1}^{*}}}}{{{\left| {{\alpha }_{1}} \right|}^{2}}{{{e}}^{\theta _{1}^{*}+{{\theta }_{1}}}}+{{\left| {{\beta }_{1}} \right|}^{2}}{{{e}}^{-\theta _{1}^{*}-{{\theta }_{1}}}}},$$ which can be simplified into the form $$q=2\alpha _{1}{{b}_{1}}{{{e}}^{-{{\xi }_{1}}}}{{{e}}^{\theta _{1}-{{\theta }_{1}^{*}}}}\text{sech}\left(\theta _{1}^{*}+{{\theta }_{1}}+{{\xi }_{1}}\right)$$ due to the assumptions ${{\beta }_{1}}=1,{{\lambda}_{1}}={{a}_{1}}+i{{b}_{1}},{{\left| {{\alpha }_{1}} \right|}^{2}}={{{e}}^{2{{\xi }_{1}}}},$ and $\theta_{1}=-i{{\lambda}_{1}}x-(16i\varepsilon \lambda_{1}^{5}+i\lambda_{1}^{2})t$.
For $N=2$ in (27), two-soliton solution of Eq. (1) can be written as $$q=-\frac{2i\big(\alpha _{1}{{\beta }_{1}^{*}}{{m}_{22}}{{{e}}^{{{\theta }_{1}}-\theta _{1}^{*}}}-\alpha _{1}{{\beta }_{2}^{*}}{{m}_{12}}{{{e}}^{{{\theta }_{1}}-\theta _{2}^{*}}}-\alpha _{2}{{\beta }_{1}^{*}}{{m}_{21}}{{{e}}^{{{\theta }_{2}}-\theta _{1}^{*}}}+\alpha _{2}{{\beta }_{2}^{*}}{{m}_{11}}{{{e}}^{{{\theta }_{2}}-\theta _{2}^{*}}}\big)}{{{m}_{11}}{{m}_{22}}-{{m}_{12}}{{m}_{21}}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&{{m}_{11}}=\frac{{{\left| {{\alpha }_{1}} \right|}^{2}}{{{e}}^{\theta _{1}^{*}+{{\theta }_{1}}}}+{{\left| {{\beta }_{1}} \right|}^{2}}{{{e}}^{-\theta _{1}^{*}-{{\theta }_{1}}}}}{{{\lambda}_{1}}-\lambda_{1}^{*}},\quad
{{m}_{12}}=\frac{\alpha _{1}^{*}{{\alpha }_{2}}{{{e}}^{\theta _{1}^{*}+{{\theta }_{2}}}}+\beta _{1}^{*}{{\beta }_{2}}{{{e}}^{-\theta _{1}^{*}-{{\theta }_{2}}}}}{{{\lambda}_{2}}-\lambda _{1}^{*}}, \\
&{{m}_{21}}=\frac{\alpha _{2}^{*}{{\alpha }_{1}}{{{e}}^{\theta _{2}^{*}+{{\theta }_{1}}}}+\beta _{2}^{*}{{\beta }_{1}}{{{e}}^{-\theta _{2}^{*}-{{\theta }_{1}}}}}{{{\lambda}_{1}}-\lambda_{2}^{*}},\quad
{{m}_{22}}=\frac{{{\left| {{\alpha }_{2}} \right|}^{2}}{{{e}}^{\theta _{2}^{*}+{{\theta }_{2}}}}+{{\left| {{\beta }_{2}} \right|}^{2}}{{{e}}^{-\theta _{2}^{*}-{{\theta }_{2}}}}}{{{\lambda}_{2}}-\lambda_{2}^{*}}.
\end{aligned}$$ Under the assumptions ${{\beta }_{1}}={{\beta }_{2}}=1,{{\alpha }_{1}}={{\alpha }_{2}}$ and ${{\left| {{\alpha }_{1}}\right|}^{2}}={{{e}}^{2{{\xi }_{1}}}}$, the solution (29) takes the form $$q=-\frac{2i\big(\alpha _{1}{{m}_{22}}{{{e}}^{{{\theta }_{1}}-\theta _{1}^{*}}}-\alpha _{1}{{m}_{12}}{{{e}}^{{{\theta }_{1}}-\theta _{2}^{*}}}-\alpha _{2}{{m}_{21}}{{{e}}^{{{\theta }_{2}}-\theta _{1}^{*}}}+\alpha _{2}{{m}_{11}}{{{e}}^{{{\theta }_{2}}-\theta _{2}^{*}}}\big)}{{{m}_{11}}{{m}_{22}}-{{m}_{12}}{{m}_{21}}},$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
&{{m}_{11}}=-\frac{i}{{{b}_{1}}}{{{e}}^{{{\xi }_{1}}}}\cosh\left(\theta _{1}^{*}+{{\theta }_{1}}+{{\xi }_{1}}\right),\quad {{m}_{12}}=\frac{2{{{e}}^{{{\xi }_{1}}}}}{({{a}_{2}}-{{a}_{1}})+i({{b}_{1}}+{{b}_{2}})}\cosh \left(\theta _{1}^{*}+{{\theta }_{2}}+{{\xi }_{1}}\right),\\
&{{m}_{22}}=-\frac{i}{{{b}_{2}}}{{{e}}^{{{\xi }_{1}}}}\cosh\left(\theta _{2}^{*}+{{\theta }_{2}}+{{\xi }_{1}}\right),\quad {{m}_{21}}=\frac{2{{{e}}^{{{\xi }_{1}}}}}{({{a}_{1}}-{{a}_{2}})+i({{b}_{1}}+{{b}_{2}})}\cosh \left(\theta _{2}^{*}+{{\theta }_{1}}+{{\xi }_{1}}\right).\end{aligned}$$
Conclusion
==========
The aim of the current research was to work out multi-soliton solutions of the quintic nonlinear Schrödinger equation. For this purpose, we first carried out the spectral analysis and formulated the related matrix Riemann-Hilbert problem on the real line. Second, based on the resulting Riemann-Hilbert problem which was treated by considering that no reflection exists in the scattering problem, the general multi-soliton solutions for the quintic nonlinear Schrödinger equation were generated in explicit form. Particularly, the one- and two-soliton solutions were given.
[99]{}=-3pt plus.2pt minus.2pt M.J. Ablowitz, D.J. Kaup, A.C. Newell and H. Segur, Nonlinear-evolution equations of physical significance, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31 (2) (1973), 125–127. C.S. Gardner, J.M. Greene, M.D. Kruskal and R.M. Miura, Method for solving the Kortewegde Vries equation, Phys. Rev. E 19 (19) (1976), 1095–1097. X. Wang and Y. Chen, Darboux transformations and N-soliton solutions of two (2+1)- dimensional nonlinear equations, Commun. Theor. Phys. 61 (2014), 423–430. Y.S. Tao and J.S. He, Multisolitons, breathers, and rogue waves for the Hirota equation generated by the Darboux transformation, Phys. Rev. E 85 (2012), 026601. L. Ling, L.C. Zhao and B. Guo, Darboux transformation and multi-dark soliton for N- component nonlinear Schrödinger equations, Nonlinearity 28 (2015), 3243–3261. G. Zhang, Z. Yan and X.Y. Wen, Three-wave resonant interactions: Multi-dark-dark-dark solitons, breathers, rogue waves, and their interactions and dynamics, Phys. D 366 (2018), 27–42. X. Lü, W.X. Ma and C.M. Khalique, A direct bilinear Bäcklund transformation of a (2+1)- dimensional Korteweg-de Vries-like model, Appl. Math. Lett. 50 (2015), 37–42. Z. Wang and Z.J. Qiao, Riemann-Hilbert approach for the FQXL model: A generalized Camassa-Holm equation with cubic and quadratic nonlinearity, J. Math. Phys. 57 (2016), 073505. R. Hirota, Exact envelope-soliton solutions of a nonlinear wave equation, J. Math. Phys. 14 (1973), 805–809. A.M.Wazwaz, Two new integrable fourth-order nonlinear equations: multiple soliton solutions and multiple complex soliton solutions, Nonlinear Dynam. 94 (2018), 2655–2663. A.M. Wazwaz, Two wave mode higher-order modified KdV equations: Essential conditions for multiple soliton solutions to exist, Internat. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow 27 (2017), 2223–2230. S. Zhang, C. Tian, and W.Y. Qian, Bilinearization and new multisoliton solutions for the (4+1)-dimensional Fokas equation, Pramana 86 (6) (2016) 1259–1267. B.L. Guo and L.M. Ling, Riemann-Hilbert approach and N-soliton formula for coupled derivative Schrödinger equation, J. Math. Phys. 53 (2012), 073506. D.S. Wang and X.L. Wang, Long-time asymptotics and the bright N-soliton solutions of the Kundu-Eckhaus equation via the Riemann-Hilbert approach, Nonlinear Anal. Real World Appl. 41 (2018), 334–361. Y. Xiao and E. Fan, A Riemann-Hilbert approach to the Harry-Dym equation on the line, Chin. Ann. Math. Ser. B 37 (3) (2016), 373–384. N. Zhang, T.C. Xia and B.B. Hu, A Riemann-Hilbert Approach to complex Sharma-Tasso- Olver equation on half line, Commun. Theor. Phys. 68 (5) (2017), 580–594. Z.Z. Kang and T.C. Xia, Construction of multi-soliton solutions of the N-coupled Hirota equations in an optical fiber, Chin. Phys. Lett. 36 (11) (2019), 110201. W.X. Ma, Riemann-Hilbert problems and N-soliton solutions for a coupled mKdV system, J. Geom. Phys. 132 (2018), 45–54. W.X. Ma, Riemann-Hilbert problems of a six-component fourth-order AKNS system and its soliton solutions, Comput. Appl. Math. 37 (5) (2018), 6359–6375. Z.Y. Yan, An initial-boundary value problem for the integrable spin-1 Gross-Pitaevskii equations with a $4\times4$ Lax pair on the half-line, Chaos 27 (2017), 053117. K. Nakkeeran, Exact soliton solutions for a family of N coupled nonlinear Schrödinger equations in optical fiber media, Phys. Rev. E 62 (1) (2000), 1313–1321. A. Chowdury, D.J. Kedziora, A. Ankiewicz, and N. Akhmediev, Breather-to-soliton conversions described by the quintic equation of the nonlinear Schrödinger hierarchy, Phys. Rev. E 91 (2015), 032928. L. Wang, C. Liu, X. Wu, X. Wang, W.R. Sun, Dynamics of superregular breathers in the quintic nonlinear Schrödinger equation, Nonlinear Dynam. 94 (2018), 977–989. J.K. Yang, Nonlinear Waves in Integrable and Nonintegrable Systems, SIAM, Philadelphia, (2010).
[^1]: Project supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 11975145).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
We consider a semilinear parabolic degenerated *Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman (HJB) equation with singularity* which is related to a stochastic control problem with fuel constraint. The fuel constraint translates into a singular initial condition for the HJB equation. We first propose a transformation based on a change of variables that gives rise to an equivalent HJB equation with nonsingular initial condition but irregular coefficients. We then construct explicit and implicit numerical schemes for solving the transformed HJB equation and prove their convergences by establishing an extension to the result of Barles and Souganidis (1991).\
author:
- Mourad Lazgham
title: 'Numerical solution of a semilinear parabolic degenerate Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation with singularity '
---
[^1]
Introduction
============
In this paper, we aim at constructing a numerical scheme in order to approximate the solution of a semilinear parabolic degenerate Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation with singularity, which originates from an expected utility maximization problem with finite fuel constraint, i.e., where initial and terminal conditions are imposed on the processes considered; see, e.g., @SST10nn. This appears to be a very difficult task, since we have to face some issues. Let us in the first place enumerate these ones, theoretically. First, we cannot directly apply well-known convergence results such as in @BS91, since in their work, they consider only bounded functions with no singularity. Indeed, in most of the literature, when dealing with monotone numerical schemes to approximate Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equations, like in @BJ02n (where they discuss the rate of convergence of approximation schemes), or more recently, in @ZCB12n (which is a generalization of the framework of Barles and Souganidis), only *bounded* viscosity solutions are considered. However, slight modifications in the Barles and Souganidis framework permit us to adapt their model to viscosity solutions with linear asymptotic growth. Moreover, a classical change of variables formula will allow us to relax the exponential growth requirement, by introducing an auxiliary HJB equation. Nevertheless, we will still face a polynomial growth and, above all, a singularity at time $0$, so that to the best of our knowledge no well-known convergence results for monotone schemes can be directly applied in our case. Fortunately, to deal with the singularity property, we will be able to prove that our auxiliary value function behaves like a predetermined function at time $0$, i.e., the quotient of the auxiliary value function and this predetermined function will be close to one, near the initial condition. In this manner, we will be able to transform again our auxiliary HJB equation, by considering a translated version of the latter one, which will permit us to set a zero function as initial condition. However, even with our relaxed conditions, classical results for monotone numerical schemes cannot be directly applied here, since there remains a term which behaves like $Tf(X_0/T)$, where $f$ is a strictly convex and positive function with at most polynomial growth.
Note that there are other ways to approximate nonlinear parabolic equations. For instance, in @ZB04n, analyzing generalized finite difference methods, non-monotone converging schemes are established. In @W13, the convergence is established for some general approximations of the viscosity solutions, provided that a certain optimization problem can be solved in each time step. Unfortunately, here again only bounded viscosity solutions are considered. An alternative approach to approximate nonlinear parabolic PDEs would be to use Monte Carlo methods, combined with the finite difference method, as suggested in @FT11. In their work, they introduce a backward probabilistic scheme that permits to approximate the solution of a nonlinear PDE in two steps. In the first step, the linear part of the PDE is dealt with by using Monte Carlo simulation applied to a conditional expectation operator. The second step applies a finite difference method to the remaining nonlinear part. Moreover, they consider viscosity solutions having polynomial or exponential growth. Nevertheless, the second-order parabolic partial differential equation has to fulfill a Lipschitz condition, uniformly in $t$, which cannot be the case in our framework, due to the Fenchel-Legendre term of the auxiliary HJB equation. In addition, as argued in their paper, their results do not apply to general degenerate nonlinear parabolic PDEs, and we therefore cannot use directly their method.
In order to remedy to those listed issues, we will have to localize the requirements of building converging monotone schemes; the fact that our second-order term is one-dimensional will be very helpful to us. However, this will lead to some severe Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) conditions in the time parameter and, as a consequence, numerical schemes will converge slowly, since the number of time iterations will have to be chosen sufficiently large.\
Modeling framework
==================
Let $(\Omega, {\mathcal{F}}, {\mathbb{P}})$ be a probability space with a filtration $({\mathcal{F}}_t)_{0\leq t\leq T}$ satisfying the usual conditions. Taking $X_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$, we consider the following expected utility maximization problem $$V(T,X_0,R_0)=\sup_{\xi\in\dot{{\mathcal{X}}}^1(T, X_0)}{\mathbb{E}}\left[u\left({\mathcal{R}}_{T}^{\xi}\right)\right],\label{omp}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\dot{{\mathcal{X}}}^1(T,X_0)}\\
&:=&\Big\{\xi\,\big|\,\Big(X^\xi_t:=X_0-\int_0^t \xi_s\;ds\Big)_{t\in[0,T]}\text{ adapted, } t\rightarrow X^\xi_t(\omega) \in{\mathcal{X}}_{det}(T, X_0)\, {\mathbb{P}}\text{-a.s.}\Big\}\\
&\bigcap& \Big\{\xi\,\big|\,{\mathbb{E}}\bigg[\int_{0}^{T}\big(X^\xi_t\big)^\top\sigma X^\xi_t + |b\cdot X^\xi_t-f(\xi_t)|+|\xi_t|\,dt\bigg]<\infty\Big\},\end{aligned}$$ $${\mathcal{X}}_{det}(T, X_0)=\left\{X:[0,T]\rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^d \; \text{ absolutely continuous,}\; X_0\in{\mathbb{R}}^ d,\;\text{and}\; X_T=0 \right\},$$ and $${\mathcal{R}}_T^{\xi}=R_0+\int_0^T \big(X^\xi_t\big)^\top\sigma\;dB_t +\int_0^T b\cdot X^\xi_t \;dt-\int_0^T f(-\dot{\xi}_t)\;dt,
\label{rp}$$ denotes the revenues over the time interval $[0,T]$ associated to the process $X$. Here $R_0\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $B$ is a standard $m$-dimensional Brownian motion starting in $0$ with drift $b\in\mathbb{R}^d$ (which is orthogonal to the kernel of the covariance matrix $\Sigma =\sigma\sigma ^\top$) and volatility matrix $\sigma=(\sigma^{ij})\in{\mathbb{R}}^{d\times m}$, and the nonnegative, strictly convex function $f$ has superlinear growth and at most a polynomial growth of degree $p$, i.e., there exists $C>0$ such that $$f(x)\leq C(1+|x|^p)\quad \text{ for all }x\in{\mathbb{R}}^d,$$and satisfies the two conditions $\lim_{|x|\longrightarrow \infty} \tfrac{f(x)}{|x|}=\infty$ and $f(0)=0$. Further, we will suppose that there exist two positive constants $A_i,i=1,2,$ such that $$0< A_1\leq-\frac{u''(x)}{u'(x)}\leq A_2 \quad\text{for all } x\in{\mathbb{R}}.\label{apc}$$ This inequality implies that we can assume w.l.o.g. that $0<A_1<1<A_2$, which gives us the following estimates $$\exp(-A_1 x)\leq u'(x)\leq \exp(-A_2x)+1\quad \text{ for } x\in{\mathbb{R}}.\label{ieu'}$$ and $$u_1(x):=\frac1{A_1}-\exp(-A_1x)\geq u(x)\geq -\exp(-A_2x)=: u_2(x).\label{ubd1}$$ We refer to @LM15 and @LM15n for more precisions and for the following results:
\[eos\] Let $\left(T,X_0,R_0\right)\in\;]0,\infty[\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$, then there exists a unique optimal strategy $\xi^*\in\dot{{\mathcal{X}}}^1(T,X_0)$ for the maximization problem , which satisfies $$V(T,X_0,R_0)=\sup_{\xi\in\dot{{\mathcal{X}}}^1(T, X_0)}{\mathbb{E}}[u({\mathcal{R}}_{T}^{\xi})]={\mathbb{E}}\Big[u\big({\mathcal{R}}^{\xi^*}_T\big)\Big],\label{omp1}$$
\[v\_r\] The value function is concave and continuously partially differentiable in its third argument $R$, and we have the formula $$V_r(T,X,R)={\mathbb{E}}\big[u'\big({\mathcal{R}}_T^{\xi^*}\big)\big],$$ where $\xi^*$ is the optimal strategy associated to $V(T,X,R)$.
The following result requires the notion of a comparison principle; see the Definition \[adv\] below for a precise formulation.
\[cv\] The value function $V$ fulfils a comparison principle and is thus the unique viscosity solution of the following HJB-equation with singularity $$\begin{aligned}
-V_t +\frac{X^\top \Sigma X}{2}V_{rr}&+b\cdot X V_r+\sup_{\eta\in {\mathbb{R}}^d}\Big(\eta ^{\top}\nabla_x V-f(\eta)V_r\Big)T,X,R)=0,
\label{hjb}\\
V(0,X,R)&= \lim_{T\downarrow 0}V(T,X,R)=\begin{cases}
u(R),& \text{if}\; X=0\\
-\infty,& \text{otherwise}.\\
\end{cases}\label{hjbic}
\end{aligned}$$
Auxiliary HJB equation, vanishing singularity and comparison result
===================================================================
In this section we consider the following HJB equation: $$\begin{aligned}
W_t -b\cdot X\,W_r - \frac{X^\top\Sigma X}2 \big(W_{rr}&+(W_r)^2\big)+\sup_{\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^d}(\xi\cdot\nabla_xW+f(-\xi)W_r)=0\label{hjba}\\
W(0,X,R)= \lim_{T\downarrow 0}W(T,X,R)&=\begin{cases}
\log (B-u(R)),& \text{if}\; X=0,\\
\infty,& \text{otherwise},\\
\end{cases}\label{hjbia}
\end{aligned}$$ where $u$ denotes our utility function and $B\geq0$ is such that $B-u>0$ on ${\mathbb{R}}$ (such a $B$ exists, since the utility function considered is bounded from above). We wish to show the equivalency between both preceding equations the viscosity sense. To this end, we recall briefly the definitions of viscosity sub- and supersolutions for continuous solutions. Consider a nonlinear second-order degenerate partial differential equation\
$$F(T-t,x,r,v(T-t,x,r),v_t(t,x,r),\nabla_x v(t,x,r),v_r(t,x,r),v_{rr}(t,x,r))=0,\label{ape}$$\
where $F$ is a continuous function on $]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ taking values in ${\mathbb{R}}$, with a fixed $T>0$ and $(t,x,r)\in\;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ with the following assumption: For all $(t,x,r,q,p,s,m)\in\;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$ and $a,b\in{\mathbb{R}}$, we assume $$F(T-t,x,r,q,p,s,m,a)\leq F(T-t,x,r,q,p,s,m,b)\text{ if } a\geq b.$$
\[adv\] Let $v: \;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}\longrightarrow {\mathbb{R}}$ be a continuous function.
1. We say that $v$ is a *viscosity subsolution* of if for every $\varphi\in {\mathcal{C}}^{1,1,2}(]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}})$ and every $(t^*,x^*,r^*)\in [0,T[\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, when $v-\varphi$ attains a local maximum at $(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)\in\;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, we have $$F(.,v,\varphi_t,\nabla_x \varphi,\varphi_r,\varphi_{rr})(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)\leq0.
\label{asub}$$
2. We say that $v$ is a *viscosity supersolution* of if for every $\varphi\in {\mathcal{C}}^{1,1,2}(]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}})$ and every $(t^*,x^*,r^*)\in [0,T[\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, when $v-\varphi$ attains a local minimum at $(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)\in\;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, we have $$F(.,v,\varphi_t,\nabla_x \varphi,\varphi_r,\varphi_{rr})(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)\geq0.
\label{asup}$$
3. We say that $v$ is a *viscosity solution* of the equation if $v$ is a viscosity subsolution and supersolution.
4. We say that has a comparison result, if for any subsolution $U$ and any supersolution $U$ satisfying the boundary condition $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{t\rightarrow 0} \big(U(t,x,r)-V(t,x,r)\big)&\leq 0, \quad \text{ for fixed } x,r\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $U\leq V$ on $]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$.
\[vef\] $U$ is a viscosity subsolution (resp., $V$ is a viscosity supersolution) of if and only if $\log(B-U)$ is a viscosity supersolution (resp., $\log(B-V)$ is a viscosity subsolution) of .
We prove the following equivalence: $U$ is a viscosity subsolution of if and only if $\log (B-U)$ is a viscosity supersolution of . The other equivalence, i.e., $V$ is a viscosity supersolution of if and only if $\log(B-V)$ is a viscosity subsolution of , can be treated similarly.
To this end, take $U$ a viscosity subsolution of , $\varphi\in {\mathcal{C}}^{1,1,2}(]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}})$ and $(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)$ such that $(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)$ is a local minimizer of $\log(B-U)-\varphi$. We can w.l.o.g. suppose that $(\log(B-U)-\varphi)(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)=0$. Hence, we have that $B-U=\exp(\varphi)$ at $(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)$, and therefore it follows that $(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)$ is a local maximizer of $U-B+\exp(\varphi)$ (and also of $U+\exp(\varphi))$. We compute now the following derivatives of $\psi:=-\exp(\varphi)$ at $(T-t,x,r)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_t&=-\varphi_t\psi,&\psi_r&=\varphi_r\psi,\\
\psi_{rr}&=(\varphi_{rr}+(\varphi_r)^2)\psi,&\nabla_x\psi&=\nabla_x\varphi\psi.\end{aligned}$$ Since $U$ is viscosity subsolution of , we can write:
[rCl]{}\
&=& (-\_t+bX()\_r+ 2 \_[rr]{}+ 2(\_r)\^2\
&&-\_[\^d]{}(-\_x+f()\_r))(T-t\^\*,x\^\*,r\^\*)\
&& 0.
Hence, we get that $$\varphi_t-b\cdot x\,(\varphi)_r- \frac{X^\top\Sigma X}2 \big(\varphi_{rr} +(\varphi_r)^2\big)+\sup_{\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^d}\big(\xi\cdot\nabla_x\varphi+f(-\xi)\varphi_r)\geq 0,$$ at $(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)$, which proves the one direction.
The converse direction can be proved in a very similar way.
We show now that a comparison principle also holds for .
\[p\] Let $W$ (resp., $\widetilde{W}$) be a continuous viscosity subsolution (resp., continuous viscosity supersolution) of , defined on $]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$, which satisfies the growth conditions $$\log(B-V_2(t,x,r))\geq v(t,x,r)\geq \log(B-V_1(t,x,r)), \text{ for all }(t,x,r)\in\;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}},\label{gc}$$ where $v$ can be chosen to be $W$ or $\widetilde{W}$. Further, we suppose that $W$ and $\widetilde{W}$ satisfy the boundary conditions $$\begin{aligned}
\limsup_{t\rightarrow 0} W(t,x,r)-\widetilde{W}(t,x,r)&\leq 0, \quad \text{ for fixed } x,r\in{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}.\label{u-v0}\end{aligned}$$ Then $W\leq \widetilde{W}$ on $]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$.
We write $\widetilde{W}=\log(B-\widetilde{U})$ and $W=\log(B-U)$. Then, by applying Proposition \[vef\] we have that $U$ is a supersolution (resp., $\widetilde{U}$ is a subsolution) of , and satisfies $$\limsup_{T\downarrow 0} (U-\widetilde{U})(T,X_0,R_0)\geq 0.$$ Thus, as fulfils a comparison principle, we have that $U\geq \widetilde{U}$, which implies that $W\leq\widetilde{W}$ on $]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$.
The preceding important result permit us to relax the exponential growth condition imposed on the value function. By using an affine transform of the preceding HJB equation, with an adequate function, we will also be able to remove the singularity in the initial condition. To this end, we first need to prove the following fundamental proposition.
\[iws\] Define $\tilde{u}(T,X_0,R_0):=\log (B-u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))$, and let $V$ denote the value function of the maximization problem with initial condition . Then $\tilde{u}\in{\mathcal{C}}^{1,1,2}(]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}})$ and verifies $$\lim_{T\downarrow0}\log(B-V(T,X_0,R_0))-\tilde{u}(T,X_0,R_0)=0,$$ locally uniformly in $ (X_0,R_0)$.
It is sufficient to prove that, for $X_0\neq0$, it holds $$\lim_{T\downarrow0}\frac{V(T,X_0,R_0)}{u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))}= 1.$$ Toward this end, consider first the linear strategy $\zeta:=X_0/T\in\dot{{\mathcal{X}}}^1(T,X_0)$. We want to show that $$\lim_{T\downarrow0}\frac{{\mathbb{E}}\big[u({\mathcal{R}}^\zeta_T)\big]}{u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))}=1,\label{lvu}$$ where $${\mathcal{R}}^\zeta_T=R_0+X_0\int^T_0(1-t/T)\sigma^\top\,dB_t+\frac{T}2b\cdot X_0-Tf(-X_0/T).$$ But we have
[rCl]{} &=&\
&=&\
&&+\
&&u (R\_0+2bX\_0-Tf(X\_0/T)-2A\_2|X\_0|\^2T||)\
&&+\
&&u (R\_0+2bX\_0-Tf(X\_0/T)-2A\_2|X\_0|\^2T||)\
&&+\
&=&u (R\_0+2bX\_0-Tf(X\_0/T)-2A\_2|X\_0|\^2T||).
And this implies that $$\liminf_{T\downarrow0}\frac{u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))}{{\mathbb{E}}\big[u({\mathcal{R}}^\zeta_T)\big]}\geq1.$$ Let now $\xi^*$ be the optimal strategy associated to $V(T,X_0,R_0)$. Observe that applying Jensen’s inequality to the convex function $f$ and the concave function $u$ yields the inequality $${\mathbb{E}}\big[u\big({\mathcal{R}}^{\xi^*}_T\big)\big]\leq u\bigg({\mathbb{E}}\bigg[R_0+\int^T_0 X^{\xi^*}_t\cdot b\,dt-Tf(-X_0/T)\bigg]\bigg).$$ As $\xi^*\in\dot{{\mathcal{X}}}^1(T,X_0)$, we can find an $M>0$ such that ${\mathbb{E}}[\int^T_0 X^{\xi^*}_t\cdot b\,dt]\leq |b|MT$. And therefore we have $${\mathbb{E}}\big[u\big({\mathcal{R}}^{\xi^*}_T\big)\big]\leq u\Big(R_0+|b|MT-Tf(-X_0/T)\Big).\label{vfi}$$ Using the fact that, for $T$ close enough to $0$, both $V(T,X_0,R_0)$ and $u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))$ are negative, we finally get $$\liminf_{T\downarrow0}\frac{V(T,X_0,R_0)}{u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))}\geq \liminf_{T\downarrow0}\frac{u(R_0+|b|MT-Tf(-X_0/T))}{u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))}= 1.\label{u}$$ Since $\xi^*$ is optimal (and hence $V(T,X_0,R_0)\geq{\mathbb{E}}\big[u({\mathcal{R}}^\zeta_T)\big]$), we also have $$\begin{aligned}
1\geq&\limsup_{T\downarrow0}\frac{V(T,X_0,R_0)}{{\mathbb{E}}\big[u({\mathcal{R}}^\zeta_T)\big]}\\
=&\limsup_{T\downarrow0}\frac{V(T,X_0,R_0)u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))}{{\mathbb{E}}\big[u({\mathcal{R}}^\zeta_T)\big]u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))}\\
=&\limsup_{T\downarrow0}\frac{V(T,X_0,R_0)}{u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))}\cdot\liminf_{T\downarrow0}\frac{u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))}{{\mathbb{E}}\big[u({\mathcal{R}}^\zeta_T)\big]}\\
=&\limsup_{T\downarrow0}\frac{V(T,X_0,R_0)}{u(R_0-Tf(-X_0/T))}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining the preceding inequality with concludes the proof
\[bcs\] The preceding proof remains unchanged if we send $|R_0|$ to infinity (instead of sending $T$ to $0$), other parameters being fixed. Thus, we have that $$\lim_{R_0\rightarrow\pm\infty}\log(B-V(T,X_0,R_0))-\log(B-u(R_0-Tf(X_0/T))=0.$$ This will later enable us to set $\log(B-u(R_0-Tf(X_0/T))$ as a boundary condition, when taking $|R_0|$ large enough in our scheme (since we will work with a finite grid in the numerical examples); however, in general, $$\lim_{|X_0|\rightarrow \infty}\log(B-V(T,X_0,R_0))-\log(B-u(R_0-Tf(X_0/T))\neq0,$$ for $T\neq0$.
For $\tilde{u}$ as in the preceding proposition, we consider now the following auxiliary equation with zero as initial condition for : $$\begin{aligned}
(W+\tilde{u})_t &-b\cdot X\,(W+\tilde{u})_r- \frac{X^\top\Sigma X}2\big( (W+\tilde{u})_{rr}+((W+\tilde{u})_r)^2\big)\notag\\
&+\sup_{\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^d}\big(\xi\cdot\nabla_x(W+\tilde{u})+f(-\xi)(W+\tilde{u})_r)=0,&\label{hab}\\
& \lim_{T\downarrow 0}W(T,X,R)\label{habi}=0.& \end{aligned}$$
Note that we can rewrite in the following way: $$\begin{aligned}
0&=(W+\tilde{u})_t -b\cdot X\,(W+\tilde{u})_r - \frac{X^\top\Sigma X}2 \big((W+\tilde{u})_{rr}+ ((W+\tilde{u})_r)^2\big)\\
&-(W+\tilde{u})_r f^*\bigg(-\frac{\nabla_x(W+\tilde{u})}{(W+\tilde{u})_r}\bigg),\end{aligned}$$ where $f^*$ denotes the Fenchel-Legendre transformation of $f$. [ 9999 ]{}
The next proposition states that the notion of viscosity solutions of and viscosity solutions of is equivalent, and moreover, a comparison result holds.
\[cpb\] $W$ is a viscosity subsolution (resp., supersolution) of with initial condition if and only if $W-\tilde{u}$ is a viscosity subsolution (resp., supersolution) of with initial condition . Moreover, a comparison principle holds for .
This is a straightforward application of Proposition \[p\] and the definition of viscosity solutions: we have that $\varphi$ is a test function for $W$, when applied to , if and only if $\varphi-\tilde{u}$ is a test function for $W-\tilde{u}$, when applied to .
Numerical schemes and convergence results
=========================================
In this section, our goal is to prove a convergence result, similar to the one derived in @BS91. However, we will have to relax their conditions in order to ensure that finite difference schemes applied to our numerical examples will converge, locally uniformly, to the unique viscosity solution of . Let us now introduce the definition of a numerical scheme, in our setting.
Barles-Souganidis convergence result
------------------------------------
\[sd\] A numerical scheme for with initial condition is an equation of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
S(h,t,x,r,w_h(t,x,r),[w_h]_{t,x,r})&=0, \quad \text{ for } (t,x,r)\in {\mathbb{G}}_h\backslash \{t=0\},\label{ds}\\
w_h(0,x,r)&=0,\quad \text{ in } {\mathbb{G}}_h\cap\{t=0\},\label{dsic}\end{aligned}$$ where $S$ is locally bounded, $h:=\max(|\Delta t|, |\Delta x|, |\Delta r|)$ denotes the size of the mesh, and $${\mathbb{G}}_h:=\Delta t\cdot\{0,1,\dots,n_T\}\times\Delta x\cdot {\mathbb{Z}}^d\times \Delta r\cdot{\mathbb{Z}}.$$ The quantity $w_h$ represents the approximation of $w$, and $[w_h]_{t,x,r}$ stands for the value of $w_h$ close to $(t,x,r)$.
In order to have an analogous result to the Barles-Souganidis convergence theorem that can be applied to our numerical schemes, we need to slightly modify the three conditions required in @BS91.
A numerical scheme $S$ is said to be
- *locally $\delta$-monotone* if there exists $\delta>0$ such that whenever $|w-v|\leq\delta$: if $w\geq v$ on an open bounded set $O\subset\;]0,T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$, then $$S(h,t,x,r,z,w)\leq S(h,t,x,r,z,v),$$ for all $h>0,\; (t,x,r)\in O$ and $z\in\;]-S_O,S_O[$, where $S_O:=\sup_{y\in O}|w(y)|+1$. Here, $w\geq v$ is to be understood componentwise.
- *consistent* if, for every $\varphi\in {\mathcal{C}}^{1,1,2}(]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}})$ and every $(t,x,r)\in [0,T[\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{S(h,t,x,r,\varphi(t,x,r), [\varphi+m ]_{t,x,r})}\\
&&\underset{\substack{
m\to0\\
h\to0
}}{\longrightarrow}\big((\varphi+\widetilde{u})_t -\frac{x^\top\Sigma x}2(\varphi+\tilde{u})_r^2-\inf_{\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^d}\widetilde{{\mathcal{L}}}^{\xi}(\varphi+\tilde{u})\big)(t,x,r),\end{aligned}$$ locally uniformly in $(t,x,r)$, with $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde{{\mathcal{L}}}^{\xi}(\varphi+\tilde{u})\big)(t,x,r)&=&\frac{x^\top\Sigma x}2 (\varphi+\tilde{u})_{rr}+b\cdot x\,(\varphi+\tilde{u})_r \\
&& -\big(\xi\cdot\nabla_x(\varphi+\tilde{u})+f(-\xi)(\varphi+\tilde{u})_r\big)(t,x,r).\end{aligned}$$
- *(locally) stable* if there exists $\delta>0$ such that, for every $\delta>h>0$ and every open bounded set $O\subset\;]0,T[\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, there is a locally bounded solution $w_h$ of satisfying $$\sup_{h>0} |w_h|\leq C_O \text{ on }\; O,$$ where $C_O$ is a constant depending only on $O$.
1. In the preceding definition, the monotonicity property as defined in @BS91 (i.e., monotonicity of the scheme without requiring an additional control of $|w-v|$) can be replaced by our $\delta$-monotonicity, as mentioned by @Ta11.
2. The local stability is equivalent to the one used by Barles and Souganidis, due to the local property of the viscosity solution.
3. Since the viscosity solution of is continuous and has a partial derivative in its third variable (Theorem \[v\_r\]), the approximation $w_h$ can be chosen among the same class of functions. Moreover, as this partial derivative has locally a strictly negative upper bound, we can suppose that the analogous boundedness property also holds for $w_h$.
4. As for the comparison principle, the monotonicity property is crucial, and without this assumption the scheme may fail to converge to the unique viscosity solution, as it can be seen in, e.g., @PF03 or @O06nn. This property is in practice the most difficult one to prove, due to the nonlinearity of our HJB equation, as we will see in the next section.
[ 9999 ]{}
We can now state and show the fundamental theorem of this chapter.
\[bsc\] Suppose that the numerical scheme $S$ is $\delta$-monotone, consistent, and locally stable. Then, the solution $w_h$ of converges, locally uniformly on the set $]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$, to the unique continuous viscosity solution of .
Take $(t,x,r)\in\;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$ and let us define $w^*,w_*$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
w^*(t,x,r):= \limsup _{\begin{subarray}{c} h \to 0 \\ (t',x',r') \to (t,x,r) \end{subarray}} w_h(t',x',r') \quad\text{and}\quad
w_*(t,x,r):= \liminf _{\begin{subarray}{c} h \to 0 \\ (t',x',r') \to (t,x,r)\end{subarray}} w_h(t',x',r').\label{wssd}
\end{aligned}$$ These quantities are known as the classical half-relaxed limits and, due to the local stability assumption, $w^*$ and $w_*$ are well-defined. Suppose first that $w^*$ and $w_*$ are viscosity sub- and supersolution of , respectively, and verify $$\limsup_{t\rightarrow 0} w^*(t,x,r)-w_*(t,x,r)\leq 0, \label{vssl}$$ whence we can infer (Proposition \[cpb\]) that $w^*\leq w_*$. Since we also have that $w^*\geq w_*$, by definition , we then obtain that $w^*=w_*$ is the unique viscosity solution of . Hence, it is sufficient to show that $w^*$ and $w_*$ are viscosity sub- and supersolution of , respectively.
We start by proving that $w^*$ is a subsolution. To this end, take $\varphi\in {\mathcal{C}}^{1,1,2}(]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}})$ such that $w^*-\varphi$ attains its maximum on a bounded open set $O,$ at some $(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)\in\;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$. As already argued, by translating $\varphi$ if necessary, we can w.l.o.g suppose that $$(w^*-\varphi)(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)=0,\label{0}$$ and that this maximum can be taken as strict. Due to the definition of $w^*$, we can find sequences $h_n$ and $(T-t^{h_n},x^{h_n},r^{h_n})\in O$, such that $h_n\downarrow0,\;(T-t^{h_n},x^{h_n},r^{h_n})\to(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)
$ and $$(w_{h_n}-\varphi)(T-t^{h_n},x^{h_n},r^{h_n})-h_n\uparrow (w^*-\varphi)(T-t^*,x^*,r^*). \label{52}$$ Hence, by taking a subsequence if necessary, we have that $(w_{h_n}-\varphi)$ also attains its maximum on $O$, at some $(T-t^{h_n},x^{h_n},r^{h_n})$, i.e., $$w_{h_n}(T-t,x,r)\leq \varphi (T-t,x,r)+ (w_{h_n}-\varphi)(T-t^{h_n},x^{h_n}).$$ Indeed, for $(T-t,x,r)\in O$ we can write on one hand $$\begin{aligned}
(w^*-\varphi)(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)&>(w^*-\varphi)(T-t,x,r)\\
&= \limsup _{\begin{subarray}{c} h \to 0 \\ (t',x',r') \to (t,x,r) \end{subarray}} w_h(t',x',r')-\varphi(T-t,x,r)\\
&\geq w_{h_n}(T-t,x,r)-\varphi(T-t,x,r)-h_n,\end{aligned}$$ due to , for all $n$ taken large enough. On the other hand, we can also write (by using again ) $$\begin{aligned}
(w^*-\varphi)(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)&\geq(w_{h_n}-\varphi)(T-t^{h_n},x^{h_n},r^{h_n})-h_n\\
&>(w^*-\varphi)(T-t,x,r),\end{aligned}$$ for some $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$ taken large enough. Further, using and the continuity of both $w_{h_n}$ (see preceding remark) and $\varphi$ (taking $O$ smaller if necessary), we have that $|w_{h_n}-(\varphi+m_n)|\leq \delta$ on $O$, where $$m_n:=(w_{h_n}-\varphi)(T-t^{h_n},x^{h_n},r^{h_n}).$$ Applying the $\delta$-monotonicity property of the scheme to $\varphi+m_n$ and using the fact that $w_{h_n}$ is a solution of yields: $$S(h^n,T-t^{h_n},x^{h_n},r^{h_n},\varphi(T-t^{h_n},x^{h_n},r^{h_n}), [\varphi+m_n]_{t,x,r})\leq 0.$$ Utilizing moreover the fact that, as $h^n\to0,$ it holds that $m_n\to (w^*-\varphi)(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)$ and the consistency of the scheme, we infer that $$\bigg((\varphi+\widetilde{u})_t -\frac{(x^*)^\top\Sigma x^*}2(\varphi+\tilde{u})_r^2-\inf_{\xi\in {\mathbb{R}}^d}\widetilde{{\mathcal{L}}}^{\xi}(\varphi+\tilde{u})\bigg)(T-t^*,x^*,r^*)\leq0,$$ which proves that $w^*$ is a subsolution of . In the same manner, we can prove that $w_*$ is a viscosity supersolution. Since we also have that is verified, due to , our theorem is established.
In the next step, we are going to apply the preceding results to construct converging numerical schemes. In particular, we will deal with two types of schemes: explicit and implicit schemes. While the first one is easy to apply, it also requires us to take a very small time step, compared to the other step parameters, whereas the second one does not have any restriction at all with the time step. It is however essentially more difficult to numerically apply the implicit scheme. For the sake of simplicity, we will restrict ourselves to the three-dimensional case (i.e., $d=1$).
Construction of a converging explicit scheme
--------------------------------------------
Establishing the local $\delta$-monotonicity property of a scheme can be very challenging, in general, even in linear cases. This is mostly the case for explicit schemes for the equation , which shows that the Barles-Souganidis convergence result is quite difficult to apply, here. Before we construct such a scheme, we first need to make the following assumptions:
\[lo\] We restrict ourselves to the situation where the solution of is locally Lipschitz-continuous in the second parameter $x$, i.e., for every bounded set $O\subset\;]0,T[\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, there exists $L_O>0$ such that, for every $(t,x,r)\in O$ we have $$\limsup_{h\rightarrow0}\bigg|\frac{W(t,x+h,r)-W(t,x,r)}h\bigg|\leq L_O.$$ We suppose that this is also the case for the partial derivative $W_r$, i.e., for every bounded set $O\subset\;]0,T[\times{\mathbb{R}}^{d}\times{\mathbb{R}}$, there exists $\overline{K}'_O>0$ such that, for every $(t,x,r)\in O$ $$\limsup_{h\rightarrow0}\bigg|\frac{W_r(t,x,r+h)-W_r(t,x,r)}h\bigg|\leq \overline{K}'_O.$$
Since $W_r$ is continuous, we automatically have that $W$ is locally Lipschitz-continuous in its third parameter, $r$. Hence, there exists $\overline{K}_O>0$ such that, for every $(t,x,r)\in~O$ $$\limsup_{h\rightarrow0}\bigg|\frac{W(t,x,r+h)-W(t,x,r)}h\bigg|\leq \overline{K}_O.$$
Even by considering a simple standard explicit scheme with no drift, it seems to be difficult, even impossible, to establish a condition on $\Delta t, \Delta x, \Delta r$ such that such scheme fulfils a (local) monotonicity property. We thus need to modify our preceding scheme by taking into account the following facts:
1. Starting from the upwind schemes for $\tilde{w}_x$, $$\tilde{w}_x=\tilde{w}_i-\tilde{w}_{i-1}\quad \text{and} \quad-\tilde{w}_x=\tilde{w}_i-\tilde{w}_{i+1},$$ and using $|x|=\max(x,-x)$, $x^2=|x|^2,$ we can obtain the following scheme for $\tilde{w}_x^2$: $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde{w}_x^2&=\frac1{\Delta x} \max (\tilde{w}_i-\tilde{w}_{i-1},\tilde{w}_i-\tilde{w}_{i+1},0)^2,\end{aligned}$$ in which we omit the index of the non-concerned terms.
2. Since $W_r$ is continuous, we can approximate it by either $(\tilde{w}_{k}-\tilde{w}_{k-1})/\Delta r$ or $(\tilde{w}_{k+1}-\tilde{w}_{k})/\Delta r$. Since $V_r$ is strictly positive on $]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$, we have that $W_r=\log(B-V)_r$ is strictly negative and hence, on every bounded set $O\subset\;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$ there exists $K_O>0$ such that $W_r<-K_O$ on $O$. Thus, we can suppose that $$\max\big\{(\tilde{w}_{k+1}-\tilde{w}_{k})/\Delta r,(\tilde{w}_{k}-\tilde{w}_{k-1})/\Delta r\big\} <-K_O.\label{ko}$$
These considerations show that we may have to consider the following explicit scheme:
[rCl]{}\
&=&+12()\^2 (\_[i,k]{}\^n -\_[i,k-1]{}\^n +\_[i,k]{}\^n-\_[i,k+1]{}\^n -(\_[i,k]{}\^n -\_[i,k+1]{}\^n )\^2)\
&&-.
Its stencil is represented below:\
\(m) \[matrix of math nodes, row sep=3em, column sep=3em\][ & \^[n]{}\_[i,k+1]{}& &\
\^[n]{}\_[i-1,k]{} &\^[n]{}\_[i,k]{} & \^[n]{}\_[i+1,k]{} &\
&\^[n]{}\_[i,k-1]{} & \^[n+1]{}\_[i,k]{}&\
]{}; (m-1-2) \[densely dotted\] edge (m-2-2) (m-2-1) edge (m-2-2) (m-2-2)edge (m-2-3) (m-3-2)edge (m-2-2); (m-2-2) edge (m-3-3);
In the following, we show that this scheme converges to the unique viscosity solution of . We begin by proving the local $\delta$-monotonicity of the scheme, where it is moreover shown that $\delta$ can be taken as $1/2$. To this end, take an open bounded set $O\subset\;]0,T]\times {\mathbb{R}}^d\times{\mathbb{R}}$. First, note that our scheme $S$ is unconditionally decreasing in $\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}$. It is also nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^n$ and in $\tilde{w}^n_{i-1,k}$ (recall that $(\tilde{w}_{k}-\tilde{w}_{k-1})/\Delta r<0$). Further, $S$ is nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k+1}$ for $|\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k+1}|\leq1/2$, because the function $x-x^2$ is nondecreasing for $-1/2\leq x\leq 1/2$.\
We now prove that $S$ is nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}$. This is the most difficult part of proving the monotonicity property of $S$, and we will only give a sufficient condition for it (CFL-type condition).\
$\max\big(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^n,\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^n,0 \big)=0$.\
Consider the function $$\psi_1: \tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}\longmapsto -\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}+ \frac{\Delta t}2\bigg(\frac{i\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\bigg)^2 \big(2\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-(\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k+1})^2\big),$$ whose derivative is given by $$\psi'_1: \tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}\longmapsto -1+ \frac{\Delta t}2\bigg(\frac{i\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\bigg)^2 \big(2-2(\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k+1})\big).$$ Then, for $|\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k+1}|\leq1/2$ and $\displaystyle{3\Delta t/2(i\Delta x\sigma/\Delta r)^2}\leq1$, we have that $\psi'_1\leq0$, and $S$ is hence nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n$.\
$\max\big(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^n,\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^n,0 \big)\neq 0$.\
We can suppose w.l.o.g. that $\max\big(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^n,\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^n,0 \big)=\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^n$. Consider now the following function: $$\psi_2: \tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}\longmapsto -\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}+ \frac{\Delta t}2\bigg(\frac{i\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\bigg)^2 \big(2\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-(\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k+1})^2\big)
-\frac{\Delta r\Delta t}{4\lambda(\Delta x)^2}\frac{(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^n)^2 }{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^n},$$ whose derivative is given by
[rCl]{}\
&&-.
As $W$ is known to be continuous, it is uniformly continuous on any bounded set $O\subset\;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ (where $\overline{O}\subset \;]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$) and thus, there exists $h>0$ such that $|\tilde{w}^{m}_{j,l}-\tilde{w}^{m'}_{j',l'}|\leq1/2,$ for $|(m,j,l)-(m',j',l')|\leq h$. We denote by $X_O$ the maximum value of $|i\Delta x|$ on $O\cap{\mathbb{R}}$. Using the fact that $|(\tilde{w}^{m}_{j,l}-\tilde{w}^{m}_{j+1,l})/\Delta r|\geq K_O$ on $O$ (due to ), we infer $$\begin{aligned}
\psi'_2( \tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k})&\leq -1+ \frac{3\Delta t}2\bigg(\frac{i\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\bigg)^2 +\frac{\Delta r\Delta t}{4\lambda(\Delta x)^2}\frac{(1/2)(3/2) }{(\Delta r)^2K_O^2}\\
&= -1+ \frac{3\Delta t}{8\lambda}\bigg(\frac{(i\Delta x\sigma)(\Delta x)^2 +\Delta r}{(\Delta x)^2(\Delta r)^2K_O^2}\bigg)\\
&\leq 0,\end{aligned}$$ for $$\frac{3\Delta t}{8\lambda}\bigg(\frac{(X_O\sigma)^2(\Delta x)^2K_O^2+\Delta r}{(\Delta r)^2(\Delta x)^2 K_O^2}\bigg)\leq 1.\label{cfl1}$$ The condition can be regarded as the Courant Friedrichs Lewy (CFL) condition for this explicit scheme.\
It remains to prove the consistency and local stability of the scheme. Classical computations using the Taylor expansion yield: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n}+\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k-1}-2\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n}}{(\Delta r)^2}&=\tilde{w}_{rr}(n\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r)\\
&\quad+\>\frac1{12}\tilde{w}_{rrrr}(n\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r) (\Delta r)^2+ o(\Delta r)^2,\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n}-\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} }{\Delta r}&=\tilde{w}_r(n\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r)+\frac12\tilde{w}_{rr}(n\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta_r)\Delta r\\
&\quad+\>o(\Delta r),\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n}-\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n} }{\Delta r}&=\tilde{w}_r(n\Delta t, i\Delta x, (k-1)\Delta r)\\
&\quad+\>\frac12\tilde{w}_{rr}(n\Delta t, i\Delta x, (k-1)\Delta_r)\Delta r+o(\Delta r),\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^{n}-\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n}}{\Delta x}&=\tilde{w}_x(n\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r)+\frac12\tilde{w}_{xx}(n\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r)\Delta x\\
&\quad+\>o(\Delta x),\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n}-\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^{n}}{\Delta x}&=\tilde{w}_x(n\Delta t, (i-1)\Delta x, k\Delta r)\\
&\quad+\>\frac12\tilde{w}_{xx}(n\Delta t, (i-1)\Delta x, k\Delta r)\Delta x+o(\Delta x),\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n }{\Delta_t}&=\tilde{w}_t((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r)+\frac12\tilde{w}_{tt}(n\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta_r)\Delta t\\
&\quad+\>o(\Delta t).
\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the consistency of the scheme follows from the continuity of the auxiliary HJB operator (note that the truncation error is at most of order one in each parameter, for the approximation of the first derivatives).\
We now prove the local stability. To this end, set ${\mathcal{I}}_O:=\{-p,\dots,p\}\times\{-q,\dots,q\}$, where $p,q\in{\mathbb{N}}$ are the largest possible natural numbers such that $$[-p\Delta x, p\Delta x]\times [-q\Delta r,q\Delta r]\subset P_r(O),$$ with $P_r$ denoting the orthogonal projection of $]0,T]\times{\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$ on ${\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}$. Using Assumption \[lo\], we can write
[rCl]{} |\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{}|&=&|\_[i,k]{}\^n-2()\^2 (\_[i,k]{}\^n -\_[i,k-1]{}\^n +\_[i,k]{}\^n-\_[i,k+1]{}\^n -(\_[i,k]{}\^n -\_[i,k+1]{}\^n )\^2)\
&&+|\
&& |\_[i,k]{}\^n|+ 2(ix)\^2 | -( )\^2|\
&&-\
&& |\_[i,k]{}\^n|+ t(X\_O)\^2(’\_O+\^2\_O)\
&&+\
&& |\_[i,k]{}\^n|+ t(X\_O)\^2(’\_O+\^2\_O)+,
which implies that
[rCl]{} \_[i,k\_O]{}|\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{}|&& \_[i,k\_O]{}|\_[i,k]{}\^0|+ nt(X\_O)\^2(’\_O+\^2\_O) +n\
&=&\_[i,k\_O]{}|\_[i,k]{}\^0|+ T(X\_O)\^2(’\_O+\^2\_O) +\
&<& ,
and this proves the stability of the scheme. We have thus established that this explicit scheme converges to the viscosity solution of .
Let us now consider the more general case. We will need the following lemma.
\[sgi\] Take $X\in{\mathbb{R}}^d$. Then the map $$\begin{array}{rll}
]0,\infty[&\longrightarrow& {\mathbb{R}}\\
\widetilde{f}^*_X:T&\longmapsto &Tf^*\big(-\frac{X}T\big)\\
\end{array}$$ is strictly decreasing in $T$.
First note that, due to the strict convexity of $f$, $f^*$ is also strictly convex and hence fulfills the following subgradient inequality, $$f^*(b)-f^*(a)>(b- a)\cdot \nabla f^*(a).$$ Setting now $b=0$ in the preceding inequality, we get $$a \cdot\nabla f^*(a)> f^*(a)\geq 0,\label{ssgi}$$ because $f^*(0)=0$. Computing the derivative of $\widetilde{f}^*_X$ with respect to $T$ we obtain $$\widetilde{f^*}'_X(T)=f^*\Big(-\frac{X}T\Big)-\frac{X}T\nabla_x f^*\Big(-\frac{X}T\Big),$$ which is strictly negative, due to the preceding subgradient inequality.
Suppose that $f$ is symmetric (i.e., $f(x)=f(-x),\>\; \forall x\in{\mathbb{R}}$) and $b\neq0$. (Note that this symmetry also holds for $f^*$). Since $f^*(w_x)=f^*(|w_x|)$, we obtain the following expression (scheme) for the term $f^*(w_x/w_r)$: $$f^*\bigg(\frac{\Delta r}{\Delta x}\cdot\frac{\max\big(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^{n},\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} -\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^{n} \big) }{ \tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} -\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n} }\bigg).$$ Therefore we can derive the following generalization of the preceding scheme:
[rCl]{}\
&=&+12()\^2 (\_[i,k]{}\^[n]{} -\_[i,k-1]{}\^[n]{} +\_[i,k]{}\^[n]{}-\_[i,k+1]{}\^[n]{}\
&&-(\_[i,k]{}\^[n]{} -\_[i,k+1]{}\^[n]{} )\^2)-bix F\_[b,k]{}(\_[i,k]{}\^n)\
&&-f\^\*(),\
\^0\_[i,k]{}&=&0,
where $$F_{b,k}(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n)=\begin{cases}
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n} -\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} }{\Delta r},& \text{if}\; \operatorname{sgn}(b\cdot i)>0,\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} -\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n} }{\Delta r},& \text{if}\; \operatorname{sgn}(b\cdot i)\leq0.\\
\end{cases}$$ Using Lemma \[sgi\], we have $$-\>\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} -\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n} }{\Delta r}f^*\bigg(\frac{\Delta r}{\Delta x}\frac{\max\big(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^{n},\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} -\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^{n},0 \big) }{ \tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} -\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n} }\bigg)$$ is nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n}$. Due to the definition of $F_{b,k},$ it is also nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n}$, and the scheme is hence unconditionally nonincreasing in this parameter. Noting that $\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n} -\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n}<0$, and using the fact that $f^*$ is decreasing on $]-\infty,0]$ and increasing on $[0,\infty[$ (due to its positivity, convexity and the fact that $f^*(0)=0$), it follows that the scheme is nonincreasing in both $\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^{n}$ and $ \tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^{n}$. Again, the definition of $F_{b,k}$ and the same argumentation as before (for $|\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k+1}|\leq1/2$, as seen above) allow us to deduce that the scheme is nonincreasing in $ \tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n}$. We now present a sufficient condition under which $S$ is nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}$.\
$\max\big(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^n,\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^n,0 \big)=0$.\
Consider the function $$\psi_3: \tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}\longmapsto -\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}+ \frac{\Delta t}2\bigg(\frac{i\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\bigg)^2 \big(\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-(\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k+1})^2\big)-b\cdot i\,\Delta x\Delta t\, F_{b,k}(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n).$$ Its derivative is given by $$\psi'_3: \tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}\longmapsto -1+ \frac{\Delta t}2\bigg(\frac{i\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\bigg)^2 \big(1-2(\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k+1})\big)+|b\cdot i\Delta x|\,\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta r}.$$ Then, for $$|\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n}_{i,k+1}|\leq1/2\quad\text{and}\quad\Delta t\Big(\frac32\Big(\frac{i\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\Big)^2+\frac{|b\cdot i\Delta x|}{\Delta r}\Big)\leq1,$$ we have that $\psi'_3\leq0$, and $S$ is hence nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n$.\
$\max\big(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^n,\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^n,0 \big)\neq 0$.\
We can suppose w.l.o.g. that $\max\big(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^n,\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^n,0 \big)=\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^n$. Consider now the following function
[rCl]{}\
&&-tf\^\*(),
whose derivative is given by
[rCl]{}\
&&-( f\^\*()\
&&+ (f\^\*)’()).
As in the preceding special case, taking $h>0$ such that $|\tilde{w}^{m}_{j,l}-\tilde{w}^{m'}_{j',l'}|\leq1/2$, for $|(m,j,l)-(m',j',l')|\leq h$, and using the fact that $(f^*)'$ is negative on $]-\infty,0[$, nonnegative otherwise and decreasing on the whole of ${\mathbb{R}}$, we can write
[rCl]{}\
&&+ (f\^\*)’()\
&& (f\^\*)’()\
&&-1[x K\_O]{} (f\^\*)’(1[2 x K\_O ]{}).
Finally, we get with the CFL condition $$\Delta t\Big(\frac32\Big(\frac{i\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\Big)^2+\frac{|b\cdot i\Delta x|}{\Delta r}+\frac1{\Delta x \Delta r K_O} (f^*)'\Big(\frac1{2 \Delta x K_O }\Big)\Big)\leq1$$ that $\psi_4'(w_{i,k}^n)\leq 0$, and the scheme is therefore locally $\delta$-monotone.\
The consistency of the scheme can be proved in an analogous manner as above, using the preceding Taylor expansions and the fact that both $\max$ and $f^*$ are continuous functions.\
We have now left to prove the local stability. But here again, using Assumption \[lo\] we get
[rCl]{} |\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{}|&=&|\_[i,k]{}\^n-2()\^2 (\_[i,k]{}\^n -\_[i,k-1]{}\^n +\_[i,k]{}\^n-\_[i,k+1]{}\^n -(\_[i,k]{}\^n -\_[i,k+1]{}\^n )\^2)\
&&-bix t F\_[b,k]{}(\_[i,k]{}\^n)\
&&-tf\^\*()\
&& |\_[i,k]{}\^n|+ 2()\^2 |\_[i,k]{}\^n -\_[i,k-1]{}\^n +\_[i,k]{}\^n-\_[i,k+1]{}\^n -(\_[i,k]{}\^n -\_[i,k+1]{}\^n )\^2|\
&&-|bix|t F\_[b,k]{}(\_[i,k]{}\^n)\
&&-tf\^\*()\
&& |\_[i,k]{}\^n|+ t(X\_O)\^2(’\_O+\^2\_O)+ |b||X\_O|t\_O+\_Ot f\^\*(),
which gives us recursively $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{i,k\in{\mathcal{I}}_O} |\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}|&\leq\max_{i,k\in{\mathcal{I}}_0} |\tilde{w}_{i,k}^0|+ T\bigg(\big(X_O\sigma\big)^2(\overline{K}'_O+\overline{K}^2_O)
+ |b|\big|X_O\big|\overline{K}_O+\overline{K}_O f^*\bigg(\frac{L_O}{K_O}\bigg)\bigg)\\
&<\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Thus, the local stability is proved. This establishes that the preceding explicit scheme indeed converges to the viscosity solution.
Construction of a converging implicit scheme
--------------------------------------------
Proving the $\delta$-monotonicity will turn out to be more obvious for the following implicit scheme than for the preceding explicit one. Moreover, the following implicit scheme will be unconditionally stable. Nevertheless, there will be two main issues which restrict its use. The first one follows from the fact that terms must be obtained by implicit computations, which implies that we have to find them before using them in the scheme (by applying in general a Newton-Raphson method). In this nonlinear case, this will result in an implementation error, which will be combined with the approximation error. The second issue follows from the fact that the local stability is difficult to obtain in practice (due to the appearance of a quotient term and the difficulty of computing the constants $\overline{K_O}$ and $L_{O}$, which will moreover impose restrictions on $\Delta x$ and $\Delta r$), as we will see below. Let us consider the following scheme, where $b=0$, $f(x)=\lambda x^2,$ and $\lambda>0$.
[rCl]{}\
&=&+12()\^2 (\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{} -\_[i,k-1]{}\^[n+1]{} +\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{}-\_[i,k+1]{}\^[n+1]{}\
&&-(\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{} -\_[i,k+1]{}\^[n+1]{} )\^2)-,\
\^0\_[i,k]{}&=&0,
whose stencil is represented below as:\
\(m) \[matrix of math nodes, row sep=3em, column sep=3em\][ \^[n]{}\_[i,k]{}& \^[n+1]{}\_[i,k+1]{}& &\
\^[n+1]{}\_[i-1,k]{} &\^[n+1]{}\_[i,k]{} & \^[n+1]{}\_[i+1,k]{} &\
& \^[n+1]{}\_[i,k-1]{} & \^[n+1]{}\_[i,k]{}&\
]{}; (m-1-1) \[densely dotted\] edge (m-2-2); (m-1-2) edge (m-2-2) (m-2-1) edge (m-2-2) (m-2-2)edge (m-2-3) (m-3-2)edge (m-2-2); (m-2-2) edge (m-3-3);
First, note that $$-\frac{\Delta r}{4\lambda(\Delta x)^2}\cdot\frac{\max\big(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1} -\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^{n+1},\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1} -\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^{n+1},0 \big)^2 }{ \tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1} -\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n+1} }$$ is nonincreasing in both $\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n+1},\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^{n+1}$ and $ \tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^{n+1}$. Take now $h>0$ small enough such that $|\tilde{w}^{n+1}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n+1}_{i,k+1}|\leq 1/2$. Then, $$\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n+1}-(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1} -\tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n+1} \big)^2$$ is nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1} -\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n+1}$, because the function $x-x^2$ is increasing in $x$ for $-1/2\leq x\leq 1/2$. Since the first term is also nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n$, we have thus proved that the scheme is (unconditionally) monotone, for $|w^{n+1}_{i,k}-w^{n+1}_{i,k+1}|\leq 1/2$. It remains to prove its consistency and local stability. Classical computations using the Taylor expansion again yield: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n+1}+\tilde{w}^{n+1}_{i,k-1}-2\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}}{(\Delta r)^2}&=\tilde{w}_{rr}((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r)\\
&\quad+\>\frac1{12}\tilde{w}_{rrrr}((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r) (\Delta r)^2+ o(\Delta r)^2,\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1} }{\Delta r}&=\tilde{w}_r((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r)+\frac12\tilde{w}_{rr}((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta_r)\Delta r\\
&\quad+\>o(\Delta r),\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n+1} }{\Delta r}&=\tilde{w}_r((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, (k-1)\Delta r)\\
&\quad+\>\frac12\tilde{w}_{rr}((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, (k-1)\Delta_r)\Delta r+o(\Delta r),\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}}{\Delta x}&=\tilde{w}_x((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r)+\frac12\tilde{w}_{xx}((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r)\Delta x\\
&\quad+\>o(\Delta x),\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^{n+1}}{\Delta x}&=\tilde{w}_x((n+1)\Delta t, (i-1)\Delta x, k\Delta r)\\
&\quad+\>\frac12\tilde{w}_{xx}((n+1)\Delta t, (i-1)\Delta x, k\Delta r)\Delta x+o(\Delta x),\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n }{\Delta_t}&=\tilde{w}_t((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta r)+\frac12\tilde{w}_{tt}((n+1)\Delta t, i\Delta x, k\Delta_r)\Delta t\\
&\quad+\>o(\Delta t).
\end{aligned}$$ Note that here again the truncation error is only of order one in each parameter for the approximation of the first derivatives. However, this order will be weakened because of implicit computation of the corresponding terms. Hence, the consistency of the scheme follows from the continuity of the auxiliary HJB operator. To prove its local stability, we have to require that $\sigma\Delta x/\Delta r$ is bounded. We use the fact that $$\max\bigg\{\bigg| \frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1} }{\Delta r}\bigg|,\bigg|\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n+1} }{\Delta r}\bigg|\bigg\}\leq\overline{K}_O,$$ on a bounded open set $O$. Due to Assumption \[lo\], we also have that $$\max\bigg\{\bigg| \frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^{n+1} }{\Delta x}\bigg|,\bigg|\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}-\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^{n+1} }{\Delta x}\bigg|\bigg\}\leq L_O.$$ Hence, expressing the differences as follows:
[rCl]{} \_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{}-\_[i,k]{}\^n&=&2()\^2 (\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{} -\_[i,k-1]{}\^[n+1]{} +\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{}-\_[i,k+1]{}\^[n+1]{}\
&& -(\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{} -\_[i,k+1]{}\^[n+1]{},0 )\^2)\
&&-,\
we finally deduce $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{i,k\in{\mathcal{I}}_O} |\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1}|&\leq\max_{i,k\in{\mathcal{I}}_0} |\tilde{w}_{i,k}^0|+\frac{3n\Delta t}8\bigg(\frac{i\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\bigg)^2+n\Delta t\frac{ L_O^2}{\overline{K}_O }\\
&=\max_{i,k\in{\mathcal{I}}_0} |\tilde{w}_{i,k}^0|+\frac{3T}8\bigg(\frac{i\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\bigg)^2+T\frac{ L_O^2}{\overline{K}_O}\\
&\leq \max_{i,k\in{\mathcal{I}}_0} |\tilde{w}_{i,k}^0|+\frac{3T|I_O|}8\bigg(\frac{\Delta x\sigma}{\Delta r}\bigg)^2+T\frac{ L_O^2}{\overline{K}_O} \\
&\leq \max_{i,k\in{\mathcal{I}}_0} |\tilde{w}_{i,k}^0|+\frac{3T|I_O|}8C^2+T\frac{ L_O^2}{\overline{K}_O},\end{aligned}$$ where $C\geq\sigma\Delta x/\Delta r$. Hence, this proves the stability of the scheme. Thus, the implicit scheme considered converges to the viscosity solution of .
In a more general framework (i.e. $b\neq0$ and $f$ symmetric), as it was the case with the explicit scheme above, we can consider the following scheme:
[rCl]{}\
&=&+12()\^2 (\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{} -\_[i,k-1]{}\^[n+1]{} +\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{}-\_[i,k+1]{}\^[n+1]{}\
&&-(\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{} -\_[i,k+1]{}\^[n+1]{} )\^2)-bix F\_[b,k]{}(\_[i,k]{}\^[n+1]{})\
&&-f\^\*(),\
\^0\_[i,k]{}&=&0,
where $$F_{b,k}(\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1})=\begin{cases}
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n+1} -\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1} }{\Delta r},& \text{if}\; \operatorname{sgn}(b\cdot i)>0,\\
\frac{\tilde{w}_{i,k}^{n+1} -\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n+1} }{\Delta r},& \text{if}\; \operatorname{sgn}(b\cdot i)\leq0.\\
\end{cases}$$ In analogy to the previous argumentation, we can prove that this scheme is again (unconditionally) nonincreasing in $\tilde{w}_{i-1,k}^{n+1},\;\tilde{w}_{i+1,k}^{n+1},\;\tilde{w}_{i,k-1}^{n+1},\;\tilde{w}_{i,k+1}^{n+1}$ and $\tilde{w}_{i,k}^n$ (when taking $h>0$ small enough such that $|\tilde{w}^{n+1}_{i,k}-\tilde{w}^{n+1}_{i,k+1}|\leq 1/2$), and it is therefore monotone.\
The consistency of the scheme can be proved in the same manner as beforehand, by using the preceding Taylor expansions and the fact that both functions $\max$ and $f^*$ are continuous.\
Using step by step the arguments and computations used to prove the local stability of the explicit version of this scheme also yields its local stability (where here again we have to impose suitable restrictions on $\Delta x$ and $\Delta r$). Hence, this scheme converges to the unique viscosity solution, provided that a method to compute the implicit terms is given.
Numerical examples
==================
In this section, we provide an application of the preceding results. Implementing our implicit schemes is a challenging task, due to mainly the following two reasons. First, classical computations in the spirit of the Newton-Raphson method would become rather involved in our case (because of the nonlinear part). This is due to the fact that, although the quadratic term can be linearized in order to make the task easier, there is still a quotient term to be dealt with. Second, the number of implicit variables to compute at each stage (five terms, as it can be seen in its corresponding stencil above) is another reason why we shall consider here only explicit schemes to visualize the value function of our maximization problem.
Nevertheless, even in the case of explicit schemes, we still face some issues in our modeling. For example, our initial condition involves exponential growth, which means that taking $T$ small leads to large terms in the exponent. Since in most of the available computer programs we cannot use values larger than $\exp(1000)$, no reasonable results are displayed. For instance, Matlab displays “`Inf`” for $\log(\exp(1000))$, instead of displaying $1000$. Moreover, as we consider only bounded domains for the schemes, we have to impose boundary conditions, which results in approximation errors. As mentioned above (see Remark \[bcs\]), we will use the approximated value of $W$ with $R_0$ taken large enough. However, we cannot take it as large as one wants to (see previous argumentation). Last but not least, the evaluation of the lower bound $K_O$ of the partial derivative $W_r$ presents another issue, since the latter one, which is in general difficult to obtain, is necessary to impose a CFL condition on the grid parameters.\
Exponential value function
--------------------------
Let us start with approximating a known solution. In particular, we will thus show the accuracy of our scheme. In @SS07, we have the following explicit formula for the value function of the problem when considering the one-dimensional case with $f(x)=\lambda x^2,\;\lambda>0$, and $u(x)=-\exp(-Ax),\;A>0$: $$V(T,X_0,R_0)=-\exp\bigg(-AR_0+X_0^2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda A^3\sigma^2}2}\coth\bigg(T\sqrt{\frac{A\sigma^2}{2\lambda}}\bigg)\bigg).$$
![Logarithmic representation of the value function (negative values)[]{data-label="fig 5.1"}](exponentialvf.jpg){width="16cm" height="9cm"}
In Figure \[fig 5.1\], we show $\log(-V)$ for $R_0=1,\; \lambda=0.1,\;A=1$ and $\sigma=0.1$. We now wish to approximate $$w(T,X_0,R_0):=\log(-V)(T,X_0,R_0)=-AR_0+X_0^2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda A^3\sigma^2}2}\coth\bigg(T\sqrt{\frac{A\sigma^2}{2\lambda}}\bigg),$$ with the help of the following explicit scheme:
[rCl]{}\
&=&+12()\^2 (\_[i,k]{}\^n -\_[i,k-1]{}\^n +\_[i,k]{}\^n-\_[i,k+1]{}\^n\
&& -(\_[i,k]{}\^n -\_[i,k+1]{}\^n )\^2-,\
\^0\_[i,k]{}-\^0\_[i,k]{}&=&0.
![Implementation of the real solution in our scheme[]{data-label="fig2"}](consistencyscheme.jpg){width="6.5in"}
We cannot directly start with $n=1$ as proposed above, since both $\tilde{w}^0_{i,k}$ and $\tilde{u}^0_{i,k}$ are undefined ($=\infty$), only their differences being defined and equal to 0. Moreover, we will need to impose some boundary conditions.\
First, note that in this simple case $w_r=-A$, and hence $K_O=A$. Therefore, our CFL condition $\eqref{cfl1}$ is here given by $$\frac{3\Delta t}{8\lambda}\bigg(\frac{(X_O\sigma)^2(\Delta x)^2A^2+\Delta r}{(\Delta r)^2(\Delta x)^2 A^2}\bigg)\leq 1.\label{cfl2}$$ In the following, we will show that the preceding CFL condition was taken rather too restrictive, and our scheme does not need to necessarily fulfill it in order to converge. Subsequently we set $$O=\;]0.04,10]\;\times\;]-1,1[\;\times\;]-50,50[,\; dr=0.833,\; dt=0.04\;\text{and}\; dx=0.0333.$$ We show the consistency of the scheme by implementing the real solution of , as shown in figure \[fig2\]. With an absolute value of at most $0.18$, this scheme seems to be very consistent. Using Proposition \[iws\], we set the following initial condition $$w_{i,k}^{1}=\log(B-u(k\Delta r-(i\Delta x)^2/n\Delta t))= -A (k\Delta r+\lambda(i\Delta x)^2/(n\Delta t)).$$ We also have to add boundary conditions in our scheme. We define them as follows: denoting by $\pm x_{\max}:=\pm i_{m} \cdot\Delta x$ and $\pm r_{\max}:=\pm k_{m}\cdot \Delta r$ the extreme values taken by $x$ and $r$, respectively, on the grid, we have to set for $n\geq1$: $$w_{\pm i_m,k}^{n}=\log(B-u(k\Delta r-(x_{\max})^2/n\Delta t)),$$ $$w_{i,\pm k_m}^{n}=\log(B-u(\pm r_{\max}-(i\Delta x)^2/n\Delta t)).$$ As already argued in Remark \[bcs\], this setting could only work out for large values of $R_0$, not for large values of $X_0$. However, in this particular case, this represents a very good setting of the boundary conditions (see figure \[fig3\]). We also display the approximation error (figure \[fis\]). With at most 2.5 % error for small time $T$ (and at most 0.03% from time $T$ larger than 2), our scheme seems to give a very good approximation in this particular case, even if our CFL condition is not satisfied (the left-hand side term of yields here 162.0043).\
![Value returned by the scheme[]{data-label="fig3"}](Ausbruchverfahren.jpg){width="110.00000%"}
![Approximation error for $\lambda=0.1,\sigma=0.1,R_0=-43.3333$ and $A=1$[]{data-label="fis"}](errorapprox.jpg){width="110.00000%"}
Nevertheless, things are not working so well when $B$ is not any longer supposed to be equal to zero, since we now have to deal with the second partial derivative of $w$ in its third parameter (whereas before it was equal to zero), and since the CFL condition can “explode”, due to exponential terms. Let us fix it. To this end, we start with computing a strictly negative upper bound $K_O$, on a bounded set $O$, for $w_r$ (in order to set a CFL condition in our scheme). We compute $$w_r( T,X_0,R_0)=\frac{-A\exp\bigg(-AR_0+X_0^2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda A^3\sigma^2}2}\coth\bigg(T\sqrt{\frac{A\sigma^2}{2\lambda}}\bigg)\bigg)}{1+\exp\bigg(-AR_0+X_0^2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda A^3\sigma^2}2}\coth\bigg(T\sqrt{\frac{A\sigma^2}{2\lambda}}\bigg)\bigg)}.$$ Taking $O=\;]\Delta t;T]\;\times\;]X_{\min};X_{\max}[\;\times\;]R_{\min};R_{\max}[$, and using the fact that $
x\mapsto -\frac{x}{1+x}$ is strictly decreasing for $x>0$, we infer the following upper bound: $$-K_O:=\frac{-A\exp\bigg(-AR_{\max}+x_{\min}^2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda A^3\sigma^2}2}\coth\bigg(T \sqrt{\frac{A\sigma^2}{2\lambda}}\bigg)\bigg)}{1+\exp\bigg(-AR_{\max}+x_{\min}^2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda A^3\sigma^2}2}\coth\bigg(T \sqrt{\frac{A\sigma^2}{2\lambda}}\bigg)\bigg)}\geq w_r( T,X_0,R_0),$$ where $x^2_{\min}:=\inf_{x\in\;]X_{\min};X_{\max}[}x^2$. Calculating this value of $K_O$ for our parameters $R_{\max}=50,\; A=5, \;\lambda=0.1,\;x^2_{\min}=0$ gives us $K_O\leq 10^{-108}$ and a value of the left-hand side of larger than $10^{217}$! To remedy to this issue, while maintaining our parameters $\lambda,\sigma$ and $A$, we have to allow only negative values for $R_0$. For instance, we may take $R_0\in\;]-50,-40[$. In order to set the CFL condition, we take moreover $\Delta t=1/1250$. When implementing the real value in our scheme, we get at most the value $4$ for a time $T$ smaller than one quarter. After this, things are getting better and we have values much closer to zero, more precisely, whose orders are at most $10^{-3}$ (see figure \[fir\]). Further, the approximation error of the real solution seems to be higher here, as represented in figure \[fea\]. With the preceding parameters, the left-hand side of is equal to 0.9009.
![Implementation of the real solution in our scheme for $B=1$.[]{data-label="fir"}](implementationrealsolutionB=1.jpg){width="16.5cm" height="9cm"}
![Approximation error for $B=1$.[]{data-label="fea"}](errorapproxB=1.jpg){width="16.5cm" height="9cm"}
Convex combinations of exponential utility functions
----------------------------------------------------
In this subsection, we suppose that there exist $A_2>1>A_1>0$ and $\mu\in\;]0,1[$ such that $$u(x)=\mu\big(1/A_1-\exp(-A_1x)\big)-(1-\mu)\exp\big(-A_2x).$$ With this formulation of $u$, no well-known explicit formula for the associated value function (and hence for the solution of the associated auxiliary equation) can be given. Note that taking the corresponding convex combination of exponential value functions gives us only a supersolution of the corresponding HJB equation, since the functional on the left-hand side of is subadditiv. Our goal in this section is to give an approximated value of the viscosity solution of $\eqref{hab}$. As discussed previously, we are going to use the explicit scheme to achieve this. Let us start by finding a lower bound $K_O$ for $w_r$. To this end, we use inequalities and and to infer
[rCl]{} w\_r=&=&\
&&\
&& ,
and in the case where $f(x)=\lambda x^2$, we get $$w_r( T,X_0,R_0)=-\frac{1+\exp\bigg(-A_1R_0+X_0^2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda A_1^3\sigma^2}2}\coth\bigg(T\sqrt{\frac{A_1\sigma^2}{2\lambda}}\bigg)\bigg)}{B+\exp\bigg(-A_2R_0+X_0^2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda A_2^3\sigma^2}2}\coth\bigg(T\sqrt{\frac{A_2\sigma^2}{2\lambda}}\bigg)\bigg)}.$$ For the sake of simplicity, take $B=1$ (consequently, we will have to take $\mu/A_1<1$ in order for $\log(B-u)$ to be well-defined), then we obtain with $$O=\;]\Delta t;T]\;\times\;]-X_{\max};X_{\max}[\;\times\;]0;R_{\max}[,$$ the following lower bound: $$w_r( T,X_0,R_0)\leq-\frac{1+\exp(-A_1R_{\max})}{1+\exp\bigg(-A_2R_{\max}+X_{\max}^2\sqrt{\frac{\lambda A_2^3\sigma^2}2}\coth\bigg(T\sqrt{\frac{A_2\sigma^2}{2\lambda}}\bigg)\bigg)}=:-K_O.$$ In the sequel we set: $$O=\;]0.04,10]\;\times\;]-2,2[\;\times\;]0,20[,\; dr=0.8,\; dx=0.1,\; dt=0.013.$$ In Figure \[fig7\], the approximate value of the solution of is displayed.
![Approximated value of the solution of []{data-label="fig7"}](convexcombinationapprox.jpg){width="110.00000%"}
In Figure \[fig8\], we give an approximated representation of the value function of . Note that the approximate displayed value function is concave for a fixed time when $x$ takes values far enough from the boundaries (e.g., $x\in [-1.45;1.45]$), which is in concordance with Theorem \[v\_r\].
![Approximated value of the solution of []{data-label="fig8"}](convexcombinationvf.jpg){width="110.00000%"}
[13]{} \[1\][\#1]{} \[1\][`#1`]{} urlstyle \[1\][doi: \#1]{}
G. Barles and E. R. Jakobsen. On the convergence rate of approximation schemes for [H]{}amilton-[J]{}acobi-[B]{}ellman equations. *M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal.*, 360 (1):0 33–54, 2002. ISSN 0764-583X. [doi: ]{}[10.1051/m2an:2002002]{}. URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/m2an:2002002>.
G. Barles and P. E. Souganidis. Convergence of approximation schemes for fully nonlinear second order equations. *Asymptotic Anal.*, 40 (3):0 271–283, 1991.
J. F. Bonnans, [[É]{}]{}. Ottenwaelter, and H. Zidani. A fast algorithm for the two dimensional [HJB]{} equation of stochastic control. *M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal.*, 380 (4):0 723–735, 2004. ISSN 0764-583X. [doi: ]{}[10.1051/m2an:2004034]{}. URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/m2an:2004034>.
A. Briani, F. Camilli, and H. Zidani. Approximation schemes for monotone systems of nonlinear second order partial differential equations: convergence result and error estimate. *Differ. Equ. Appl.*, 40 (2):0 297–317, 2012. ISSN 1847-120X. [doi: ]{}[10.7153/dea-04-18]{}. URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.7153/dea-04-18>.
A. Fahim, N. Touzi, and X. Warin. A probabilistic numerical method for fully nonlinear parabolic [PDE]{}s. *Ann. Appl. Probab.*, 210 (4):0 1322–1364, 2011. ISSN 1050-5164. [doi: ]{}[10.1214/10-AAP723]{}. URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/10-AAP723>.
M. Lazgham. Regularity properties in a state-constrained expected utility maximization problem. *Preprint, available online at arXiv.org*, 2015. URL <http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03079>.
M. Lazgham. Viscosity properties with singularities in a state-constrained expected utility maximization problem. *Preprint, available online at arXiv.org*, 2015. URL <http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03079>.
A. M. Oberman. Convergent difference schemes for degenerate elliptic and parabolic equations: [H]{}amilton-[J]{}acobi equations and free boundary problems. *SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*, 440 (2):0 879–895 (electronic), 2006. ISSN 0036-1429. URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S0036142903435235>.
D. M. Pooley, P. A. Forsyth, and K. R. Vetzal. Numerical convergence properties of option pricing [PDE]{}s with uncertain volatility. *IMA J. Numer. Anal.*, 230 (2):0 241–267, 2003. ISSN 0272-4979. URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/imanum/23.2.241>.
A. Schied and T. Sch[[ö]{}]{}neborn. Optimal portfolio liquidation for cara investors. *Munich Personal RePEc Archive*, 2007. URL <http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5075/1/MPRA_paper_5075.pdf>.
A. Schied, T. Sch[[ö]{}]{}neborn, and M. Tehranchi. Optimal basket liquidation for [CARA]{} investors is deterministic. *Appl. Math. Finance*, 170 (6):0 471–489, 2010. URL <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504860903565050>.
A. Tourin. An introduction to finite difference methods for pdes in finance. *Book Chapter: Nizar Touzi, Optimal Stochastic Target problems, and Backward SDE, Fields Institute Monographs*, 29:0 201–212, 2011.
X. Warin. Some non monotone schemes for hamilton-jacobi-bellman equations. *arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.5052*, 2013.
[^1]: The author acknowledges support by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through Grant SCHI 500/3-1.
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
abstract: |
Various forms of optimality for quantum observables described as normalized positive operator valued measures (POVMs) are studied in this paper. We give characterizations for observables that determine the values of the measured quantity with probabilistic certainty or a state of the system before or after the measurement. We investigate observables which are free from noise caused by classical post-processing, mixing, or pre-processing of quantum nature. Especially, a complete characterization of pre-processing and post-processing clean observables is given, and necessary and sufficient conditions are imposed on informationally complete POVMs within the set of pure states. We also discuss joint and sequential measurements of optimal quantum observables.
PACS numbers: 03.65.Ta, 03.67.–a
address:
- 'Department of Nuclear Engineering, Kyoto University, 6158540 Kyoto, Japan'
- 'Turku Centre for Quantum Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Turku, FI-20014 Turku, Finland'
author:
- Erkka Theodor Haapasalo
- 'Juha-Pekka Pellonpää'
title: Optimal quantum observables
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
A normalized positive operator valued measure (POVM) describes the statistics of the outcomes of a quantum measurement and thus we call them as observables of a quantum system. However, some observables can be considered better than the others according to different criteria: The observable may be powerful enough to differentiate between any given initial states of the system or it may be decisive enough to completely determine the state after the measurement no matter how we measure this observable. The observable may also be free from different types of noise either of classical or quantum nature or its measurement cannot be reduced to a measurement of a more informational observable from the measurement of which it can be obtained by modifying either the initial state or the outcome statistics.
We study these various notions of optimality for quantum observables and investigate how they are interrelated. An extensive review of optimal observables and new results especially dealing with post- and pre-processing are given. In this introduction, we approach these problems within a simple setting only considering discrete observables of finite-dimensional quantum systems, formally define the optimality properties outlined above, and characterize observables associated with these properties. In the rest of this paper, we give definitions of optimality in the general case involving also ‘continuous’ observables of infinite-dimensional systems and characterize the optimal observables. However, one can obtain valuable insight in this general case first by looking at the mathematically simpler discussion as follows.
As advertised, let us first consider a POVM ${\mathsf{M}}$ with finitely many values (or outcomes) ${\Omega}=\{x_1,\,x_2\,\ldots,\,x_N\}$ on a finite-dimensional quantum system with the associated Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$ (denote $d=\dim{\mathcal{H}}<\infty$). This means that we do not need to go into measure theoretical or functional analytical details in this introduction. The POVM ${\mathsf{M}}$ can be viewed as a collection $({\mathsf{M}}_1,\,{\mathsf{M}}_2,\ldots,\,{\mathsf{M}}_N)$ of positive semidefinite $d\times d$–matrices ${\mathsf{M}}_i$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^N{\mathsf{M}}_i$ is the identity matrix when (by fixing an orthonormal basis) we identify ${\mathcal{H}}$ with ${\mathbb C}^d$ and the bounded operators on ${\mathcal{H}}$ with elements of the matrix algebra ${\mathcal M}_d({\mathbb C})$. A state of the system is represented as a density matrix $\rho$, that is, a positive semidefinite matrix of trace 1, and the number $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}\in[0,1]$ is interpreted as the probability of getting an outcome $x_i$ when a measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ is performed and the system is in the (initial or input) state $\rho$. Actually, ${\mathsf{M}}$ is a map which assigns to each subset $X$ of ${\Omega}$ a positive matrix ${\mathsf{M}}(X)=\sum_{x_i\in X}{\mathsf{M}}_i$ so that ${\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}(X)\right]}$ is the probability of getting an outcome belonging to the set $X$. Especially, ${\mathsf{M}}\big(\{x_i\}\big)={\mathsf{M}}_i$.
We fix a POVM ${\mathsf{M}}$ as above and study its different optimality criteria (in the categories of discrete POVMs in finite dimensions). For that we will need another discrete POVM ${\mathsf{M}}'$, or $({\mathsf{M}}'_1,\,{\mathsf{M}}'_2,\ldots,\,{\mathsf{M}}'_{N'})$, which acts in a $d'$-dimensional Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}'\cong{\mathbb C}^{d'}$. Without restricting generality, we will assume that the matrices ${\mathsf{M}}_i$ and ${\mathsf{M}}'_j$ are nonzero.[^1]
Write ${\mathsf{M}}_i=\sum_{k=1}^{m_i}\lambda_{ik}{|{\varphi}_{ik}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_{ik}|}=\sum_{k=1}^{m_i}{|d_{ik}\,\rangle\langle\,d_{ik}|}$ where the eigenvectors ${\varphi}_{ik}$, $k=1,\ldots,\,m_i$, form an orthonormal set, the eigenvalues $\lambda_{ik}$ are positive (and bounded by 1), and $d_{ik}=\sqrt{\lambda_{ik}}{\varphi}_{ik}$. We say that $m_i$ is the multiplicity of the outcome $x_i$ or the rank of ${\mathsf{M}}_i$, and ${\mathsf{M}}$ is of rank 1 if $m_i=1$ for all $i=1,\ldots,N$. Recall that rank-1 observables have many important properties [@BuKeDPeWe2005; @HeWo; @Part2; @Pell; @Pell'; @Pell2]. For example, their measurements break entanglement completely between the system and its environment [@Pell]. One can define a (maximal) rank-1 refinement POVM ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ of ${\mathsf{M}}$ via ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}_{ik}={|d_{ik}\,\rangle\langle\,d_{ik}|}$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, $k=1,\ldots,m_i$. Now ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ has $N^1=\sum_{i=1}^N m_i$ outcomes and $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}=\sum_{k=1}^{m_i}{\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}_{ik}\right]}$ (i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}$ is a relabeling of ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$) thus showing that any measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ can be viewed as a measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$, the so-called complete measurement, since the value space of ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ ‘contains’ also the multiplicities $k\le m_i$ of the measurement outcomes $x_i$ of ${\mathsf{M}}$, see [@Pell; @Pell'; @Pell2] for further properties of complete measurements.
Let then ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ be a Hilbert space spanned by an orthonormal basis $e_{ik}$ where $i=1,\ldots,N$ and $k=1,\ldots,m_i$. Obviously, $\dim{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}=N^1$. Define a discrete normalized projection valued measure (PVM) ${\mathsf{P}}=({\mathsf{P}}_1,\ldots,{\mathsf{P}}_N)$ of ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ via $
{\mathsf{P}}_i=\sum_{k=1}^{m_i}{|e_{ik}\,\rangle\langle\,e_{ik}|}
$ so that ${\mathsf{P}}_i{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ is spanned by the vectors $e_{ik}$, $k=1,\ldots,m_i$, and we may write (the direct sum) $
{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}=\bigoplus_{i=1}^N({\mathsf{P}}_i{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}).
$ Define an isometry $J:\,{\mathcal{H}}\to{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$, $
J=\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{k=1}^{m_i}{|e_{ik}\,\rangle\langle\,d_{ik}|}
$ for which $
J^*{\mathsf{P}}_iJ={\mathsf{M}}_i.
$ Hence, $\big({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}},J,{\mathsf{P}}\big)$ is a Naĭmark dilation of ${\mathsf{M}}$.[^2] Note that one can identify ${\mathcal{H}}$ with a (closed) subspace $J{\mathcal{H}}$ of ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$, equipped with the projection $JJ^*$ from ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ onto $J{\mathcal{H}}$, and we may briefly write ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}={\mathcal{H}}\oplus{\mathcal{H}}^\perp$. Especially, any state $\rho$ of ${\mathcal{H}}$ can be viewed as a state $J\rho J^*$ of the bigger space ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$. By using this interpretation, any measurement of ${\mathsf{P}}$ in the subsystem’s state can be viewed as a measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ via $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[J\rho J^*{\mathsf{P}}_i\right]}$. Finally, we note that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is a PVM if and only if $J$ is unitary (i.e. $\{d_{ik}\}_{i,k}$ is an orthonormal basis of ${\mathcal{H}}$). In this case one can identify ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ with ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathsf{P}}$ with ${\mathsf{M}}$ e.g. by setting $e_{ik}=d_{ik}$.
\[remu1\] Let $\big({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}},J,{\mathsf{P}}\big)$ be a (minimal) Naĭmark dilation of the POVM ${\mathsf{M}}$ as above. Without restricting generality, one can pick any orthonormal basis $\{e_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_\infty$ and choose $e_{ik}=e_i\otimes e_k\in{\mathcal{H}}_\infty\otimes{\mathcal{H}}_\infty$ so that ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ becomes a (closed) subspace of ${\mathcal{H}}_\infty\otimes{\mathcal{H}}_\infty$ and ${\mathsf{P}}_i={|e_{i}\,\rangle\langle\,e_{i}|}\otimes\sum_{k=1}^{m_i}{|e_{k}\,\rangle\langle\,e_{k}|}\le{\mathsf{P}}'_i\otimes I_M$ where ${\mathsf{P}}'_i={|e_{i}\,\rangle\langle\,e_{i}|}$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, constitutes a rank-1 PVM ${\mathsf{P}}'$ in an $N$-dimensional space ${\mathcal{H}}_N={{\rm lin}}\{e_i\,|\,i=1,\ldots,N\}$ and $I_M=\sum_{k=1}^{M}{|e_{k}\,\rangle\langle\,e_{k}|}$ is the identity operator of ${\mathcal{H}}_M={{\rm lin}}\{e_i\,|\,i=1,\ldots,M\}$ where $M=\max_{i\le N}\{m_i\}$. In addition, $J$ can be interpreted as an isometry from ${\mathcal{H}}$ into ${\mathcal{H}}_N\otimes{\mathcal{H}}_M$ by the same formula $J=\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{k=1}^{m_i}{|e_i\otimes e_k\,\rangle\langle\,d_{ik}|}$ and we have[^3] ${\mathsf{M}}_i=J^*({\mathsf{P}}'_i\otimes I_M)J=\Phi_J({\mathsf{P}}_i')$ where $\Phi_J$ is a (completely positive) Heisenberg channel, $\Phi_J(B)=J^*(B\otimes I_M)J=\sum_{s=1}^M{\mathsf{A}}_s^*B{\mathsf{A}}_s$ where $B$ is an $N\times N$–matrix (i.e. $B\in{\mathcal M}_N({\mathbb C})$).[^4]
Davies and Lewis [@DaLe] introduced the concept of instrument which turned out to be crucial in developing quantum measurement theory since, besides measurement statistics, it also describes the conditional state changes due to a quantum measuring process. For example, if the measurement outcome set is finite, $\Omega=\{x_1,\ldots,x_N\}$, then any (Schrödinger) instrument ${\mathcal I}$ describing a measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ (with the outcomes $\Omega$), can be viewed as a collection of (completely positive) operations[^5] ${\mathcal I}_i$ on ${\mathcal M}_d({\mathbb C})$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^N{\mathrm{tr}\left[{\mathcal I}_i(\rho)\right]}=1$ for any state $\rho$. Now $\mathcal I$ transforms an input state $\rho$ to a (nonnormalized) output state ${\mathcal I}_i(\rho)$ if $x_i$ is obtained. In addition, $\mathcal I$ defines the measurement outcome probabilities $p_i$ and the corresponding POVM ${\mathsf{M}}$ via $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[{\mathcal I}_i(\rho)\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}$.[^6] Note that $\rho\mapsto \sum_{i=1}^N{\mathcal I}_i(\rho)$ is a (Schrödinger) channel which transforms any state of the system to another state of the same system. More generally, a quantum channel is a completely positive trace-preserving (cptp) linear map between state spaces associated to quantum systems (with possibly different Hilbert spaces ${\mathcal{H}}$, ${\mathcal{H}}'$) so that channels transmit quantum information between different systems. Similarly, with possibly different input and output spaces ${\mathcal{H}}\cong{\mathbb C}^d$ and ${\mathcal{H}}'\cong{\mathbb C}^{d'}$, one may also assume an initial state of ${\mathcal{H}}$ to transform into conditional states of ${\mathcal{H}}'$ as a result of the measurement prompting to describe the measurement through an instrument $\mathcal I$ with Schrödinger operations $\mathcal I_i:{\mathcal M}_d({\mathbb C})\to{\mathcal M}_{d'}({\mathbb C})$.
Now we are ready to introduce the following six optimality criteria for ${\mathsf{M}}$:
1. [*${\mathsf{M}}$ determines the future of the system (completely)*]{} if each instrument ${\mathcal I}$ implementing ${\mathsf{M}}$ is nuclear (or preparatory), i.e., of the form ${\mathcal I}_i(\rho)=p_i\sigma_i$ where $\sigma_i$’s are density matrices (of any fixed output Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}'$) which do no depend on the input state $\rho$. If the outcome $x_i$ is obtained with the nonzero probability $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}$ then the output system is in the $\rho$-independent state $\sigma_i$ after the measurement. It can be shown that [*${\mathsf{M}}$ determines the future if and only if ${\mathsf{M}}$ is of rank 1,*]{} i.e. each ${\mathsf{M}}_i$ is of the form ${|d_i\,\rangle\langle\,d_i|}$ where $d_i\in{\mathcal{H}}$ [@HeWo; @Part2].
2. [*${\mathsf{M}}$ is post-processing maximal (post-processing clean)*]{} if the condition ${\mathsf{M}}_i=\sum_{j=1}^{N'}p'_{ji}{\mathsf{M}}'_j$ for all $i$ (where $(p'_{ji})$ is $N'\times N$–probability matrix and ${\mathsf{M}}'=({\mathsf{M}}'_1,\ldots,{\mathsf{M}}'_{N'})$ is a POVM of the same Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}'={\mathcal{H}}$) implies that ${\mathsf{M}}_j'=\sum_{i=1}^N p_{ij}{\mathsf{M}}_i$ for all $j$ where $(p_{ij})$ is $N\times N'$–probability matrix.[^7] The condition ${\mathsf{M}}_i=\sum_j p'_{ji}{\mathsf{M}}'_j$ yields $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}=\sum_j p'_{ji}{\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}'_j\right]}$ thus showing that, instead of measuring ${\mathsf{M}}$, one can measure ${\mathsf{M}}'$ in the same state $\rho$ and then classically post-process the data by using the matrix $(p'_{ij})$. Post-processing clean POVMs are free from this type of classical noise and it is easy to show that [*${\mathsf{M}}$ is post-processing clean if and only if ${\mathsf{M}}$ is of rank 1*]{} [@DoGr97 Theorem 3.4].
3. [*${\mathsf{M}}$ determines the past of the system*]{} if it is [*informationally complete,*]{} i.e. the measurement outcome statistics $(p_i)_{i=1}^N$ determines the input state $\rho$, i.e. the condition ${\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho'{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}$ for all $i$ implies that $\rho'=\rho$. Clearly, [*${\mathsf{M}}$ determines the past of the system if and only if $N\ge d^2$ and any $d\times d$–matrix $B$ can be written as a linear combination of matrices ${\mathsf{M}}_i$, $i=1,\ldots,N$*]{} [@kirja Prop. 18.1]. We will construct later an informationally complete (extreme) rank-1 POVM ${\mathsf{M}}$ with the minimum number $N=d^2$ of outcomes. Generally, an informationally complete POVM need not be rank-1 but [*if ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete then its rank-1 refinement ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ is also informationally complete*]{} [@Pell].
4. [*${\mathsf{M}}$ is extreme*]{} if it is an extremal point of the convex set of all (discrete) POVMs of ${\mathcal{H}}$, i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}=\frac12{\mathsf{M}}'+\frac12{\mathsf{M}}''$ implies ${\mathsf{M}}'={\mathsf{M}}$. Thus, extreme observables describe statistics of the pure quantum measurements, free from any classical randomness due to fluctuations in the measuring procedure (in the same way as pure states describe preparation procedures without classical randomness). One can show that [*${\mathsf{M}}$ is extreme if and only if the matrices ${|d_{ik}\,\rangle\langle\,d_{i\ell}|}$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, $k,\ell=1,\ldots,m_i$, are linearly independent*]{} [@Partha Theorem 2.4], [@DALoPe Theorem 2]. Especially, if ${\mathsf{M}}$ is rank-1, i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}_i={|d_i\,\rangle\langle\,d_i|}$, $d_i\ne0$, then it is extreme if and only if the matrices ${\mathsf{M}}_i$ are linearly independent. In this case, it is informationally complete if and only if $N=d^2$. Trivially, [*if ${\mathsf{M}}$ is extreme then its rank-1 refinement ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ is also extreme*]{} thus[^8] showing that [*any extreme informationally completely POVM is necessarily of rank 1.*]{} Finally, we note that PVMs are automatically extreme.
5. [*${\mathsf{M}}$ determines its values*]{} $x_i$ if each ${\mathsf{M}}_i$ is of (operator) norm 1, i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}_i$ has the eigenvalue $1$ (with the unit eigenvector ${\varphi}_i$). In this case, for any outcome $x_j$ one can pick a state $\rho={|{\varphi}_j\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_j|}$ such that $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}=\delta_{ij}$ for all $i$, i.e. the observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ has the value $x_j$ in the state $\rho$ with probabilistic certainty.[^9] Clearly, a rank-1 norm-1 POVM is a PVM[^10] and any PVM is of norm-1.
6. [*${\mathsf{M}}$ is pre-processing maximal (pre-processing clean)*]{} if the condition ${\mathsf{M}}_i=\Phi({\mathsf{M}}'_i)$ for all $i$ (where $\Phi:{\mathcal M}_{d'}({\mathbb C})\to{\mathcal M}_d({\mathbb C})$ is a Heisenberg channel and ${\mathsf{M}}'$ is a POVM on the possibly different Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}'\cong{\mathbb C}^{d'}$ with $N'=N$ outcomes) implies that ${\mathsf{M}}'_i=\Theta({\mathsf{M}}_i)$ for all $i$ where $\Theta:{\mathcal M}_d({\mathbb C})\to{\mathcal M}_{d'}({\mathbb C})$ is some Heisenberg channel. The condition ${\mathsf{M}}_i=\Phi({\mathsf{M}}'_i)$ can be written in the form $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho\Phi({\mathsf{M}}'_i)\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\Phi_*(\rho){\mathsf{M}}'_i\right]}$ so that to get the probabilities $p_i$ one can equally well measure ${\mathsf{M}}'$ in the state $\Phi_*(\rho)$, i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}'$ is ‘better’ measurement in this sense and ${\mathsf{M}}$ is obtained from it by adding quantum noise in $\rho$ (characterized by the channel $\Phi$). Hence, pre-processing clean observables are free from this type of quantum noise. Since, using the Naĭmark dilation $({\mathcal{H}}_\oplus,{\mathsf{P}},J)$ of ${\mathsf{M}}$, ${\mathsf{M}}_i=J^*{\mathsf{P}}_iJ=\Phi({\mathsf{P}}_i)$, where $\Phi$ is the (rank-1) isometry channel $J^*(\,\cdot\,)J$, to show that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is pre-processing clean, one must find a channel $\Theta$ such that ${\mathsf{P}}_i=\Theta({\mathsf{M}}_i)$ holds[^11] and thus[^12] each ${\mathsf{M}}_i$ is of norm 1, i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}$ determines its values. We will show that, in finite dimensions, [*pre-processing clean POVMs are exactly norm-1 POVMs*]{} and exactly of the form ${\mathsf{M}}_i={\mathsf{E}}_i\oplus{\mathsf{F}}_i$ where ${\mathsf{E}}$ is a PVM (${\mathsf{E}}_i\ne 0$ for all $i$) and ${\mathsf{F}}$ a POVM ($\Theta({\mathsf{F}}_i)=0$ for all $i$) acting on orthogonal subspaces of ${\mathcal{H}}$. Hence, for any pre-processing clean POVM ${\mathsf{M}}$, there exists a projection (onto a subspace) such that the projected POVM ${\mathsf{E}}$ is projection valued. Especially, PVMs are pre-processing clean [@Pe11].
We have seen that ‘optimal observables’ must be of rank 1, see (1a) and (1b) above. Moreover, observables satisfying (2a) or (2b) can be maximally refined into rank-1 observables which share the same optimality criteria as the original POVMs. If ${\mathsf{M}}$ is rank-1 then the map ${\mathbb C}^N\ni(c_1,\ldots,c_2)\mapsto\sum_{i=1}^Nc_i{\mathsf{M}}_i$ is surjective iff (2a) holds and injective iff (2b) holds. We will construct a POVM for which all conditions (1a), (1b), (2a), and (2b) hold. PVMs are optimal observables in the sense of (3a) and (3b). In addition, the rank-1 refinement of a PVM is also projection valued (and of norm-1). However, it is easy to construct a norm-1 POVM whose rank-1 refinement is not of norm 1. For example, in ${\mathbb C}^3$ (with the basis ${|0\rangle}$, ${|1\rangle}$, ${|2\rangle}$), one can define 2-valued norm-1 POVM ${\mathsf{M}}_1={|1\,\rangle\langle\,1|}+\frac13{|0\,\rangle\langle\,0|}$, ${\mathsf{M}}_2={|2\,\rangle\langle\,2|}+\frac23{|0\,\rangle\langle\,0|}$ whose refinement ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ has an effect ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}_{12}=\frac13{|0\,\rangle\langle\,0|}$ of norm $\frac13$. Note that ${\mathsf{M}}_i={\mathsf{E}}_i\oplus{\mathsf{F}}_i$ where ${\mathsf{E}}_1={|1\,\rangle\langle\,1|}$, ${\mathsf{E}}_2={|2\,\rangle\langle\,2|}$ constitutes a PVM in a 2-dimensional space, and ${\mathsf{F}}_1=\frac13{|0\,\rangle\langle\,0|}$, ${\mathsf{F}}_2=\frac23{|0\,\rangle\langle\,0|}$.
To conclude, there are essentially two sorts of optimal observables: rank-1 PVMs and extreme informationally complete POVMs. Since they are extreme (2b) and rank-1, i.e. post processing clean (1b), they are free from classical noise due to the mixing of measurement schemes or data processing. Moreover, they determine the future of the system (1a). It is easy to show that a pre-processing clean POVM (e.g. a PVM) cannot be informationally complete and vice versa,[^13] i.e. an informationally complete POVM is never free from quantum noise. Moreover, [*the determination of the past (2a) and the values (3a) are complementary properties.*]{} However, when one assumes that only a restricted class of states (related to a subspace ${\mathcal{H}}\subseteq{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$) can be determined completely then these complementary properties can be combined as follows:
One can pick a $d^2$-outcome extreme informationally complete rank-1 POVM ${\mathsf{M}}_i={|d_i\,\rangle\langle\,d_i|}$, $i=1,\ldots,d^2$, and its minimal Naĭmark dilation with the rank-1 PVM ${\mathsf{P}}_i={|e_i\,\rangle\langle\,e_i|}$ acting in a $d^2$-dimensional space ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}={\mathcal{H}}\oplus{\mathcal{H}}^\perp$ with the orthogonal basis $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^{d^2}$ (recall that $d=\dim{\mathcal{H}}$). Now, for any subsystem’s state $\rho$, one gets $p_i=\<d_i|\rho|d_i\>=\<e_i|J\rho J^*|e_i\>$ and ${\mathsf{P}}_i$ is informationally complete only within the set of states of the subspace ${\mathcal{H}}$. Instead of measuring ${\mathsf{M}}$ one can prepare a state of ${\mathcal{H}}\cong J{\mathcal{H}}$ and then perform a measurement of ${\mathsf{P}}$ to get probabilities $p_i$ and posterior states $\sigma_i$ (see item (1a) above) since the nuclear instrument ${\mathcal I}_i(\rho)=\<d_i|\rho|d_i\>\sigma_i$ implementing ${\mathsf{M}}$ can be trivially extended to an instrument $\overline{\mathcal I}$ of ${\mathsf{P}}$ via $\overline{\mathcal I}_i(\overline\rho)=\<e_i|\overline\rho|e_i\>\sigma_i$ where $\overline\rho$ is a state of ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$. Below we study sequential and joint measurements of optimal POVMs with other observables.
Let ${\mathsf{M}}=({\mathsf{M}}_i)_{i=1}^N$ and ${\mathsf{M}}'=({\mathsf{M}}'_j)_{j=1}^{N'}$ be POVMs as in the beginning of this introduction, and let ${\mathcal}I=({\mathcal}I_i)$ be an instrument implementing ${\mathsf{M}}$ (i.e. any $\mathcal I_i:{\mathcal M}_d({\mathbb C})\to{\mathcal M}_{d'}({\mathbb C})$ is of the form ${\mathcal I}_i(\rho)=\sum_s {\mathsf{A}}_{is}\rho{\mathsf{A}}_{is}^*$ and ${\mathsf{M}}_i=\sum_s {\mathsf{A}}_{is}^*{\mathsf{A}}_{is}$). Suppose then that one measures first ${\mathsf{M}}$ in the state $\rho$ (described by ${\mathcal}I$) and then ${\mathsf{M}}'$ in the transformed (conditional) state $p_i^{-1}{{\mathcal}I}_i(\rho)$ if the outcome $x_i$ is obtained (with the probability $p_i>0$) in the first measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$. This sequential measurement can be described by a joint POVM ${\mathsf{J}}=({\mathsf{J}}_{ij})$ where ${\mathsf{J}}_{ij}={{\mathcal}I}^*_i({\mathsf{M}}'_j)$ since the conditional probability is ${\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{J}}_{ij}\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[p_i^{-1}{{\mathcal}I}_i(\rho){\mathsf{M}}'_j\right]} p_i$. Hence, [*a sequential measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}'$ can be interpreted as a joint measurement*]{} of ${\mathsf{M}}$ and the disturbed POVM ${\mathsf{M}}''$, ${\mathsf{M}}''_j=\sum_iJ_{ij}=\Phi({\mathsf{M}}'_j)$ of the same Hilbert space (here $\Phi=\sum_i{{\mathcal}I}^*_i$ is the total Heisenberg channel of ${\mathcal}I$).
Indeed, any POVMs ${\mathsf{M}}=({\mathsf{M}}_i)$ and ${\mathsf{M}}''=({\mathsf{M}}''_j)$ (of the same Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}''={\mathcal{H}}$) are jointly measurable if there exists a POVM ${\mathsf{N}}=({\mathsf{N}}_{ij})$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}''$ are the margins of ${\mathsf{N}}$, i.e., ${\mathsf{M}}_i=\sum_{j=1}^{N''} {\mathsf{N}}_{ij}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}''_j=\sum_{i=1}^N {\mathsf{N}}_{ij}.$ If $\big({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}},J,{\mathsf{P}}\big)$ is a (minimal) Naĭmark dilation of ${\mathsf{M}}$ then it is easy to show[^14] that ${\mathsf{N}}_{ij}=J^*{\mathsf{P}}_{ij}J$ where ${\mathsf{P}}_{ij}$ is a (unique) positive semidefinite $m_i\times m_i$–matrix such that $\sum_j{\mathsf{P}}_{ij}={\mathsf{P}}_i$. Hence, for each $i\le N$, the map $j\mapsto {\mathsf{P}}_{ij}$ is a POVM[^15] with $N''$ values so that there is a channel $\Phi_i$ such that $\Phi_i({\mathsf{P}}'_j)={\mathsf{P}}_{ij}$, see Remark \[remu1\]. Here ${\mathsf{P}}'=({\mathsf{P}}'_j)_{j=1}^{N''}$ is a fixed rank-1 PVM acting in a minimal[^16] $N''$-dimensional Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}_{N''}\cong{\mathbb C}^{N''}$. Define an instrument ${\mathcal}I$ by ${\mathcal}I_i^*(B)=J^*\Phi_i(B)J$, $B\in{\mathcal M}_{N''}({\mathbb C})$. Clearly, ${\mathsf{N}}_{ij}={\mathcal}I_i^*({\mathsf{P}}_j')$ and, thus, any [*joint measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}''$ can be interpreted as a sequential measurement*]{} of ${\mathsf{M}}$ followed by a rank-1 PVM ${\mathsf{P}}'$. Note that ${\mathsf{M}}''_j=\Phi'({\mathsf{P}}'_j)$ where $\Phi'(B)=J^*\sum_i\Phi_i(B)J$.
In conlusion, a sequential measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}'$ defines a joint obsevable ${\mathsf{J}}$ with the margins ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}''=\Phi({\mathsf{M}}')$. If we put ${\mathsf{N}}={\mathsf{J}}$ above, we see that this measurement of ${\mathsf{J}}$ can be interpreted as a new sequential measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ and a rank-1 PVM ${\mathsf{P}}'$. In addition, ${\mathsf{M}}''=\Phi'({\mathsf{P}}')$. Thus, the latter observable in a sequential set-up can be assumed to be very optimal: free from both classical and quantum noise. Next we study how the optimality criteria (1a)—(3b) affect the joint measurability of an optimal observable with other observables.
1. If ${\mathsf{M}}$ is rank-1 ($m_i\equiv1$) then any ${\mathsf{P}}_{ij}$ is a $1\times1$–matrix, i.e. a number $p_{ij}$, and ${\mathsf{N}}_{ij}=p_{ij}{\mathsf{M}}_i$ is rank-1 (and a post-processing of ${\mathsf{M}}$). Since $(p_{ij})$ is a probability matrix, also ${\mathsf{M}}''$ is a smearing (post-processing) of ${\mathsf{M}}$, i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}_j''=\sum_i p_{ij}{\mathsf{M}}_i$, see item (1b) above. Moreover, the ${\mathsf{M}}$-compatible instrument ${\mathcal}I$ is nuclear (1a) and ${\mathsf{N}}_{ij}={\mathsf{J}}_{ij}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\sigma_i{\mathsf{M}}_j'\right]}{\mathsf{M}}_i$ from where one can read the transition probabilities $p_{ij}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\sigma_i{\mathsf{M}}_j'\right]}$ (where the states $\sigma_i$ determines ${\mathcal}I$ completely) showing that, if one gets $x_i$ in the first ${\mathsf{M}}$-measurement, then the instrument ‘prepares’ the post-measurement state $\sigma_i$ which is the input state for the second ${\mathsf{M}}'$-measurement giving the probability distribution $p_{ij}$, $j=1,\ldots,N'$, and ${\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{J}}_{ij}\right]}=p_ip_{ij}$ where $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}$. Hence, after a measurement of a rank-1 POVM there is no need to perform any extra measurements to get more information. It should be stressed that, even if ${\mathsf{M}}''_j=\Phi'({\mathsf{P}}'_j)$, the entanglement breaking channel $\Phi'$ (associated to a nuclear instrument[^17] ${\mathcal I}'$ of ${\mathsf{M}}$) [@Part2] adds so much quantum noise to the rank-1 PVM ${\mathsf{P}}'$ that it becomes the fuzzy version ${\mathsf{M}}''$ of ${\mathsf{M}}$. Hence, in this sequential measurement, the latter observable ${\mathsf{M}}''$, which arises as the second marginal of the joint observable ${\mathsf{J}}$, is obtained both through adding classical noise to the observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ first measured (i.e., as a post-processing ${\mathsf{M}}_j''=\sum_ip_{ij}{\mathsf{M}}_i$) and through adding quantum noise to the observable ${\mathsf{M}}'$ actually measured after ${\mathsf{M}}$ in the form of the pre-processing ${\mathsf{M}}''_j=\Phi({\mathsf{M}}'_j)=\sum_i{\mathrm{tr}\left[\sigma_i{\mathsf{M}}'_j\right]}{\mathsf{M}}_i$. The same results naturally apply in the situation where we modify the measurement of the first observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ and measure some rank-1 PVM ${\mathsf{P}}'$ after it to obtain ${\mathsf{M}}''$ as the second marginal. In this case ${\mathsf{M}}''$ is a classical smearing of the rank-1 ${\mathsf{M}}$ and a quantum smearing of the rank-1 PVM ${\mathsf{P}}'$.
2. If ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete (2a) then ${\mathsf{N}}={\mathsf{J}}$ is also informationally complete.[^18] Hence, trivially, if already ${\mathsf{M}}$ determines the past, then its subsequent measurements cannot increase the (already maximal) state distinguishing power. Suppose now that ${\mathsf{N}}_{ij}={\mathsf{J}}_{ij}=\mathcal I_i^*({\mathsf{M}}'_j)$ for some instrument $\mathcal I$ measuring the informationally complete ${\mathsf{M}}$ and some subsequently measured ${\mathsf{M}}'$ giving rise to the second marginal ${\mathsf{M}}''_j=\Phi({\mathsf{M}}'_j)$ for the total channel $\Phi=\sum_i\mathcal I_i^*$. If we also assume that ${\mathsf{M}}''$ is informationally complete, i.e., we jointly measure two informationally complete observables in a sequential setting, then the Heisenberg channel $\Phi$ is surjective (in this finite-dimensional case) and the corresponding Schrödinger channel $\Phi_*=\sum_i\mathcal I_i$ is injective.[^19]
If ${\mathsf{M}}$ is extreme (2b) then ${\mathsf{N}}$ is the unique joint POVM which has the margins ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}''$.[^20] If, in addition, ${\mathsf{M}}$ is rank-1 then ${\mathsf{N}}_{ij}=p_{ij}{\mathsf{M}}_i$ and ${\mathsf{M}}_j''=\sum_i p_{ij}{\mathsf{M}}_i$ and we have the chain of bijections: ${\mathsf{N}}\mapsto{\mathsf{M}}''\mapsto(p_{ij})\mapsto{\mathsf{N}}$.
3. If ${\mathsf{M}}={\mathsf{P}}$ is a PVM, i.e. ${\mathsf{P}}_k{\mathsf{P}}_\ell\equiv\delta_{k\ell}{\mathsf{P}}_k$, (and thus ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}={\mathcal{H}}$ and $J$ is the identity map) then ${\mathsf{N}}_{ij}={\mathsf{P}}_{ij}$ where each map $j\mapsto{\mathsf{P}}_{ij}$ is a (subnormalized) POVM which commutes with ${\mathsf{P}}$, i.e. ${\mathsf{P}}_{ij}{\mathsf{P}}_k\equiv{\mathsf{P}}_k{\mathsf{P}}_{ij}$, since ${\mathsf{P}}_{ij}\le{\mathsf{P}}_i$. Thus, any ${\mathsf{M}}''$ compatible with a PVM ${\mathsf{P}}$ commutes with ${\mathsf{P}}$. If, moreover, ${\mathsf{P}}$ is of rank-1 then ${\mathsf{P}}_{ij}=p_{ij}{\mathsf{P}}_i$. Note that ${\mathsf{N}}$ (or ${\mathsf{M}}''$) needs not to be a PVM or even of norm 1 (e.g. consider ${\mathsf{P}}_1={|1\,\rangle\langle\,1|}$, ${\mathsf{P}}_2={|2\,\rangle\langle\,2|}={\mathsf{P}}_{22}$, ${\mathsf{P}}_{11}={\mathsf{P}}_{12}=\frac12{|1\,\rangle\langle\,1|}={\mathsf{M}}_2''$, ${\mathsf{M}}_1''=\frac12{|1\,\rangle\langle\,1|}+{|2\,\rangle\langle\,2|}$ in ${\mathbb C}^2$).
In this paper, we generalize the above results to the case of arbitrary observables (with sufficiently ‘nice’ value spaces) acting in separable Hilbert spaces. For example, consider the single-mode optical field with the Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$ spanned by the photon number states $|n\>$, $n=0,1,2,\ldots,$ associated with the number operator $N=a^*a=\sum_{n=0}^\infty n{|n\,\rangle\langle\,n|}$ where $a=\sum_{n=0}^\infty\sqrt{n+1}{|n\,\rangle\langle\,n+1|}$. Define the position and momentum operators $Q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}{(a^*+a)}$ and $P=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}{(a^*-a)}$ which, in the position representation, are the usual multiplication and differentiation operators, $(Q\psi)(x) = x\psi(x)$ and $(P\psi)(x)= -i\,{\d\psi(x)}/{\d x}$ (we set $\hbar=1$). Define the Weyl operator (or the displacement operator of the complex plane)[^21] $D(z)=e^{{z a^*-\overline z a}}$, $z\in{\mathbb C}$. Let $q,\,p\in{\mathbb R}$ and $z=(q+i p)/\sqrt2$. Then $$D(q,p)=D(z)=e^{ipQ-iqP}=e^{-iqp/2}e^{ipQ}e^{-iqP}=e^{iqp/2}e^{-iqP}e^{ipQ},$$ i.e., for all $\psi\in{\mathcal{H}}\cong L^2({\mathbb R})$, $(e^{ipQ}\psi)(x)=e^{ipx}\psi(x)$, $(e^{iqP}\psi)(x)=\psi(x+q)$, and $$\big(D(q,p)\psi\big)(x)=e^{-iqp/2}e^{ipx}\psi(x-q).$$ One can measure the following physically relevant POVMs:
- Rotated quadrature operators $Q_\theta=(\cos\theta) Q+(\sin\theta) P$ where $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$ so that $Q_0=Q$ and $Q_{\pi/2}=P$. In the position representation, the spectral measure of $Q$ is the canonical spectral measure, $[{\mathsf{Q}}(X)\psi](x)={\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle X$} }}(x)\psi(x)$, $X\subseteq{\mathbb R}$ (Borel set), so that the spectral measure (rank-1 PVM) of $Q_\theta$ is ${\mathsf{Q}}_\theta(X)=R(\theta){\mathsf{Q}}(X)R(\theta)^*$ where $R(\theta)=e^{i\theta N}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty e^{in\theta}{|n\,\rangle\langle\,n|}$ is the (unitary) rotation operator. Rotated quadaratures can be measured by a balanced homodyne detector where the phase shift $\theta$ is caused by a phase shifter. A single ${\mathsf{Q}}_\theta$ cannot be informationally complete (as a PVM) but the whole measurement assemblage $\{{\mathsf{Q}}_\theta(X)\}_{\theta\in[0,\pi)\atop X\subseteq{\mathbb R}}$ forms an informationally complete set of effects. Actually, a rank-1 POVM ${\mathsf G}_{\rm ht}(\Theta\times X)=\frac1{\pi}\int_{\Theta}{\mathsf{Q}}_\theta(X)\d\theta$) determines the input state completely (optical homodyne tomography, OHT). Note that $\|{\mathsf G}_{\rm ht}(\Theta\times X)\|\le\frac1{\pi}\int_{\Theta}\d\theta<1$ if $\Theta\subseteq[0,\pi)$ is not of ‘length’ $\pi$.
- The number operator $N=\sum_{n=0}^\infty n{|n\,\rangle\langle\,n|}$ whose spectral measure (rank-1 PVM) is $n\mapsto \mathsf N_n={|n\,\rangle\langle\,n|}$ (an ideal photon detector with the 100 % efficiency).
- An unsharp (rank-$\infty$) number observable (POVM) $$n\mapsto \mathsf N^\epsilon_n=\sum_{m=n}^\infty{m\choose n} \epsilon^n(1-\epsilon)^{m-n}{|m\,\rangle\langle\,m|}$$ (a nonideal photon detector with quantum efficiency $\epsilon\in[0,1)$). Now $\mathsf N^\epsilon$ is neither of norm-1 nor informationally complete, since it is commutative [@BuLa89], and $\lim_{\epsilon\to1}\mathsf N^{\epsilon}_n=\mathsf N_n$ (by $0^0=1$).
- Covariant phase space observables (POVMs) $$\mathsf G_S(Z)=\frac1\pi\int_ZD(z)SD(z)^*\d^2z=\frac1{2\pi}\int_ZD(q,p)SD(q,p)^*\d q\d p,\qquad Z\subseteq{\mathbb C},$$ where $S$ is (essentially) the reference state of an eight-port (or double) homodyne detector. In practice $\mathsf G_S$ can be viewed as a joint measurement of unsharp rotated quadratures (e.g., unsharp position and momentum). Moreover, $\mathsf G_S$ is rank-1 if and only if $S={|\psi\,\rangle\langle\,\psi|}$ where $\psi$ is a unit vector. Note that $\|\mathsf G_S(Z)\|\le\frac1\pi\int_Z\d^2z<1$ when the area of the set $Z$ is small enough.
- Covariant phase observables (POVMs) $$\mathsf\Phi_C(\Theta)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_\Theta R(\theta)CR(\theta)^*\d\theta
=\sum_{n,m=0}^\infty C_{nm}\int_\Theta e^{i(n-m)\theta}\frac{\d\theta}{2\pi}{|n\,\rangle\langle\,m|}
,\qquad \Theta\subseteq[0,2\pi),$$ where $C=\sum_{n,m=0}^\infty C_{nm}{|n\,\rangle\langle\,m|}$ is a positive sesquilinear form with the unit diagonal ($C_{nn}\equiv1$), i.e. a phase matrix. If $C_{nm}\equiv1$ we get the canonical phase observable $\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}$, $$\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}(\Theta)=\sum_{n,m=0}^\infty\int_\Theta e^{i(n-m)\theta}\,\frac{\d\theta}{2\pi}|n\>\<m|,\qquad\Theta\subseteq[0,2\pi),$$ whereas the angle margin of $\mathsf G_S$ is called a phase space phase observable. Both can be measured by double homodyne detection [@PeSc]. Any phase observable is never projection valued and is a preprocessed version of the canonical phase given by a (Schur type) quantum channel. Note that $\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}$ is not informationally complete (consider number states) but it is norm-1. However, $\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}$ is not pre-processing clean since its nontrivial effects cannot have eigenvalues [@kirja Theorem 8.2].
Definitions and mathematical background
---------------------------------------
In this paper, ${\mathbb N}=\{1,\,2,\ldots\}$, i.e., 0 is not included in the set of natural numbers. We define an empty sum $\sum_{j=1}^0(\cdots)$ to be equal to zero. When ${\mathcal{H}}$ is a Hilbert space, we denote by ${\mathcal{L(H)}}$ the algebra of bounded linear operators on ${\mathcal{H}}$ and by $I_{\mathcal{H}}$ the unit element of this algebra (the identity operator on ${\mathcal{H}}$); by ‘Hilbert space’ we always mean a complex Hilbert space. The inner product of any Hilbert space will be simply denoted by $\<\,\cdot\,|\,\cdot\,\>$ since the Hilbert space in question should always be clear from the context, and the inner product is chosen to be linear in the second argument. By ${\mathcal}P({\mathcal{H}})$, we denote the set of projections of ${\mathcal{H}}$, i.e., operators $P\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ such that $P=P^*=P^2$. An operator $E\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is called effect if $0\le E\le I_{\mathcal{H}}$ holds. Especially, any projection is an effect, the so-called sharp effect. We let ${\mathcal{T(H)}}$ stand for the set of trace-class operators on ${\mathcal{H}}$, i.e., ${\mathrm{tr}\left[|T|\right]}<\infty$ for all $T\in{\mathcal{T(H)}}$. We denote the set of positive trace-1 operators in ${\mathcal{T(H)}}$ by ${\mathcal{S(H)}}$; in quantum physics, these normalized positive states of ${\mathcal{L(H)}}$ are identified with the physical states of the system described by ${\mathcal{H}}$. Note that ${\mathcal}P({\mathcal{H}})\cap{\mathcal{S(H)}}$ consists of rank-1 projections ${|\psi\,\rangle\langle\,\psi|}$ (where $\psi\in{\mathcal{H}}$ is a unit vector).
When $\mu$ and $\nu$ are positive measures on a measurable space $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ (where $\Omega\neq\emptyset$ is a set and $\Sigma$ is a $\sigma$-algebra of subsets of $\Omega$) we say that $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu$ and denote $\mu\ll\nu$ if $\mu(X)=0$ whenever $\nu(X)=0$. When both $\mu\ll\nu$ and $\nu\ll\mu$, we denote $\mu\sim\nu$ and say that $\mu$ and $\nu$ are equivalent.
Let $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ be a measurable space and ${\mathcal{H}}$ be a Hilbert space. A map ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is said to be a [*normalized positive-operator-valued measure (POVM)*]{} if, for all $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$, the set function $X\mapsto{\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}(X)\right]}$, denoted hereafter by $p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}$, is a probability measure or, equivalently, ${\mathsf{M}}(X)\geq0$ for all $X\in\Sigma$, ${\mathsf{M}}(\Omega)=I_{\mathcal{H}}$, and, for any pairwise disjoint sequence $X_1,\,X_2,\ldots\in\Sigma$, one has ${\mathsf{M}}(\cup_jX_j)=\sum_j{\mathsf{M}}(X_j)$ (ultra)weakly. Denote the set of POVMs from $\Sigma$ to ${\mathcal{L(H)}}$ by ${\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$. When ${\mathsf{P}}(X)\in{\mathcal}P({\mathcal{H}})$ for all $X\in\Sigma$ for a POVM ${\mathsf{P}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, we say that ${\mathsf{P}}$ is a [*normalized projection-valued measure (PVM)*]{} or a spectral measure. We extend the notions of absolute continuity and equivalence introduced above for scalar measures in the obvious way and thus may write, e.g., for a POVM ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ and a measure $\mu:\Sigma\to[0,\infty]$, ${\mathsf{M}}\ll\mu$ if ${\mathsf{M}}(X)=0$ whenever $\mu(X)=0$ and, for another POVM ${\mathsf{N}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(K)}}$, where ${\mathcal{K}}$ is some Hilbert space, ${\mathsf{M}}\ll{\mathsf{N}}$ if ${\mathsf{N}}(X)=0$ implies ${\mathsf{M}}(X)=0$. We say that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is [*discrete*]{} if there exist distinct points $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N\subseteq\Omega$, $N\in{\mathbb N}\cup\{\infty\}$, and effects $\{{\mathsf{M}}_i\}_{i=1}^N\subseteq{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}=\sum_{i=1}^N{\mathsf{M}}_i\delta_{x_i}$ where $\delta_x$ is a Dirac (point) measure concentrated on $x$. Now ${\mathsf{M}}\ll\sum_{i=1}^N\delta_{x_i}$. A discrete observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ can naturally be identified with the effects ${\mathsf{M}}_i$ and we will use the notation $({\mathsf{M}}_i)_{i=1}^N$ for ${\mathsf{M}}$ if the outcomes $x\in\Omega$ are not relevant. Note that, if ${\mathcal{H}}$ is separable, and ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$, picking any state $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$ which is faithful, i.e., ${\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho A\right]}=0$ implies $A=0$ for any positive $A\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ (or, equivalently, the kernel of $\rho$ is $\{0\}$), we have ${\mathsf{M}}\sim p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}$.
In quantum physics, POVMs are associated in a one-to-one fashion with observables of the system. The observables associated with PVMs are called sharp. In this view, the number $p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}(X)={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}(X)\right]}\in[0,1]$ is the probability of obtaining a value within the outcome set $X\in\Sigma$ when measuring ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ and the system being measured is in the quantum state $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$. In realistic physical experiments, we measure only discrete observables which in many cases can be thought as discretizations of continuous observables, i.e. for any ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ one can choose pairwise disjoint sets $X_i\in\Sigma$ whose union is the whole $\Omega$ and define a discrete POVM by ${\mathsf{M}}_i={\mathsf{M}}(X_i)$ (with the outcome set $\{1,\ldots,N\}$ or ${\mathbb N}$). In this case, one can replace $\Sigma$ with the sub-$\sigma$-algebra generated by the sets $X_i$.
Let ${\mathcal}A$ and ${\mathcal}B$ be $C^*$-algebras. We say that a linear map $\Phi:{\mathcal}A\to{\mathcal}B$ is [*$n$-positive*]{} ($n\in{\mathbb N}$) if the map $${\mathcal}M_n({\mathcal}A)\ni(a_{ij})_{i,j=1}^n\mapsto\big(\Phi(a_{ij})\big)_{i,j=1}^n\in{\mathcal}M_n({\mathcal}B)$$ defined between the $n\times n$-matrix algebras over the input and output algebras is positive. If $\Phi$ is $n$-positive for all $n\in{\mathbb N}$, $\Phi$ is said to be [*completely positive*]{}. Suppose that ${\mathcal}A$ and ${\mathcal}B$ are unital (with units $1_{{\mathcal}A}$ and $1_{{\mathcal}B}$) in which case $\Phi$ is called [*unital*]{} if $\Phi(1_{{\mathcal}A})=1_{{\mathcal}B}$. For any unital 2-positive map $\Phi:{\mathcal}A\to{\mathcal}B$ one has the Schwarz inequality, $\Phi(a)^*\Phi(a)\leq\Phi(a^*a)$ for all $a\in{\mathcal}A$. We further define ${\bf CP}({\mathcal}A;{\mathcal{H}})$ as the set of completely positive unital linear maps $\Phi:{\mathcal}A\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ whenever ${\mathcal}A$ is a unital $C^*$-algebra and ${\mathcal{H}}$ is a Hilbert space. Suppose that ${\mathcal}A$ and ${\mathcal}B$ are von Neumann algebras. We say that a positive map $\Phi:{\mathcal}A\to{\mathcal}B$ is [*normal*]{}, if for any increasing (equivalently, decreasing) net $(a_\lambda)_\lambda\subseteq{\mathcal}A$ of self-adjoint operators, one has $$\sup_\lambda\Phi(a_\lambda)=\Phi\bigg(\sup_\lambda a_\lambda\bigg),$$ where $\sup b_\lambda$ is the supremum (ultraweak limit) of the increasing net (equivalently, with $\sup$ replaced by $\inf$, the infimum, in the case of a decreasing net).
Fix a $C^*$-algebra ${\mathcal}A$ and a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. For any completely positive map $\Phi:{\mathcal}A\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, there is a Hilbert space ${\mathcal}M$, a unital ${}^*$-representation $\pi:{\mathcal}A\to{\mathcal}L({\mathcal}M)$, and an isometry $J:{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathcal}M$ such that $\Phi(a)=J^*\pi(a)J$ for all $a\in{\mathcal}A$ and the linear hull of vectors $\pi(a)J{\varphi}$, $a\in{\mathcal}A$, ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$, forms a dense subspace of ${\mathcal}M$. Such a triple $({\mathcal}M,\pi,J)$ is called as a [*minimal Stinespring dilation for $\Phi$*]{} and it is unique up to unitary equivalence, i.e., if $({\mathcal}M',\pi',J')$ is another minimal dilation, then there is a unitary operator $U:{\mathcal}M\to{\mathcal}M'$ such that $U\pi(a)=\pi'(a)U$ for all $a\in{\mathcal}A$ and $UJ=J'$.
Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{K}}$ be Hilbert spaces. We call normal completely positive maps $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ satisfying $\Phi(I_{\mathcal{K}})\le I_{\mathcal{H}}$ as [*operations*]{}. When $\Phi$ is in addition unital, i.e., $\Phi(I_{\mathcal{K}})=I_{\mathcal{H}}$, we call $\Phi$ as a [*channel*]{}. For any normal linear map $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ there exists a (unique) predual map $\Phi_*:{\mathcal}T({\mathcal{H}})\to{\mathcal}T({\mathcal{K}})$ such that $${\mathrm{tr}\left[\Phi_*(T)A\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[T\Phi(A)\right]},\qquad T\in{\mathcal}T({\mathcal{H}}),\quad A\in{\mathcal{L(K)}}.$$ The version $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is said to be in the [*Heisenberg picture*]{} and the version $\Phi_*:{\mathcal}T({\mathcal{H}})\to{\mathcal}T({\mathcal{K}})$ is said to be in the [*Schrödinger picture*]{}. For a channel $\Phi$, the Schrödinger channel $\Phi_*$, when restricted onto ${\mathcal}S({\mathcal{H}})$, describes how the system associated with ${\mathcal{H}}$ transforms under $\Phi$ into another system associated with ${\mathcal{K}}$.
Let $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ be a measurable space and ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{K}}$ Hilbert spaces. We say that a map $\mathcal J:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is a (Heisenberg) [*instrument*]{} if
- $\mathcal J(\cdot,X):{\mathcal{L(K)}}\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is an operation for all $X\in\Sigma$,
- $\mathcal J(\cdot,\Omega)$ is a channel, and
- for any pairwise disjoint sequence $X_1,\,X_2,\ldots\in\Sigma$ and any $A\in{\mathcal{L(K)}}$, $\mathcal J(A,\cup_jX_j)=\sum_j\mathcal J(A,X_j)$ (ultra)weakly.
For any instrument $\mathcal J:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, we define the predual (Scrödinger) instrument $\mathcal J_*:{\mathcal{T(H)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{T(K)}}$, $$\mathcal J_*(T,X)=[\mathcal J(\cdot,X)_*](T),\qquad T\in{\mathcal{T(H)}},\quad X\in\Sigma.$$
Note that, for an instrument $\mathcal J$, the map $\mathcal J(I_{\mathcal{K}},\cdot):\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is a POVM. On the other hand, for any ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ and a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{K}}$ there is an instrument $\mathcal J:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X)=\mathcal J(I_{\mathcal{K}},X)$ for all $X\in\Sigma$, i.e., $p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathcal J_*(\rho,\cdot)\right]}$; we call $\mathcal J$ an [*${\mathsf{M}}$-instrument.*]{} In a measurement of an observable associated with a POVM ${\mathsf{M}}$, the system transforms conditioned by registering an outcome $x\in X$. This conditional state transformation is given by the operation $\mathcal J_*(\cdot,X)$ where $\mathcal J$ is an ${\mathsf{M}}$-instrument. The operator $\mathcal J_*(\rho,X)$ is a subnormalized state whose trace coincides with the probability $p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}(X)$ of registering an outcome in $X$. If $p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}(X)>0$ then $[p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}(X)]^{-1}\mathcal J_*(\rho,X)$ is the corresponding conditional state.
General structure of a quantum observable
=========================================
In this section, we analyse the structure of an observable with a general value space on a system described by a separable Hilbert space. We will refer to the results reviewed in this section several times on the course of this paper.
Suppose that ${\mathcal{H}}$ is a separable Hilbert space and let ${{\bf h}}=\{h_n\}_{n=1}^{\dim{\mathcal{H}}}$ be an orthonormal (ON) basis of ${\mathcal{H}}$ and $$V_{{\bf h}}:={{\rm lin}}_{\mathbb C}\{h_n\,|\,1\le n<\dim{\mathcal{H}}+1\}.$$ Note that $V_{{\bf h}}$ is dense in ${\mathcal{H}}$. Let $V_{{\bf h}}^\times$ be the algebraic antidual of the vector space $V_{{\bf h}}$, that is, $V_{{\bf h}}^\times$ is the linear space consisting of all antilinear functions $c:\,V_{{\bf h}}\to{\mathbb C}$ (antilinearity means that $c(\alpha\psi+\beta{\varphi})={\overline}\alpha c(\psi)+{\overline}\beta c({\varphi})$ for all $\alpha,\,\beta\in{\mathbb C}$ and $\psi,\,{\varphi}\in V_{{\bf h}}$). By denoting $c_n={c(h_n)}$ one sees that $V_{{\bf h}}^\times$ can be identified with the linear space of formal series $c=\sum_{n=1}^{\dim{\mathcal{H}}}c_nh_n$ where $c_n$’s are arbitrary complex numbers. Hence, $V_{{\bf h}}\subseteq{\mathcal{H}}\subseteq V_{{\bf h}}^\times$. Denote the dual pairing $\<\psi|c\>:={c(\psi)}=\sum_{n=1}^{\dim{\mathcal{H}}} \<\psi|h_n\>c_n$ and $\<c|\psi\>:=\overline{\<\psi|c\>}$ for all $\psi\in V_{{\bf h}}$ and $c\in V_{{\bf h}}^\times$. Especially, $c_n=\<h_n|c\>$. We say that a mapping $c:\,\Omega\to V_{{\bf h}}^\times,\,x\mapsto \sum_{n=1}^{\dim{\mathcal{H}}}c_n(x)h_n$ is [*(weak${}^*$-)measurable*]{} if its components $x\mapsto c_n(x)$ are measurable [@HyPeYl]. Note that, if $c:\,\Omega\to{\mathcal{H}}\subseteq V_{{\bf h}}^\times$ is weak${}^*$-measurable then the maps $x\mapsto\<\psi|c(x)\>$ are measurable for all $\psi\in{\mathcal{H}}$.
Let $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ be a measurable space and ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ denote a direct integral $\int_\Omega^\oplus{\mathcal{H}}(x)\,\d\mu(x)$ of [*separable*]{} Hilbert spaces ${\mathcal{H}}(x)$ such that $\dim{\mathcal{H}}(x)=m(x)\in{\mathbb N}\cup\{0,\infty\}$; here $\mu$ is a $\sigma$-finite nonnegative measure[^22] on $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ [@Di]. For each $f\in L^\infty(\mu)$, we denote briefly by $\hat f$ the multiplicative (i.e. diagonalizable) bounded operator $(\hat f\psi)(x):=f(x)\psi(x)$ on ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$. Especially, one has the [*canonical spectral measure*]{} $\Sigma\ni X\mapsto {\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X):={\ensuremath{{\hat\chi}\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle X$} }}\in\mathcal L({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}})$ (where ${\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle X$} }}$ is the characteristic function of $X\in\Sigma$). We say that an operator $D\in{\mathcal}L({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}})$ is [*decomposable*]{} if there is a weakly $\mu$-measurable field of operators $\Omega\ni x\mapsto D(x)\in{\mathcal}L\big({\mathcal{H}}(x)\big)$ such that $(D\psi)(x)=D(x)\psi(x)$ for all $\psi\in{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ and $\mu$-a.a $x\in\Omega$; it is often denoted $$D=\int_\Omega^\oplus D(x)\,\d\mu(x).$$ We have the following theorem proved in [@HyPeYl; @Pe11]:
\[th1\] Let ${\mathsf{M}}:\,\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ be a POVM and $\mu:\,\Sigma\to[0,\infty]$ a $\sigma$-finite measure such that ${\mathsf{M}}\ll\mu$. Let ${{\bf h}}$ be an ON basis of ${\mathcal{H}}$. There exists a direct integral ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}=\int_\Omega^\oplus{\mathcal{H}}(x)\,\d\mu(x)$ (with $m(x)\le\dim{\mathcal{H}}$) such that, for all $X\in\Sigma$,
1. ${\mathsf{M}}(X)=J_\oplus^*{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X)J_\oplus$ where $J_\oplus:\,{\mathcal{H}}\to{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ is a linear isometry such that the set of linear combinations of vectors ${\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X')J_\oplus {\varphi}$, $X'\in\Sigma$, ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}},$ is dense in ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$.
2. There are measurable maps $d_k:\,\Omega\to V_{{\bf h}}^\times$ such that, for all $x\in\Omega$, the vectors $d_k(x)\ne 0$, $k<m(x)+1$, are linearly independent, and $$\<{\varphi}|{\mathsf{M}}(X)\psi\>=\int_X \sum_{k=1}^{m(x)} \<{\varphi}|d_k(x)\>\<d_k(x)|\psi\>\,\d\mu(x),\hspace{0.5cm}{\varphi},\,\psi\in V_{{\bf h}},$$ (a minimal diagonalization of ${\mathsf{M}}$). In addition, there exist measurable maps ${\Omega}\ni x\mapsto g_\ell(x)\in V_{{\bf h}}$ such that $\<d_k(x)|g_\ell(x)\>=\delta_{k\ell}$ (the Kronecker delta).
3. ${\mathsf{M}}$ is a spectral measure if and only if $J_\oplus$ is a unitary operator and thus ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ can be identified with ${\mathcal{H}}$.
A minimal Stinespring dilation for a POVM ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ (viewed as a completely positive map $L^\infty(\mu)\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, $f\mapsto\int f\,\d{\mathsf{M}}$, where $\mu$ is a probability measure such that ${\mathsf{M}}\ll\mu$) is called as a minimal Naĭmark dilation and it consists of a Hilbert space ${\mathcal}M$, an isometry $J:{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathcal}M$, and a spectral measure ${\mathsf{P}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal}L({\mathcal}M)$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X)=J^*{\mathsf{P}}(X)J$ and the vectors ${\mathsf{P}}(X)J{\varphi}$, $X\in\Sigma$, ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$, span a dense subspace of ${\mathcal}M$. The above theorem tells that, whenever ${\mathcal{H}}$ is separable, one can choose ${\mathcal}M={{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}=\int_\Omega^\oplus{\mathcal{H}}(x)\,\d\mu(x)$ and ${\mathsf{P}}$ to be the canonical spectral measure ${\mathsf{P}}_\oplus$.
Physical outcome spaces
-----------------------
It is reasonable to assume that a physically relevant outcome space $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ of an observable is regular or ‘nice’ enough. One can often suppose that $\Sigma$ is [*countably generated,*]{} i.e. there exists a countable $S\subseteq\Sigma$ such that $\Sigma$ is the smallest $\sigma$-algebra of $\Omega$ containing $S$. We will always consider any topological space $T$ as a measurable space $\big(T,{\mathcal{B}(T)}\big)$ where ${\mathcal{B}(T)}$ is the Borel $\sigma$-algebra of $T$. Furthermore, we equip any subset $S$ of $T$ with its subspace topology and the corresponding Borel $\sigma$-algebra ${\mathcal{B}(S)}={\mathcal{B}(T)}\cap S$. We have the following proposition [@Preston Proposition 3.2]:
A measurable space $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is countably generated if and only if there exists a map $f:\,\Omega\to{\mathbb R}$ such that
- for all $Y\in{\mathcal{B}({\mathbb R})}$ the preimage $f^{-1}(Y)\in\Sigma$ (measurability) and
- for all $X\in\Sigma$ there is $Y\in{\mathcal{B}({\mathbb R})}$ such that $f^{-1}(Y)=X$.
Recall that $f$ satisfying (i) and (ii) is called exactly measurable. If $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is countably generated and $\mu$ any $\sigma$-finite positive measure on $\Sigma$ then $L^2(\mu)$ and ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}=\int_\Omega^\oplus{\mathcal{H}}(x)\,\d\mu(x)$ are separable.
We say that $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is [*nice*]{}[^23] if it is countably generated and $f:\,\Omega\to{\mathbb R}$ of the above proposition meets the additional condition
- $f(\Omega)\in{\mathcal{B}({\mathbb R})}$.
Note that in this case actually $f(X)\in{\mathcal{B}({\mathbb R})}$ for all $X\in\Sigma$ [@Preston Lemma 4.1]. If, in addition, $f$ is injective then the nice space $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is a [*standard Borel space*]{} showing that nice spaces are generalizations of standard Borel spaces. Any Borel subset of a separable complete metric space is a standard Borel space and, indeed, any standard Borel space is $\sigma$-isomorphic[^24] to such a set or even to some compact metric space. Usually in physics, outcome spaces are finite-dimensional second countable Hausdorff manifolds which are (as locally compact spaces) standard Borel.
One can think of nice spaces as standard Borel spaces without the separability property (recall that $\Sigma$ is separable if $\{x\}\in\Sigma$ for all $x\in\Omega$). For any $x\in\Omega$ one can define an atom $A_x:=\bigcap\{X\in\Sigma\,|\,x\in X\}=f^{-1}(\{f(x)\})$ [@Preston Lemma 3.1] so that a nice space is standard Borel if and only if $A_x=\{x\}$ for all $x\in\Omega$. Hence, atoms of nice spaces may have an ‘inner structure’ (compare to the case of real world atoms).
Suppose that $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is nice with an $f$ satisfying (i)–(iii). Hence, $f(\Omega)\in{\mathcal{B}({\mathbb R})}$ is a standard Borel space and, without restricting generality,[^25] we can assume that
- $f(\Omega)=\{1,2,\ldots,N\}$, $N\in{\mathbb N}$, or $f(\Omega)={\mathbb N}$ (discrete case), or
- $f(\Omega)={\mathbb R}$ (continuous case).
In the discrete case, we say that $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is [*discrete*]{} and denote $X_i=f^{-1}(\{i\})=A_{x_i}$, $i=1,2,\ldots$, so that $X_i\cap X_j=\emptyset$, $i\ne j$, thus showing that $\Sigma$ is the set of all unions of sets $X_i$ and the empty set $\emptyset$. Moreover, any observable ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is discrete and, as earlier, can be identified with $({\mathsf{M}}_i)_{i=1}^N$ where ${\mathsf{M}}_i={\mathsf{M}}(X_i)$.
Joint measurability and sequential measurements
===============================================
If quantum devices can be applied simultaneously on the same system, we say that they are compatible. Simultaneously measurable observables are called jointly measurable. Let us give formal definitions for these notions.
Observables ${\mathsf{M}}_i:\Sigma_i\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ with outcome spaces $(\Omega_i,\Sigma_i)$, $i=1,2$, are [*jointly measurable*]{} if they are [*margins*]{} of a [*joint observable*]{} ${\mathsf{N}}:\Sigma_1\otimes\Sigma_2\to{\mathcal{H}}$ defined on the product $\sigma$-algebra $\Sigma_1\otimes\Sigma_2$ (generated by sets $X\times Y$, $X\in\Sigma_1$, $Y\in\Sigma_2)$, i.e., $${\mathsf{M}}_1(X)={\mathsf{N}}(X\times\Omega_2),\quad{\mathsf{M}}_2(Y)={\mathsf{N}}(\Omega_1\times Y),\qquad X\in\Sigma_1,\quad Y\in\Sigma_2.$$
Especially, ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ and ${\mathsf{M}}_2$ are jointly measurable if (and only if) they are [*functions*]{} or [*relabelings*]{} of a third observable ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$, i.e. for both $i=1,2$ one has ${\mathsf{M}}_i(X_i)={\mathsf{M}}\big(f_i^{-1}(X_i)\big)$ for all $X_i\in\Sigma_i$ where $f_i:\,\Omega_i\to\Omega$ is a measurable function. Now a joint observable ${\mathsf{N}}$ is defined by ${\mathsf{N}}(X\times Y)={\mathsf{M}}\big(f_1^{-1}(X)\cap f_2^{-1}(Y)\big)$ for all $X\in\Sigma_1$ and $Y\in\Sigma_2$. Note that, in this case, all the three measurable spaces can be arbitrary [@kirja Chapter 11]. This implies that, in particular, any observable is jointly measurable with its relabelings.
Similarly, we say that an observable ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ and a channel $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ are [*compatible*]{} if there exists a [*joint instrument*]{} $\mathcal J:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ such that $${\mathsf{M}}(X)=\mathcal J(I_{\mathcal{K}},X),\quad\Phi(B)=\mathcal J(B,\Omega),\qquad X\in\Sigma,\quad B\in{\mathcal{L(K)}}.$$
The above means, when ${\mathsf{M}}$ and $\Phi$ are compatible, there exists a measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ such that $\Phi_*$ is the unconditioned state transformation induced by the measurement.
It is useful to look at joint measurablility and compatibility from a more general perspective. Recall the definition of the set ${\bf CP}({\mathcal}A;{\mathcal{H}})$ of unital completely positive maps $\Phi:{\mathcal}A\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$. The following result, to which we will often refer, has been obtained, e.g., in [@HaHePe14]:
\[theor:tulokuvaus\] Let ${\mathcal}A$ and ${\mathcal}B$ be von Neumann algebras, ${\mathcal{H}}$ a Hilbert space, and $\Psi\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}A\otimes{\mathcal}B;{\mathcal{H}})$. Define the map $\Psi_{(1)}\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}A;{\mathcal{H}})$, $\Psi_{(1)}(a)=\Psi(a\otimes 1_{{\mathcal}B})$ for all $a\in{\mathcal}A$, and pick a minimal dilation $({\mathcal}M,\pi,J)$ for $\Psi_{(1)}$. There is a unique map $E\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}B;{\mathcal}M)$ such that $$\Psi(a\otimes b)=J^*\pi(a)E(b)J,\qquad \pi(a)E(b)=E(b)\pi(a),\qquad a\in{\mathcal}A,\quad b\in{\mathcal}B.$$ If, additionally, $\Psi$ is normal, then both $\pi$ and $E$ are normal.
Let us first analyse what the above means for two jointly measurable observables.
\[theor:JMF\] Suppose that ${\mathsf{M}}_i:\Sigma_i\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, $i=1,2$, are jointly measurable observables on a ${\mathcal{H}}$. Let $({\mathcal M},{\mathsf{P}},J)$ be any minimal Naĭmark dilation for ${\mathsf{M}}_1$. Fix a joint observable ${\mathsf{N}}$ for ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ and ${\mathsf{M}}_2$. There is a unique POVM ${\mathsf{F}}:\Sigma_2\to{\mathcal}L({\mathcal M})$ such that ${\mathsf{P}}(X){\mathsf{F}}(Y)={\mathsf{F}}(Y){\mathsf{P}}(X)$ for all $X\in\Sigma_1$ and $Y\in\Sigma_2$ and $${\mathsf{N}}(X\times Y)=J^*{\mathsf{P}}(X){\mathsf{F}}(Y)J,\qquad X\in\Sigma_1,\quad Y\in\Sigma_2.$$
Connection between joint and sequential measurements
----------------------------------------------------
A special case of joint observables is sequential measurements where an initial observable ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is first measured yielding some ${\mathsf{M}}$-instrument $\mathcal J:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ with output Hilbert space ${\mathcal{K}}$. Then some observable ${\mathsf{M}}':\Sigma'\to{\mathcal{L(K)}}$ is measured. The conditional probability for obtaining an outcome within $Y\in\Sigma'$ in the second measurement, conditioned by the first measurement observing a value in $X\in\Sigma$, is $${\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathcal J_*(\rho,X){\mathsf{M}}'(Y)\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho\mathcal J\big({\mathsf{M}}'(Y),X\big)\right]}$$ when the system is initially in the state $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$. For all spaces $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ and $(\Omega',\Sigma')$, the positive operator bimeasure $(X,Y)\mapsto\mathcal J\big({\mathsf{M}}'(Y),X\big)$ extends into a POVM on $\Sigma\otimes\Sigma'$ [@LaYl; @ylinen96]. In this case, the extension ${\mathsf{J}}:\Sigma\otimes\Sigma'\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is a joint observable for the initial observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ and a distorted version ${\mathsf{M}}''=\mathcal J\big({\mathsf{M}}'(\,\cdot\,),\Omega\big)$ of the second observable. As shown in Section \[sec:intro\], any joint measurement of discrete observables can be implemented as a sequential measurement; see also [@HeMi14] for this fact and its generalizations in the case of discrete observables. Next we show that joint and sequential measurements are, in this sense, equivalent in a very general case. Whenever $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is a measurable space and $\mu$ is a probability measure on $\Sigma$, we denote by ${\mathsf{P}}_\mu$ the canonical spectral measure on $L^2(\mu)$, i.e., $\big({\mathsf{P}}_\mu(X)\psi\big)(x)={\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle X$} }}(x)\psi(x)$ for all $X\in\Sigma$, $\psi\in L^2(\mu)$, and $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega$. When ${\mathcal{K}}$ is a Hilbert space we naturally identify $L^2(\mu)\otimes{\mathcal{K}}$ with the $L^2$-space of functions $\Omega\to{\mathcal{K}}$.
\[prop:jointtijonoksi\] Suppose that $(\Omega_i,\Sigma_i)$, $i=1,2$, are countably generated measurable spaces and ${\mathcal{H}}$ is a separable Hilbert space. Assume that ${\mathsf{M}}_i:\,\Sigma_i\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, $i=1,2$, are jointly measurable observables with a joint observable ${\mathsf{N}}$. There is a separable Hilbert space ${\mathcal{K}}$, an ${\mathsf{M}}_1$-instrument $\mathcal J:\mathcal L({\mathcal{K}})\times\Sigma_1\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, and a POVM ${\mathsf{M}}':\Sigma_2\to\mathcal L({\mathcal{K}})$ such that $$\label{eq:jointtijonoksi}
{\mathsf{N}}(X\times Y)=\mathcal J({\mathsf{M}}'(Y),X),\qquad X\in\Sigma_1,\quad Y\in\Sigma_2.$$
Choose probability measures $\mu_i:\Sigma\to[0,1]$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}_i\ll\mu_i$, $i=1,2$. Pick a minimal Naĭmark dilation $({\mathcal{H}}_\oplus,{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus,J_\oplus)$ of Theorem \[th1\] for ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ where $${\mathcal{H}}_\oplus:=\int_{\Omega_1}^\oplus{\mathcal{H}}(x)\,\d\mu_1(x)$$ is a direct integral space which is separable since $(\Omega_1,\Sigma_1)$ is countably generated. According to Theorem \[theor:JMF\], there is a POVM ${\mathsf{F}}:\Sigma_2\to\mathcal L({\mathcal{H}}_\oplus)$ such that ${\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X){\mathsf{F}}(Y)={\mathsf{F}}(Y){\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X)$ and ${\mathsf{N}}(X\times Y)=J_\oplus^*{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X){\mathsf{F}}(Y)J_\oplus$ for all $X\in\Sigma_1$ and $Y\in\Sigma_2$. Let $({\mathcal M},{\mathsf{Q}},K)$ be a minimal Naĭmark dilation for ${\mathsf{F}}$. Again, ${\mathcal M}$ is separable since ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ is separable and $\Sigma_2$ is countably generated.
Fix $X\in\Sigma_1$ and define ${\mathsf{F}}_X:\Sigma_2\to\mathcal L({\mathcal{H}}_\oplus)$ by ${\mathsf{F}}_X(Y)={\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X){\mathsf{F}}(Y)$. Now ${\mathsf{F}}_X(Y)\le {\mathsf{F}}(Y)$ for all $Y\in\Sigma_2$, so that one can define a unique $\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X)\in\mathcal L({\mathcal M})$ by $\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X){\mathsf{Q}}(Y)K\psi:={\mathsf{Q}}(Y)K{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X)\psi$, $Y\in\Sigma_2$ and $\psi\in{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ (see, e.g., a similar proof of [@HaHePe14 Proposition 2.1]). Clearly, $\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X)^2=\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X)$, $\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X){\mathsf{Q}}(Y)={\mathsf{Q}}(Y)\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X)$, and ${\mathsf{F}}_X(Y)=K^*\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X){\mathsf{Q}}(Y)K$ for all $Y\in\Sigma_2$. Hence, $X\mapsto\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X)$ is a PVM.
For all $X\in\Sigma_1$ and $Y\in\Sigma_2$, define the projection ${\mathsf{R}}(X,Y)=\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X){\mathsf{Q}}(Y)\in{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal M})$. Since ${\mathsf{N}}$ is a POVM, for any ${\varphi}_1,\,{\varphi}_2\in{\mathcal{H}}$, $X_1,\,X_2\in\Sigma_1$, and $Y_1,\,Y_2\in\Sigma_2$, the complex bimeasure $$\begin{aligned}
(X,Y)&\mapsto&\<{\mathsf{Q}}(Y_1)K{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X_1)J_\oplus{\varphi}_1|{\mathsf{R}}(X,Y){\mathsf{Q}}(Y_2)K{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X_2)J_\oplus{\varphi}_2\>\\
&=&\<{\varphi}_1|{\mathsf{N}}\big((X\times Y)\cap(X_1\times Y_1)\cap(X_2\times Y_2)\big){\varphi}_2\>.\end{aligned}$$ extends into a complex measure on $\Sigma_1\otimes\Sigma_2$. Using the minimality of the subsequent dilations, one finds that $(X,Y)\mapsto\<\xi|{\mathsf{R}}(X,Y)\xi\>$ extends into a measure for all $\xi\in{\mathcal M}$. Thus $(X,Y)\mapsto\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X){\mathsf{Q}}(Y)$ extends into a PVM which we shall also denote by ${\mathsf{R}}$.
Since ${\mathcal M}$ is separable, we may diagonalize ${\mathsf{R}}$ and thus identify ${\mathcal M}$ with the direct integral space $${\mathcal M}_\oplus=\int_{\Omega_1\times\Omega_2}^\oplus{\mathcal M}(x,y)\,\d(\mu_1\times\mu_2)(x,y),$$ where ${\mathsf{R}}$ operates as the canonical spectral measure. From now on, let us fix a separable infinite-dimensional Hilbert space ${\mathcal M}_\infty$ so that we may define a decomposable isometry $W:{\mathcal M}\to {\overline}{\mathcal M}:=L^2(\mu_1\times\mu_2)\otimes{\mathcal M}_\infty\cong L^2(\mu_1)\otimes \big[L^2(\mu_2)\otimes{\mathcal M}_\infty\big]$, $$W=\int_{\Omega_1\times\Omega_2}^\oplus W(x,y)\,\d(\mu_1\times\mu_2)(x,y),$$ where $W(x,y):{\mathcal M}(x,y)\to{\mathcal M}_\infty$ are isometries. One may also define the decomposable isometry $W_1:{\mathcal{H}}_\oplus\to{\overline}{\mathcal M}$, $W_1=\int_{\Omega_1}^\oplus W_1(x)\,\d\mu_1(x),$ where $W_1(x):{\mathcal{H}}(x)\to L^2(\mu_2)\otimes{\mathcal M}_\infty$ are isometries, and ${\overline}K:=WKW_1^*\in{\mathcal{L}}({\overline}{\mathcal M})$.
Define the canonical spectral measure ${\overline}{\mathsf{R}}:={\mathsf{P}}_{\mu_1\times\mu_2}\otimes I_{{\mathcal M}_\infty}$ of ${\overline}{\mathcal M}$ with the margin ${\overline}{\mathsf{P}}:\Sigma_1\to\mathcal L({\overline}{\mathcal M})$, ${\overline}{\mathsf{P}}(X)={\overline}{\mathsf{R}}(X\times\Omega_2)={\mathsf{P}}_{\mu_1}(X)\otimes I_{L^2(\mu_2)}\otimes I_{{\mathcal M}_\infty}$. It is simple to check that ${\overline}{\mathsf{R}}(Z)W=W{\mathsf{R}}(Z)$ and ${\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X)W_1^*=W_1^*{\overline}{\mathsf{P}}(X)$ for all $Z\in\Sigma_1\otimes\Sigma_2$ and $X\in\Sigma_1$. This means that $${\overline}{\mathsf{P}}(X){\overline}K=W\tilde{\mathsf{P}}(X)KW_1^*=WK{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X)W_1^*={\overline}K\,{\overline}{\mathsf{P}}(X)$$ for all $X\in\Sigma_1$. Thus, ${\overline}K=\int_{\Omega_1}^\oplus{\overline}K(x)\,\d\mu_1(x)$ where ${\overline}K(x)\in\mathcal L\big(L^2(\mu_2)\otimes{\mathcal M}_\infty\big)$. Define the isometry $\tilde{K}:=WK={\overline}KW_1=\int_{\Omega_1}^\oplus\tilde{K}(x)\,\d\mu(x)$ with the isometries $\tilde{K}(x)={\overline}K(x)W_1(x):\,{\mathcal{H}}(x)\to L^2(\mu_2)\otimes{\mathcal M}_\infty$.
For $\mu_1$-a.a. $x\in\Omega_1$ define the channel $$T_x:\;\mathcal L\big(L^2(\mu_2)\big)\to\mathcal L\big({\mathcal{H}}(x)\big),\quad B\mapsto T_x(B):=\tilde{K}(x)^*(B\otimes I_{{\mathcal M}_\infty})\tilde{K}(x).$$ Since the field $x\mapsto\tilde{K}(x)$ of isometries is measurable, one may define the channel $$T:\;\mathcal L\big(L^2(\mu_2)\big)\to\mathcal L({\mathcal{H}}_\oplus),\quad B\mapsto T(B):=\int_\Omega^\oplus T_x(B)\,\d\mu(x).$$ Using the intertwining properties of the various isometries and POVMs we have, for all ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$, $X\in\Sigma_1$, and $Y\in\Sigma_2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\<J_\oplus{\varphi}|{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X)T\big({\mathsf{P}}_{\mu_2}(Y)\big)J_\oplus{\varphi}\>&=&\int_X\<(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x)|T_x\big({\mathsf{P}}_{\mu_2}(Y)\big)(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x)\>\,\d\mu_1(x)\\
&=&\int_X\<\tilde{K}(x)(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x)|\big({\mathsf{P}}_{\mu_2}(Y)\otimes I_{{\mathcal M}_\infty}\big)\tilde{K}(x)(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x)\>\,\d\mu_1(x)\\
&=&\<\tilde{K}J_\oplus{\varphi}|{\overline}{\mathsf{R}}(X\times Y)\tilde{K}J_\oplus{\varphi}\>=\<KJ_\oplus{\varphi}|{\mathsf{R}}(X\times Y)KJ_\oplus{\varphi}\>\\
&=&\<J_\oplus{\varphi}|{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X){\mathsf{F}}(Y)J_\oplus{\varphi}\>=\<{\varphi}|{\mathsf{N}}(X\times Y){\varphi}\>.\end{aligned}$$ Hence, ${\mathsf{N}}(X\times Y)=J_\oplus^*{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X)T\big({\mathsf{P}}_{\mu_2}(Y)\big)J_\oplus$ for all $X\in\Sigma_1$ and $Y\in\Sigma_2$.
Define the instrument $\mathcal J:\;\mathcal L\big(L^2(\mu_2)\big)\times\Sigma_1\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ by $\mathcal J(B,X)=J_\oplus^*{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X)T(B)J_\oplus$, see [@Part2 Theorem 1]. The choices ${\mathcal{K}}:=L^2(\mu_2)$ and ${\mathsf{M}}':={\mathsf{P}}_{\mu_2}$ yield Equation .
Observables determining the future
==================================
We now turn our attention to those observables which have the property that, no matter how we measure them, registering an outcome unequivocally determines the post-measurement state of the system under study. Combining Theorem \[theor:tulokuvaus\] with Theorem \[th1\], we obtain the following characterization [@Part2 Theorem 1]:
\[theor:M-compatible\] Let $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ be a measurable space, ${\mathcal{H}}$ a separable Hilbert space, and ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ an observable. Pick the minimal Naĭmark dilation $({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}},{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus,J_\oplus)$ of Theorem \[th1\] for ${\mathsf{M}}$. Let $\mathcal J:\;{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ be an ${\mathsf{M}}$-instrument. There is a unique channel $T:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\to{\mathcal}L({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}})$ defined by a (weakly $\mu$-measurable) field $x\mapsto T_x$ of channels $T_x:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\to{\mathcal}L\big({\mathcal{H}}(x)\big)$, $$T(B)=\int_\Omega^\oplus T_x(B)\,\d\mu(x),$$ i.e., $\big(T(B)\psi\big)(x)=T_x(B)\psi(x)$ for all $B\in{\mathcal{L(K)}}$, $\psi\in{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$, and $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega$, such that $$\mathcal J(B,X)=J_\oplus^*T(B){\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X)J_\oplus,\qquad B\in{\mathcal{L(K)}},\quad X\in\Sigma.$$
Let an ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ be associated with the Naĭmark dilation $({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}},{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus,J_\oplus)$ of Theorem \[th1\]. If $\dim{\mathcal{H}}(x)=1$ for $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega$, we say that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is of [*rank 1*]{}. In this case, ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}=L^2(\mu)$ and ${\mathsf{P}}_\oplus={\mathsf{P}}_\mu$.
Let the observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ of Theorem \[th1\] be of rank 1. Also assume that $\mathcal J:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is an ${\mathsf{M}}$-instrument defined by the pointwise channels $T_x:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\to\mathcal L\big({\mathcal{H}}(x)\big)$ of Theorem \[theor:M-compatible\]. Because of the rank-1 assumption, there are states $\sigma_x\in{\mathcal}S({\mathcal{K}})$ such that $T_x(B)={\mathrm{tr}\left[\sigma_xB\right]}$, $x\in\Omega$, $B\in{\mathcal{L(K)}}$. It follows that $\mathcal J$ is of the following type:
Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{K}}$ be Hilbert spaces and $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ a measurable space. We say that an instrument $\mathcal J:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is [*nuclear*]{} if there is a weakly $\mu$-measurable[^26] field $\Omega\ni x\mapsto\sigma_x\in\mathcal S({\mathcal{K}})$ of states such that $$\mathcal J(B,X)=\int_X{\mathrm{tr}\left[\sigma_x B\right]}\,\d{\mathsf{M}}(x),\qquad X\in\Sigma,\quad B\in{\mathcal{L(K)}}.$$
The term [*nuclear*]{} follows the terminology of Cycon and Hellwig [@CyHe]. The above definition means that, in the Schrödinger picture, a nuclear instrument $\mathcal J$ has the form $$\mathcal J_*(\rho,X)=\int_X\sigma_x\,\d p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}(x),\qquad\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}},\quad X\in\Sigma,$$ where the integral is defined weakly. Physically this means that a nuclear instrument prepares the quantum system into some post-measurement state which solely depends on the outcome registered, not on the pre-measurement state of the system. This is why also the name [*measure-and-prepare instrument*]{} could also be used. Thus, any measurement of a rank-1 observable is described by a nuclear instrument and registering a value fully determines the post-measurement state. This is to say, rank-1 observables determine the future of the system under measurement. In fact, also the contrary is true as the following result from [@Part2] tells us.
\[theor:rank1-nuclear\] An observable ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is rank-1 if and only if each ${\mathsf{M}}$-instrument $\mathcal J:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is nuclear (where ${\mathcal{K}}$ is any Hilbert space).
The above result can be reformulated in the form that [*an observable determines the future if and only if it is of rank 1.*]{} The channel $\mathcal J(\cdot,\Omega)$ associated with a measurement of a rank-1 observable is also seen to be entanglement breaking [@HoShWe].
Let ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ with vectors $d_k(x)$ of Theorem \[th1\], ${\Omega}^1:={{\mathbb N}}\times{\Omega}$, and let $\Sigma^1$ be the product $\sigma$-algebra of $2^{{\mathbb N}}$ and $\Sigma$. Let $\mu^1:\,\Sigma^1\to[0,\infty]$ be the product measure of the counting measure and $\mu$. Define $d(k,x)=d_k(x)$ if $k<m(x)+1$ and $d(k,x)=0$ if $k>m(x)$. Then $$\label{eq:M^1}
\<{\varphi}|{\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}(X^1)\psi\>=\int_{X^1}\<{\varphi}|d(k,x)\>\<d(k,x)|\psi\>\d\mu^1(k,x),\hspace{0.5cm}{\varphi},\,\psi\in V_{{\bf h}},\quad X^1\in\Sigma^1,$$ defines a rank-1 POVM ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}:\,\Sigma^1\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$; we say that ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ is a [*maximally refined version of ${\mathsf{M}}$*]{}.
Since ${\mathsf{M}}(X)={\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}\big(f^{-1}(X)\big)$ where $f:\,{\Omega}^1\to{\Omega}$ is a measurable function defined by $f(k,x)=f(x)$ for all $k\in{\mathbb N}$ and $x\in{\Omega}$, ${\mathsf{M}}$ is a relabeling of ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$. Note that the value space of ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ contains the multiplicities $(k,x)$, $k<m(x)+1$, of a measurement outcome $x$ of ${\mathsf{M}}$. Moreover, ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ are jointly measurable and ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ can be measured by performing a sequential measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ and some discrete ‘multiplicity’ observable [@Pell']. We will see that the maximally refined version of an observable possesses many of the same optimality properties as the original observable meaning that we may freely assume the rank-1 property for these observables.
Post-processing and post-processing maximality
==============================================
Let us begin with a definition.
\[def:kernels\] Let $(\Omega_1,\Sigma_1)$ and $(\Omega_2,\Sigma_2)$ be measurable spaces. Also assume that $\mu:\Sigma_1\to{\mathbb R}$ is a positive measure. We say that a map $\beta:\Sigma_2\times\Omega_1\to{\mathbb R}$ is a [*$\mu$-weak Markov kernel*]{} [@JePuVi2008] if
- $\beta(Y,\cdot):\Omega_1\to{\mathbb R}$ is $\mu$-measurable for all $Y\in\Sigma_2$,
- $\beta(Y,x)\geq0$ for all $Y\in\Sigma_2$ and $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega_1$,
- $\beta(\Omega_2,x)=1$ for $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega_1$, and
- for all pairwise disjoint sequences $Y_1,\,Y_2,\ldots\,\in\Sigma_2$, $$\beta\big(\cup_{j=1}^\infty Y_j,x\big)=\sum_{j=1}^\infty \beta(Y_j,x)$$ for $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega_1$.
If $\beta(\cdot,x)$ is a probability measure for all $x\in\Omega_1$ and the maps $\beta(Y,\cdot)$ are measurable then $\beta$ is simply called a [*Markov kernel*]{}.
When $\mu_1$ is a probability measure on $(\Omega_1,\Sigma_1)$, $\mu_1\ll\mu$, and $\beta:\Sigma_2\times\Omega_1\to{\mathbb R}$ is a $\mu$-weak Markov kernel, then the set function $$\Sigma_1\times\Sigma_2\ni (X,Y)\mapsto B(X,Y):=\int_{X}\beta(Y,x)\,\d\mu_1(x)\in[0,1]$$ is a [*probability bimeasure*]{}[^27] with the marginal probability measures $X\mapsto B(X,\Omega_2)=\mu_1(X)$ and $Y\mapsto B(\Omega_1,Y)=:\mu_1^\beta(Y)$. As an immediate consequence of Carathéodory’s extension theorem, one gets the well-know result stating that if $\beta$ is a Markov kernel then $B$ extends into probability measure ${\overline}B:\,\Sigma_1\times\Sigma_2\to[0,1]$, i.e., ${\overline}B(X\times Y)=B(X,Y)$ for all $X\in\Sigma_1$ and $Y\in\Sigma_2$. Note that $\mu_1^\beta$ can be interpreted as a result of (classical) data processing represented by $\beta$. We call this data processing scene [*post-processing*]{} since the processing can be carried out after obtaining the data represented by the measure $\mu_1$. This data processing scheme generalizes to the case of POVMs in the following way.
Let ${\mathsf{M}}_1:\Sigma_1\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ be an observable operating in the Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. We assume that there is a (probability)measure $\mu$ on $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}_1\ll\mu$. We say that an observable ${\mathsf{M}}_2:\Sigma_2\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is a [*post-processing of ${\mathsf{M}}_1$*]{}, if there is a $\mu$-weak Markov kernel $\beta:\Sigma_2\times\Omega_1\to{\mathbb R}$ such that $p_\rho^{{\mathsf{M}}_2}=(p_\rho^{{\mathsf{M}}_1})^\beta$ for all $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$ or, equivalently, $${\mathsf{M}}_2(Y)=\int_{\Omega_1}\beta(Y,x)\,\d{\mathsf{M}}_1(x)\qquad\mathrm{(weakly)}$$ for all $Y\in\Sigma_2$. We denote ${\mathsf{M}}_2={\mathsf{M}}_1^\beta$.
The above means that by measuring ${\mathsf{M}}_1$, we obtain all the information obtainable by measuring ${\mathsf{M}}_2$; we just have to process the data given by ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ classically with the fixed kernel $\beta$. Thus, ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ can give us at least the same amount of information on the quantum system as ${\mathsf{M}}_2$ modulo classical data processing. Note that if ${\mathsf{M}}_2$ is a relabeling of ${\mathsf{M}}_1$, i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}_2(Y)={\mathsf{M}}_1(f^{-1}(Y))$, then ${\mathsf{M}}_2={\mathsf{M}}_1^\beta$ where $\beta(Y,x)={\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle f^{-1}(Y)$} }}(x)$ is a Markov kernel.
We may thus set up an information-content ‘order’ among observables [@BuKeDPeWe2005; @DoGr97; @MaMu90] ${\mathsf{M}}_2\leq_{\rm post}{\mathsf{M}}_1$ if there is a $\mu$-weak Markov kernel $\beta:\Sigma_2\times\Omega_1\to{\mathbb R}$ (where ${\mathsf{M}}_1\ll\mu$) such that ${\mathsf{M}}_2={\mathsf{M}}_1^\beta$. We may also say that ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ and ${\mathsf{M}}_2$ are [*post-processing equivalent*]{} if there are weak Markov kernels $\beta$ and $\gamma$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}_2={\mathsf{M}}_1^\beta$ and ${\mathsf{M}}_1={\mathsf{M}}_2^\gamma$. Recall that the ‘order’ $\leq_{\rm post}$ here may not actually be a partial order (because of the failure of transitivity); for situations where this problem can be overcome and identification of canonical representatives of the resulting equivalence classes, see [@Kuramochi2015]. An observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ is [*post-processing maximal*]{} or [*post-processing clean*]{} if, for any observable ${\mathsf{M}}'$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}\leq_{\rm post}{\mathsf{M}}'$, one has ${\mathsf{M}}'\leq_{\rm post}{\mathsf{M}}$. The maximal observables have been characterized earlier in the case of discrete outcomes [@DoGr97 Theorem 3.4]. We generalize this characterization for observables with nice outcome spaces. For that, we need the following proposition:
\[propo3\] Let $(\Omega_1,\Sigma_1)$ be nice, $(\Omega_2,\Sigma_2)$ countably generated, and $B:\,\Sigma_1\times\Sigma_2\to[0,1]$ a probability bimeasure. Denote $\mu_1=B(\,\cdot\, ,\Omega_2)$.
- There exists a probability measure ${\overline}B:\,\Sigma_1\otimes\Sigma_2\to[0,1]$ such that ${\overline}B(X\times Y)=B(X,Y)$ for all $X\in\Sigma_1$ and $Y\in\Sigma_2$.
- There exists a Markov kernel $\beta:\Sigma_2\times\Omega_1\to[0,1]$ such that $B(X,Y)=\int_{X}\beta(Y,x)\,\d\mu_1(x)$ for all $X\in\Sigma_1$ and $Y\in\Sigma_2$.
First we note that (i) holds in the case where $(\Omega_1,\Sigma_1)$ and $(\Omega_2,\Sigma_2)$ are standard Borel spaces [@Davies Lemma 4.2.1] showing that Lemma 12.1 of [@Preston] holds even in the case where probability measures on $\Sigma_1\otimes\Sigma_2$ (i.e. joint probability measures) are replaced with probability bimeasures on $\Sigma_1\times\Sigma_2$. Manifestly the rest of the proof of Theorem 12.1 of [@Preston] can be carried out by replacing joint probability measures with probability bimeasures everywhere. This proves item (ii). Item (i) follows from (ii) by recalling the well-known fact that any Markov kernel defines a joint probability measure.
\[remu\] Let $(\Omega_1,\Sigma_1)$ and $(\Omega_2,\Sigma_2)$ be as in Proposition \[propo3\], ${\mathsf{M}}_i\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma_i,{\mathcal{H}})$, $i=1,2$, ${\mathsf{M}}_1\sim\mu_1$, and ${\mathsf{M}}_2={\mathsf{M}}_1^\beta$ where $\beta$ is a $\mu_1$-weak Markov kernel, i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}_2$ is a post-processing of ${\mathsf{M}}_1$. Since $\beta$ defines a probability bimeasure, we immediately get from Proposition \[propo3\] the following results:
- There is a Markov kernel $\beta'$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}_2={\mathsf{M}}_1^{\beta'}$ and $\beta(Y,x)=\beta'(Y,x)$ for all $Y\in\Sigma_2$ and $\mu_1$-a.a. $x\in\Omega_1$.
- The POVMs ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ and ${\mathsf{M}}_2$ are jointly measurable, a joint observable ${\mathsf{N}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma_1\otimes\Sigma_2,{\mathcal{H}})$ being defined through ${\mathsf{N}}(X\times Y):=\int_X\beta(Y,x)\d{\mathsf{M}}_1(x).$
Joint measurements of rank-1 observables {#section5.1}
----------------------------------------
For the results of the rest of this section, it is useful, as an interlude, to now turn our attention to joint-measurability issues of rank-1 observables. Let ${\mathsf{M}}_i:\,\Sigma_i\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, $i=1,2$, be jointly measurable observables where ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ is of rank 1. Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be separable and $({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}},{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus,J_\oplus)$ be the minimal (diagonal) Naĭmark dilation of ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ introduced in Theorem \[th1\] with the vector field $x\mapsto d_1(x)=:d(x)$ so that, for all $X\in\Sigma_1$, $$\<{\varphi}|{\mathsf{M}}_1(X)\psi\>=\int_X\<{\varphi}|d(x)\>\<d(x)|\psi\>\,\d\mu_1(x)=
\int_X {\overline}{(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x)}(J_\oplus\psi)(x)\,\d\mu_1(x)$$ where ${\varphi},\,\psi\in V_{\bf h}$, since ${\mathcal{H}}(x)\equiv{\mathbb C}$ implies ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}=L^2(\mu_1)$ and ${\mathsf{P}}_\oplus={\mathsf{P}}_{\mu_1}$. According to Theorem \[theor:JMF\], there is a unique POVM ${\mathsf{F}}:\Sigma_2\to{\mathcal}L\big(L^2(\mu_1)\big)$ such that ${\mathsf{P}}_{\mu_1}(X){\mathsf{F}}(Y)={\mathsf{F}}(Y){\mathsf{P}}_{\mu_1}(X)$ for all $X\in\Sigma_1$ and $Y\in\Sigma_2$ and ${\mathsf{M}}_2(Y)=J_\oplus^*{\mathsf{F}}(Y)J_\oplus$ for all $Y\in\Sigma_2$. Hence, for any $Y\in\Sigma_2$, there is a measurable function $\beta(Y,\,\cdot\,):\Omega_1\to{\mathbb R}$ such that $\big({\mathsf{F}}(Y)\eta\big)(x)=\beta(Y,x)\eta(x)$ for all $\eta\in L^2(\mu_1)$ and $\mu_1$-a.a. $x\in\Omega_1$. It is simple to check that the map $\beta:\Sigma_2\times\Omega_1\to{\mathbb R}$ satisfies the conditions (i)–(iv) of Definition \[def:kernels\] implying that $\beta$ is a $\mu_1$-weak Markov kernel and ${\mathsf{M}}_2={\mathsf{M}}_1^\beta$. Thus, we have [@Pell2]:
\[theor:rank1JM\] Let ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ be a rank-1 observable of a separable ${\mathcal{H}}$. Any observable ${\mathsf{M}}':\Sigma'\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ jointly measurable with ${\mathsf{M}}$ is a post-processing of ${\mathsf{M}}$.
Post-processing clean observables
---------------------------------
The general form of post-processing clean observables is claimed to have been solved in [@Beukema2006]. There are, however, some problems in the definition of post-processing the paper uses: Despite the author’s definition of post-processing involves, according to the terminology used here, weak Markov kernels, a kernel $\beta$ is treated assuming that $\beta(\cdot,x)$ is a measure for a.a. $x$. Moreover, we find the proofs of the main theorems dubious. That is why we provide a new proof. We end up with the same characterization as in [@Beukema2006] though. The next theorem is an essential part of the characterization of post-processing clean observables given in Corollary \[cor:PostPr<->Rank1\].
Let $(\Omega_i,\Sigma_i)$, $i=1,2$, be measurable spaces, ${\mathcal{H}}$ a separable Hilbert space, ${\mathsf{M}}_1\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma_1,{\mathcal{H}})$, and $\beta:\,\Sigma_2\times\Omega_1\to[0,1]$ a Markov kernel. If ${\mathsf{M}}_1^\beta$ is of rank 1 then ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ is of rank 1.
Assume that $\mu_1$ is a probability measure on $(\Omega_1,\Sigma_1)$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}_1\ll\mu_1$. Clearly, ${\mathsf{M}}_2:={\mathsf{M}}_1^\beta\ll\mu_2:=\mu_1^\beta$ (i.e. $\mu_2(Y)=\int_{\Omega_1}\beta(Y,x)\,\d\mu_1(x)$). For any Hilbert-Schmidt operator $R\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, $Z\in\Sigma_i$, $i=1,\,2$, by the Radon-Nikodým property of the trace class, $$R^*{\mathsf{M}}_i(Z)R=\int_X{\mathsf{m}}_i(z)\,\d\mu_i(z),$$ where ${\mathsf{m}}_i:\Omega_i\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is a weakly $\mu_i$-measurable positive trace-class-valued function (which depends on $R$), see e.g. [@HyPeYl]. Requiring ${\mathsf{M}}_2$ to be rank-1 is equivalent with ${\mathsf{m}}_2(y)$ being at most rank-1 almost everywhere. Fix now a Hilbert-Schmidt operator $R$ and let ${\mathsf{m}}_i$ be the corresponding densities of $R^*{\mathsf{M}}_i(\,\cdot\,)R$ with respect to $\mu_i$. Now $$\label{eq:RM2(Y)R}
R^*{\mathsf{M}}_2(Y)R=\int_{\Omega_1}\beta(Y,x){\mathsf{m}}_1(x)\,\d\mu_1(x)$$ for all $Y\in\Sigma_2$. Since $\beta$ is a Markov kernel, the probability bimeasure $(X,Y)\mapsto\int_X\beta(Y,x)\,\d\mu_1(x)$ extends into a probability measure $\mu:\Sigma_1\otimes\Sigma_2\to[0,1]$ whose margins are $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$. Because $\mu\ll\mu_1\times\mu_2$, there is a (nonnegative) density function $\rho\in L^1(\mu_1\times\mu_2)$ such that $$\mu(Z)=\int_Z\rho\,\d(\mu_1\times\mu_2),\qquad Z\in\Sigma_1\otimes\Sigma_2$$ and, hence, $\int_Y\rho(x,y)\d\mu_2(y)=\beta(Y,x)$ for all $Y\in\Sigma_2$ and $\mu_1$-a.a. $x\in\Omega_1$. From Equation , it now follows $$\label{m2(y)}
{\mathsf{m}}_2(y)=\int_{\Omega_1}\rho(x,y){\mathsf{m}}_1(x)\,\d\mu_1(x)$$ for $\mu_2$-a.a. $y\in\Omega_2$. Let now, for every $y\in\Omega_2$, $P(y)$ be the at most one-dimensional projection onto the range of ${\mathsf{m}}_2(y)$. This is a weakly measurable map. Multiplying from both sides with $P(y)^\perp$, one obtains for $\mu_2$-a.a. $y\in\Omega_2$ $$0=\int_{\Omega_1}\rho(x,y)P(y)^\perp{\mathsf{m}}_1(x)P(y)^\perp\,\d\mu_1(x).$$ Thus also $$\int_{\Omega_1\times\Omega_2}P(y)^\perp{\mathsf{m}}_1(x)P(y)^\perp\,\d\mu(x,y)=\int_{\Omega_1\times\Omega_2}\rho(x,y)P(y)^\perp{\mathsf{m}}_1(x)P(y)^\perp\,\d(\mu_1\times\mu_2)(x,y)=0,$$ implying that $\rho(x,y)P(y)^\perp{\mathsf{m}}_1(x)P(y)^\perp=0$ for $(\mu_1\times\mu_2)$-a.a. $(x,y)\in\Omega_1\times\Omega_2$.
Denote by $N$ the set of those $(x,y)\in\Omega_1\times\Omega_2$ such that $\rho(x,y)P(y)^\perp{\mathsf{m}}_1(x)P(y)^\perp\neq0$. Applying the Fubini theorem for the characteristic function ${\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle N$} }}$, one finds that for $\mu_1$-a.a. $x\in\Omega_1$, $\rho(x,y)P(y)^\perp{\mathsf{m}}_1(x)P(y)^\perp=0$ for $\mu_2$-a.a. $y\in\Omega_2$. For $\mu_1$-a.a. $x\in\Omega_1$, there is $y\in\Omega_2$ such that $\rho(x,y)>0$. Indeed, if $E\in\Sigma_1$ is such that $\rho(x,y)=0$ for all $x\in E$ and $y\in\Omega_2$, it follows that $0=\int_{E\times\Omega_2}\rho\,\d(\mu_1\times\mu_2)=\mu(E\times\Omega_2)=\mu_1(E)$. Hence, $\mu_1$-a.a. $x\in\Omega_1$, there is $y\in\Omega_2$ such that $P(y)^\perp{\mathsf{m}}_1(x)P(y)^\perp=0$ implying ${\mathsf{m}}_1(x)=P(y){\mathsf{m}}_1(x)P(y)$, i.e., ${\mathsf{m}}_1(x)$ is at most rank-1 and, since this holds for any Hilbert-Schmidt operator $R$, we have that ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ is rank-1.
From Remark \[remu\] and the theorem above we get:
\[theor:maxtorank1\] Suppose that $(\Omega_1,\Sigma_1)$ (resp. $(\Omega_2,\Sigma_2)$) is a nice (resp. countably generated) measurable space and ${\mathcal{H}}$ is a separable Hilbert space. Let ${\mathsf{M}}_i:\Sigma_i\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, $i=1,\,2$, be observables such that ${\mathsf{M}}_2$ is of rank 1. If ${\mathsf{M}}_2$ is a post-processing of ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ then ${\mathsf{M}}_1$ is of rank 1 as well.
The next corollary gives an exhaustive characterization of post-processing clean observables with a nice value space. Especially, we find that such an observable is post-processing maximal if and only if it determines the future of the system under study.
\[cor:PostPr<->Rank1\] Let $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ be a measurable space, ${\mathcal{H}}$ a separable Hilbert space, and ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$. If ${\mathsf{M}}$ is of rank-1 then it is post-processing clean. The converse holds when $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is nice.
Suppose first that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is rank-1 and $\mu\sim{\mathsf{M}}$ is a probability measure. Hence, according to Theorem \[th1\], ${\mathsf{M}}$ has a minimal Naĭmark dilation $(L^2(\mu),{\mathsf{P}}_\mu,J_\oplus)$. If ${\mathsf{M}}$ is a post-processing of an $\tilde{\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\tilde\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ on some measurable space $(\tilde\Omega,\tilde\Sigma)$, i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}=\tilde{\mathsf{M}}^{\tilde\beta}$ where $\tilde\beta$ is a $\tilde\mu$-weak Markov kernel and $\tilde\mu\sim\tilde{\mathsf{M}}$, one can define a positive operator bimeasure $$(X,Y)\mapsto
\int_{Y}\tilde\beta(X,y)\d\tilde{\mathsf{M}}(y)=J_\oplus^*{\mathsf{P}}_\mu(X){\mathsf{F}}(Y)J_\oplus$$ where now ${\mathsf{F}}$ is of the form $\big({\mathsf{F}}(Y)\eta\big)(x)=\beta(Y,x)\eta(x)$ for all $Y\in\tilde\Sigma$, $\eta\in L^2(\mu)$ and $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega$, and thus $\tilde{\mathsf{M}}={\mathsf{M}}^{\beta}$, see Section \[section5.1\] for details.
Assume now that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is post-processing clean. Let ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}:\,\Sigma^1\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ be the rank-1 refinement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ defined in from which ${\mathsf{M}}$ can be post-processed. Since ${\mathsf{M}}$ is clean, ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ is also a post-processing of ${\mathsf{M}}$. If $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is nice then $(\Omega^1,\Sigma^1)$ is nice (thus countably generated) and Corollary \[theor:maxtorank1\] implies that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is rank-1 as well (i.e., ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ coincide).
Observables determining the past {#sec:ObsDetPast}
================================
In this section, we concentrate on observables that define the past of the system under study, i.e., those observables whose measurement outcome statistics completely determine the state of the system prior to the measurement.
Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ be a Hilbert space and $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ a measurable space. Let ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ and recall our earlier definition $p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}(\,\cdot\,)\right]}$ for all $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$. Note that the map $\rho\mapsto p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}$ is an affine map which is continuous with respect to the trace norm on ${\mathcal{S(H)}}$ and the total variation norm of probability measures. If this map is an injection, the natural conclusion is that the observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ can separate all states; with different states of the system, the outcome statistics will always differ. How one can actually determine the state of the system prior to the measurement is not discussed here; the reader is redirected to [@KiPeSchu2010] for this issue.
This prompts the following definition: an observable ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is [*informationally complete*]{} if for $\rho,\,\sigma\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$, $\rho\neq\sigma$ implies $p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}\neq p_\sigma^{\mathsf{M}}$. This injectivity extends to the whole of ${\mathcal{T(H)}}$, and thus informational completeness of ${\mathsf{M}}$ is equivalent with the following: for any $T\in{\mathcal{T(H)}}$, the condition ${\mathrm{tr}\left[T{\mathsf{M}}(X)\right]}=0$ for all $X\in\Sigma$ implies $T=0$. From this we see that the range ${\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}}=\{{\mathsf{M}}(X)\,|\,X\in\Sigma\}$ of ${\mathsf{M}}$ has to be extensive enough to separate the trace class ${\mathcal{T(H)}}$. Indeed, ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete if and only if the ultraweak closure of the linear hull of ${\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}}$ (which coincides with the double commutant $({\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}})''$) is the whole of ${\mathcal{L(H)}}$ [@kirja Proposition 18.1]. We can make the following important immediate observations: [*If ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete, its rank-1 refinement ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$ is informationally complete as well, and any joint measurement of an informationally complete observable with some observable is also informationally complete. More generally, if a post-processing of an observable is informationally complete, then the post-processed observable is also informationally complete.*]{}
To further quantify the informational content of an ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ in a Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$, let us define for each $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$ the set $[\rho]^{\mathsf{M}}\subseteq{\mathcal{S(H)}}$ as the set of those states $\sigma\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$ such that $p_\sigma^{\mathsf{M}}=p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}$. It is evident that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete if and only if $[\rho]^{\mathsf{M}}=\{\rho\}$ for all $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$. This definition can be generalized to the case of sets $\mathcal O$ of observables (in the same Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$): $$[\rho]^{{\mathcal}O}:=\{\sigma\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}\,|\,p_\sigma^{{\mathsf{M}}}=p_\rho^{{\mathsf{M}}},\ \forall{\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathcal}O\}$$ One can say that a set ${\mathcal}O$ of observables is informationally complete if $[\rho]^{{\mathcal}O}=\{\rho\}$ for all $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$.
An observable ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is said to be [*commutative*]{} if ${\mathsf{M}}(X){\mathsf{M}}(Y)={\mathsf{M}}(Y){\mathsf{M}}(X)$ for all $X,\,Y\in\Sigma$. Let ${\mathcal}L\subseteq{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ be a set of selfadjoint operators. We call the set of vectors ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$ such that $L_1\cdots L_n{\varphi}=L_{\pi(1)}\cdots L_{\pi(n)}{\varphi}$ for any $L_1,\ldots,\,L_n\in{\mathcal}L$, any permutation $\pi$ of $\{1,\ldots,n\}$, and any $n\in{\mathbb N}$ as the [*commutation domain of ${\mathcal}L$*]{} and denote it by ${\rm com}\,{\mathcal}L$. The following results concerning relationships between commutativity and sharpness with informational completeness have been proven in [@BuLa89]:
- Whenever $\dim{\mathcal{H}}\geq2$ and ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ is commutative, ${\mathsf{M}}$ is not informationally complete.
- A family of mutually commuting spectral measures is never informationally complete.
- If ${\mathsf{P}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is a spectral measure and $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$, $[\rho]^{\mathsf{P}}=\{\rho\}$ if and only if $\rho$ is pure (a rank-1 projection) and there is an $X\in\Sigma$ such that $\rho={\mathsf{P}}(X)$.
- If ${\mathcal}O$ is an informationally complete set of observables then $\dim{{\rm com}\,{\mathcal}L}\leq1$, where ${\mathcal}L=\bigcup_{{\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathcal}O}{\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}}$.
The following are examples on informationally complete observables and sets of observables:
- The set $\{{\mathsf{Q}}_\theta\}_{\theta\in[0,\pi)}$ of the rotated quadratures introduced in Section \[sec:intro\] is informationally complete [@kirja Theorem 18.1]
- Equivalently with the above, the homodyne observable $\mathsf G_{\rm ht}:{\mathcal}B\big([0,\pi)\times{\mathbb R}\big)\to{\mathcal}L\big(L^2({\mathbb R})\big)$ defined by $\mathsf G_{\rm ht}(\Theta\times X)=\pi^{-1}\int_\Theta{\mathsf{Q}}_\theta(X)\,\d\theta$ is informationally complete.
- The covariant phase space observable $\mathsf G_S$ introduced in Section \[sec:intro\] is informationally complete if and only if the support[^28] of the function $(q,p)\mapsto{\mathrm{tr}\left[SD(q,p)\right]}$ is ${\mathbb R}^2$ [@KiLaSchuWe2012].
Informational completeness within the set of pure states
--------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is fruitful to consider informational completeness of an observable within a restricted set ${\mathcal}P\subseteq{\mathcal{S(H)}}$ of states; we are, e.g., already guaranteed that the pre-measurement state $\rho$ is within ${\mathcal}P$ and it is enough to only be able to discern between states in ${\mathcal}P$ [@CaHeSchuTo]. Thus we arrive at [*informational completeness of an ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ within ${\mathcal}P$*]{} meaning that, whenever $\rho,\,\sigma\in{\mathcal}P$, $\rho\neq\sigma$, then $p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}\neq p_\sigma^{\mathsf{M}}$. When the set ${\mathcal}P$ consists of pure states, we identify it with $\{[{\varphi}]\,|\,{\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}},\ {|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|}\in{\mathcal}P\}$; here, for any ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$, we denote $[{\varphi}]:=\{t{\varphi}\,|\,t\in\mathbb T\}$ and ${\mathbb T}:=\{z\in{\mathbb C}\,|\,|z|=1\}$. We get the following result for the case where we have to distinguish a pure state from other pure states:
\[prop:infocompinpure\] Let $({\mathcal{H}}_\oplus,{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus,J_\oplus)$ be the minimal Naĭmark dilation of Theorem \[th1\] for an ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ in a separable Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. The observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete within the set $\{{|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|}\,|\,{\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}},\,\|{\varphi}\|=1\}$ of pure states if and only if $WJ_\oplus{\varphi}\notin J_\oplus{\mathcal{H}}$ whenever ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$ and $W=\int_\Omega^\oplus W(x)\,\d\mu(x)\in{\mathcal}L({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}})$ is a decomposable isometry such that $WJ_\oplus{\varphi}\ne tJ_\oplus{\varphi}$ for all $t\in\mathbb T$.
Let ${\varphi},\,\psi\in{\mathcal{H}}$ be unit vectors. We have $p_{{|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|}}^{\mathsf{M}}=p_{{|\psi\,\rangle\langle\,\psi|}}^{\mathsf{M}}$ if and only if $\|(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x)\|=\|(J_\oplus\psi)(x)\|$ for $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega$. One can construct measurable fields $x\mapsto\{e_n(x)\}_{n=1}^{m(x)}\subseteq{\mathcal{H}}(x)$, $x\mapsto\{f_n(x)\}_{n=1}^{m(x)}\subseteq{\mathcal{H}}(x)$ of orthonormal bases such that $$\begin{array}{rcl}
e_1(x)&=&\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\|(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x)\|^{-1}(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x),&(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x)\neq0\\
\eta(x)&{\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right.,\\
f_1(x)&=&\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\|(J_\oplus\psi)(x)\|^{-1}(J_\oplus\psi)(x),&(J_\oplus\psi)(x)\neq0\\
\eta(x)&{\rm otherwise}
\end{array}\right.
\end{array}$$ for $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega$, where $x\mapsto \eta(x)\in{\mathcal{H}}(x)$ is a measurable field of unit vectors. Defining $W(x):=\sum_{n=1}^{m(x)}{|f_n(x)\,\rangle\langle\,e_n(x)|}$ we may set up the decomposable isometry (even unitary) $W=\int_\Omega^\oplus W(x)\,\d\mu(x)$ such that $J_\oplus\psi=WJ_\oplus{\varphi}$ if $p_{{|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|}}^{\mathsf{M}}=p_{{|\psi\,\rangle\langle\,\psi|}}^{\mathsf{M}}$ holds. In reverse, it is simple to check that, whenever $W$ is a decomposable isometry such that $J_\oplus\psi=WJ_\oplus{\varphi}$, then $\|(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x)\|=\|(J_\oplus\psi)(x)\|$ for $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega$, i.e., $p_{{|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|}}^{\mathsf{M}}=p_{{|\psi\,\rangle\langle\,\psi|}}^{\mathsf{M}}$. Thus, $p_{{|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|}}^{\mathsf{M}}=p_{{|\psi\,\rangle\langle\,\psi|}}^{\mathsf{M}}$ if and only if $J_\oplus\psi=WJ_\oplus{\varphi}$ with a decomposable isometry $W\in{\mathcal}L({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}})$. The claim immediately follows from this observation and by noting that ${|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|}={|\psi\,\rangle\langle\,\psi|}$ if and only if $J_\oplus\psi=tJ_\oplus{\varphi}$ for some $t\in\mathbb T$.
The above proposition implies the well-known fact stated earlier: a PVM in a separable Hilbert space cannot be informationally complete. In fact such a PVM ${\mathsf{P}}$ is not informationally complete even within the set of pure states. Indeed, the isometry $J_\oplus$ in the dilation of Theorem \[th1\] for ${\mathsf{P}}$ is unitary, i.e., $J_\oplus{\mathcal{H}}={{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$.
For another example, as well known, the canonical phase $\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}$ introduced in Section \[sec:intro\] is not informationally complete within the set of pure states. To see this using Proposition \[prop:infocompinpure\], let us give the minimal Naĭmark dilation of Theorem \[th1\] for $\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}$ in the form $(L^2\big([0,2\pi),(2\pi)^{-1}\d\theta\big),{\mathsf{P}}_{\rm can},J_{\rm can})$, where ${\mathsf{P}}_{\rm can}$ is the canonical spectral measure of $L^2\big([0,2\pi),(2\pi)^{-1}\d\theta\big)$ and $$J_{\rm can}=\sum_{n=0}^\infty{|\psi_n\,\rangle\langle\,n|},\quad\psi_n(\theta)=e^{-in\theta},\quad0\leq\theta<2\pi,\quad n\in\{0\}\cup{\mathbb N}.$$ Let $n\in{\mathbb N}$. Since $\psi_n(\theta)=e^{-in\theta}\psi_0(\theta)$ for all $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$, defining the decomposable unitary operator $W_n$ through $(W_n\psi)(\theta)=e^{-in\theta}\psi(\theta)$, $\psi\in L^2\big([0,2\pi),(2\pi)^{-1}\d\theta\big)$, $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$, one has $J_{\rm can}|n\>=\psi_n=W_n\psi_0=W_nJ_{\rm can}|0\>\ne tJ_{\rm can}|0\>$. This proves the claim.
Let ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ be an observable in a separable Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$ with the minimal Naĭmark dilation $({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}},{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus,J_\oplus)$ of Theorem \[th1\]. Let us make a few observations and collect a couple conditions that guarantee that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is not informationally complete within the set of pure states and a necessary and sufficient condition for this.
- [*If there exist nonzero vectors ${\varphi},\,\psi\in{\mathcal{H}}$ such that $\<(J_\oplus{\varphi})(x)|(J_\oplus\psi)(x)\>=0$ for $\mu$-almost all $x\in\Omega$ then ${\mathsf{M}}$ is not informationally complete within the set of pure states.*]{} To see this, fix ${\varphi}$ and $\psi$ satisfying the above condition. Without restricting generality, assume that $\|{\varphi}\|=1=\|\psi\|$. Hence, $\<{\varphi}|\psi\>=\<J_\oplus{\varphi}|J_\oplus\psi\>=0$ and ${\varphi}_\pm=2^{-1/2}({\varphi}\pm\psi)$ are unit vectors for which ${\varphi}_+\ne t{\varphi}_-$ for all $t\in\mathbb T$ and $\|(J_\oplus{\varphi}_+)(x)\|=\|(J_\oplus{\varphi}_-)(x)\|$ for $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega$, that is, $p_{{|{\varphi}_+\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_+|}}^{\mathsf{M}}=p_{{|{\varphi}_-\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_-|}}^{\mathsf{M}}$.
Note, however, that the existence of vectors ${\varphi}$ and $\psi$ of the above condition is not necessary for an informationally incomplete observable, a counterexample being the canonical phase: Assume that $\overline{(J_{\rm can}{\varphi})(\theta)}(J_{\rm can}\psi)(\theta)=0$ for $\d\theta$-a.a. $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$. Then either $J_{\rm can}\psi$ or $J_{\rm can}{\varphi}$ is zero since any Hardy function vanishing on a set of positive measure is identically zero.
- [*If there are disjoint sets $X_i\in\Sigma$ and nonzero vectors ${\varphi}_i$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X_i){\varphi}_i={\varphi}_i$, $i=1,\,2$, then ${\mathsf{M}}$ is not informationally complete within the set of pure states.*]{} Indeed, let ${\varphi}_i\in{\mathcal{H}}\setminus\{0\}$ and $X_i$, $i=1,\,2$ be as above. Thus, ${\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(X_i)J_\oplus{\varphi}_i=J_\oplus{\varphi}_i$ for all $i=1,2$ implying that $$|\<(J_\oplus{\varphi}_1)(x)|(J_\oplus{\varphi}_2)(x)\>|\le\|(J_\oplus{\varphi}_1)(x)\|\,\|(J_\oplus{\varphi}_2)(x)\|=0$$ for $\mu$-almost all $x\in\Omega$ so that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is not informationally complete within the set of pure states.
- For any decomposable isometry $W=\int_\Omega^\oplus W(x)\,\d\mu(x)\in{\mathcal}L({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}})$, define the operator $Z_W:=J_\oplus^*WJ_\oplus$. [*The observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete within the set of pure states if and only if, for any decomposable isometry $W\in{\mathcal}L({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}})$, the operator $Z_W$ strictly decreases the norm (i.e., $\|Z_W{\varphi}\|<\|{\varphi}\|$) for any nonzero ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$ such that $J_\oplus{\varphi}$ is not an eigenvector of $W$.*]{} (Recall that an isometry may not have any eigenvalues and if eigenvalues exist they belong to $\mathbb T$.) To see this, note that, when ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$ and $W\in{\mathcal}L({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}})$ is a decomposable isometry, the vector $WJ_\oplus{\varphi}\ne tJ_\oplus{\varphi}$ is not in the subspace $J_\oplus{\mathcal{H}}\cong{\mathcal{H}}$ if and only if its norm genuinely decreases under the ‘projection’ $J_\oplus^*$, i.e., $\|J_\oplus^*WJ_\oplus{\varphi}\|<\|{\varphi}\|$. Thus we obtain the above as a reformulation of Proposition \[prop:infocompinpure\]. Note that $\|Z_W\|\le 1$ and, if $WJ_\oplus{\varphi}= tJ_\oplus{\varphi}$, then $Z_W{\varphi}=t{\varphi}$.
Suppose that $w:\Omega\to\mathbb T$ is a $\mu$-measurable function and $W=\int_\Omega^\oplus w(x)I_{{\mathcal{H}}(x)}\d\mu(x)$. Denote $Z_w:=Z_W=\int_\Omega w(x)\,\d{\mathsf{M}}(x)$. For the informational completeness of ${\mathsf{M}}$ within the set of pure states, it is necessary that $Z_w$ be strictly norm decreasing in the way defined above for any $\mathbb T$-valued measurable function $w$. We see immediately that this condition becomes also sufficient if ${\mathsf{M}}$ is of rank 1. Note that, if $w$ is not a constant on a set of positive measure, then the corresponding $W$ does not have any eigenvalues. For example, in the case of the canonical phase, $W_n$ ($n\ne 0$) does not have any eigenvalues and $Z_{W_n}=\int_0^{2\pi}e^{-in\theta}\d\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}(\theta)=\sum_{m=0}^\infty|m+n\>\<m|$ is an isometry. Often we are interested in the state determination power of the rank-1 refinement of an observable which is why the rank-1 case is of particular importance.
Let us take a closer look at a couple of examples utilizing the observations made above.
Consider a phase space observable $\mathsf G_S$ with some generating positive trace-1 operator $S$. Let us denote the closure of the range of $S$ by ${\mathcal{K}}$. The dilation of Theorem \[th1\] is given by the Hilbert space $L^2({\mathbb R}^2)\otimes{\mathcal{K}}$ identified here with the corresponding $L^2$-space of (equivalence classes of) ${\mathcal{K}}$-valued functions, the canonical spectral measure ${\mathsf{P}}_\oplus:\,{\mathcal}B({\mathbb R}^2)\to{\mathcal}L\big(L^2({\mathbb R}^2)\otimes{\mathcal{K}}\big)$, $\big({\mathsf{P}}_\oplus(Z)\eta)(q,p)={\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle Z$} }}(q,p)\eta(q,p)$ for all $Z\in{\mathcal}B({\mathbb R}^2)$, $\eta\in L^2({\mathbb R}^2)\otimes{\mathcal{K}}$, and a.a. $(q,p)\in{\mathbb R}^2$, and the isometry $J_\oplus:L^2({\mathbb R})\to L^2({\mathbb R}^2)\otimes{\mathcal{K}}$, $$(J_\oplus{\varphi})(q,p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}S^{1/2}D(q,p)^*{\varphi},\qquad{\varphi}\in L^2({\mathbb R}),\quad (q,p)\in{\mathbb R}^2.$$ It follows that $\mathsf G_S$ is informationally complete within the set of pure states if and only if, whenever ${\mathbb R}^2\ni(q,p)\mapsto W(q,p)\in{\mathcal{L(K)}}$ is a weakly measurable field of isometries, the operator $$Z_W=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{{\mathbb R}^2}D(q,p)S^{1/2}W(q,p)S^{1/2}D(q,p)^*\d q\d p$$ strictly decreases the norm of any nonzero vector ${\varphi}$ such that $J_\oplus{\varphi}$ is not an eigenvector of $W$. Especially, if $w:{\mathbb R}^2\to{\mathbb T}$ is measurable then $
Z_w=\int_{{\mathbb R}^2}w(q,p)\,\d\mathsf G_S(q,p)
$ is strictly norm decreasing in the above sense if $\mathsf G_S$ is informationally complete (within the set of pure states). If $S$ is of rank 1 (i.e., $\mathsf G_S$ is rank-1) then $\mathsf G_S$ is informationally complete within the set of pure states if and only if the operators $Z_w$ are strictly norm decreasing as above.
Let $S=\sum_{i=1}^{{\rm rank}\,S}s_i{|{\varphi}_i\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_i|}$ be the spectral decomposition of $S$ where ${\varphi}_i\in L^2({\mathbb R})$ is a unit eigenvector associated to the eigenvalue $s_i\in(0,1]$ (and $\<{\varphi}_i|{\varphi}_j\>=\delta_{ij}$, ${\mathrm{tr}\left[S\right]}=\sum_i s_i=1$). Pick a representative ${\mathbb R}\ni x\mapsto {\varphi}_i(x)\in{\mathbb C}$ from each class ${\varphi}_i$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{{\rm rank}\,S}s_i|{\varphi}_i(x)|^2<\infty$ for all $x\in{\mathbb R}$ and define a positive semidefinite integral kernel $K_S:{\mathbb R}^2\to{\mathbb C}$ by $$K_S(x,y):=\sum_{i=1}^{{\rm rank}\,S}s_i{\varphi}_i(x)\overline{{\varphi}_i(y)},\qquad (x,y)\in{\mathbb R}^2.$$ Indeed, $|K_S(x,y)|^2\le K_S(x,x)K_S(y,y)$ and $\int_{\mathbb R}K_S(x,x)\d x=1$ by the monotone convergence theorem. Now $X_{K_S}:=\{x\in{\mathbb R}\,|\,K_S(x,x)\ne 0\}$ is essentially unique in the sense that, if $\tilde{K}_S$ is another integral kernel of $S$ then $X_{K_S}$ and $X_{\tilde{K}_S}$ differ in the set of Lebesgue measure zero. For any ${\varphi},\,\psi\in L^2({\mathbb R})$ and $(q,p)\in{\mathbb R}^2$ one gets $$\begin{aligned}
2\pi\<(J_\oplus{\varphi})(q,p)|(J_\oplus\psi)(q,p)\>&=&\<D(q,p)^*{\varphi}|SD(q,p)^*\psi\> \\
&=&
\int_{X_{K_S}}\int_{X_{K_S}}\overline{(D(q,p)^*{\varphi})(x)}S(x,y)(D(q,p)^*\psi)(y)\d x\d y \\
&=&
\iint_{Y^q_{S,{\varphi},\psi}}e^{ipx}\overline{{\varphi}(x+q)}K_S(x,y)
e^{-ipy}\psi(y+q)
\d x\d y\end{aligned}$$ where $Y^q_{S,{\varphi},\psi}=X_{K_S}\times X_{K_S}\cap\{x\,|\,{\varphi}(x+q)\ne 0\}\times \{y\,|\,\psi(y+q)\ne 0\}$. If there exists an $R>0$ such that $X_{K_S}\setminus[-R,R]$ is of measure zero (e.g. $S={|{\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle [0,1]$} }}\,\rangle\langle\,{\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle [0,1]$} }}|}$) then it is easy to find ${\varphi}$ and $\psi$ such that $Y^q_{S,{\varphi},\psi}$ is zero measurable for all $q\in{\mathbb R}$ and, hence, $\mathsf G_S$ is not informationally complete within the set of pure states by above observation.
To connect our analysis with earlier results, define a continuous square-integrable function $$\hat S:\,{\mathbb R}^2\to{\mathbb R},\quad(q,p)\mapsto \hat S(q,p):={\mathrm{tr}\left[D(q,p)S\right]}=e^{iqp/2}\int_{\mathbb R}e^{ipx}K_S(x,x+q)\d x.$$ If $\hat S$ is integrable, $K_S(x,x+q)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb R}e^{-iqp/2} e^{-ipx}\hat S(q,p)\d p$ for all $q\in{\mathbb R}$ and a.a. $x\in{\mathbb R}$. If, additionally, $X_{K_S}\setminus[-R,R]$ is of measure zero for some $R>0$, $\hat S(q,p)=0$ for all $p\in{\mathbb R}$ if $|q|>2R$ but $\hat S$ need not be compactly supported (e.g. $S={|{\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle [0,1]$} }}\,\rangle\langle\,{\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle [0,1]$} }}|}$ for which $\hat S(0,p)=i(1-e^{ip})/p$ for all $p\ne0$). Assume then that the support of $\hat S$ is compact and thus contained in a rectangle $[-R_0,R_0]\times[-R_0,R_0]$. Now $\hat S$ is integrable and $S(x,x+q)=0$ for (almost) all $x$ and $q$ such that $|q|>R_0$. Immediately one finds unit vectors ${\varphi},\,\psi\in L^2({\mathbb R})$ such that $\<(J_\oplus{\varphi})(q,p)|(J_\oplus\psi)(q,p)\>=0$ for all $(q,p)\in{\mathbb R}^2$ thus showing that $\mathsf G_S$ is not informationally complete within the set of pure states. Hence, we have obtained Proposition 20(c) of [@CaHeSchuTo] as a special case.
Let ${\mathsf{M}}:2^{\Omega}\to{\mathcal}L({\mathcal{H}})$ be an observable with an at most countably infinite value space $\Omega=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots\}$, and denote ${\mathsf{M}}_i:={\mathsf{M}}(\{x_i\})$ for all $i=1,2,\ldots$. Denote the closure of the range of ${\mathsf{M}}_i$ by ${\mathcal{K}}_i$ for each $i$ and define the Hilbert space ${\mathcal{K}}:=\bigoplus_{i}{\mathcal{K}}_i$ which is equipped with the canonical spectral measure ${\mathsf{P}}:2^{\Omega}\to{\mathcal}L({\mathcal{K}})$ defined by ${\mathsf{P}}(\{x_i\})\bigoplus_{j}{\varphi}_j:={\varphi}_i$ for all $i$ and all $\bigoplus_{j}{\varphi}_j\in{\mathcal{K}}$. Moreover, define the isometry $J:{\mathcal{H}}\to{\mathcal{K}}$, ${\varphi}\mapsto J{\varphi}=\bigoplus_{i}{\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}{\varphi}$. The triple $({\mathcal{K}},{\mathsf{P}},J)$ is a minimal Naĭmark dilation for ${\mathsf{M}}$ like the one presented in Theorem \[th1\].
The observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete within the set of pure states if and only if, for any isometries $W_i\in{\mathcal}L({\mathcal{K}}_i)$ and any ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$ such that there is no $t\in\mathbb T$ such that $W_i{\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}{\varphi}=t{\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}{\varphi}$ for all $i$, one has $\|Z_W{\varphi}\|<\|{\varphi}\|$ where $Z_W:=\sum_{i}{\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}W_i{\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}$. This is a direct consequence of our earlier observations by noting that, when $W_i\in{\mathcal}L({\mathcal{K}}_i)$ are isometries and $W:=\bigoplus_{i}W_i$, then $WJ{\varphi}=tJ{\varphi}$ for some ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$ and $t\in\mathbb T$ if and only if $W_i{\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}{\varphi}=t{\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}{\varphi}$ for all $i$. If ${\mathsf{M}}$ is of rank 1, this condition can be simplified: ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete within the set of pure states if and only if, for any (nonconstant) function $ i\mapsto w_i\in\mathbb T$ and any nonzero ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$ (such that $w_i{\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}{\varphi}\ne t{\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}{\varphi}$ for all $i$), one has $\|Z_w{\varphi}\|<\|{\varphi}\|$, where $Z_w=\sum_{i}w_i{\mathsf{M}}_i$.
Finally, we note that, if $\{{\varphi}_{ik}\}_{k=1}^{\dim{\mathcal{K}}_i}$ is an orthonormal basis of ${\mathcal{K}}_i$ for each $i$ one can define (linearly independent) vectors $d_{ik}:={\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}{\varphi}_{ik}$, $k<\dim{\mathcal{K}}_i+1$, such that ${\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}=\sum_k{|{\varphi}_{ik}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_{ik}|}{\mathsf{M}}_i^{1/2}=\sum_k|{\varphi}_{ik}\>\<d_{ik}|$, $J=\sum_i\sum_k|e_{ik}\>\<d_{ik}|$, and ${\mathsf{P}}_i:={\mathsf{P}}(\{x_i\})=\sum_k{|e_{ik}\,\rangle\langle\,e_{ik}|}$, where $e_{ik}:=\bigoplus_{j}\delta_{ji}{\varphi}_{ik}$; compare to Section \[sec:intro\].
Extreme observables
===================
The relevant mathematical structures in quantum theory, sets of states, observables, channels, and instruments, are convex. For example, for observables ${\mathsf{M}},\,{\mathsf{M}}'\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ and $p\in[0,1]$, one can determine a mixed observable, a convex combination $p{\mathsf{M}}+(1-p){\mathsf{M}}'$ by $$\big(p{\mathsf{M}}+(1-p){\mathsf{M}}'\big)(X)=p{\mathsf{M}}(X)+(1-p){\mathsf{M}}'(X),\qquad X\in\Sigma.$$ Such mixing of devices can be seen as classical noise produced by an imprecise implementation that produces a measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ with relative frequency $p$ and something else otherwise.
An element $x\in K$ in a convex set $K$ set is called [*extreme*]{} if, for any $y,\,z\in K$ and $p\in(0,1)$, $x=py+(1-p)z$ implies $x=y=z$. Thus extreme quantum devices are free of classical noise due to mixing. The extreme elements of the set of states ${\mathcal{S(H)}}$ are the rank-1 projections ${|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|}$, ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$, $\|{\varphi}\|=1$, called as [*pure states*]{}, whereas the extreme effects are projections. The general characterizations of extremality for quantum devices follow ultimately from the following result [@Ar]:
\[theor:ExtArveson\] Suppose that ${\mathcal}A$ is a unital $C^*$-algebra and ${\mathcal{H}}$ is a Hilbert space. Let $\Phi\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}A;{\mathcal{H}})$ and pick a minimal Stinespring dilation $({\mathcal}M,\pi,J)$ for $\Phi$. The map $\Phi$ is an extreme point of the convex set ${\bf CP}({\mathcal}A;{\mathcal{H}})$ if and only if the map $$({\rm ran}\,\pi)'\ni D\mapsto J^*DJ\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$$ defined on the commutant of the range of $\pi$ is an injection.
We usually say shortly that an observable ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is extreme if ${\mathsf{M}}$ is an extreme element of ${\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$. We may elaborate the above extremality characterization in the case of quantum observables [@Pe11].
\[theor:extobs\] Let $({\mathcal{H}}_\oplus,{\mathsf{P}}_\oplus,J_\oplus)$ be the minimal Naĭmark dilation of Theorem \[th1\] for an ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ in a separable Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. The observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ is extreme if and only if, for any decomposable operator $D=\int_\Omega^\oplus D(x)\,\d\mu(x)\in{\mathcal}L({{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}})$, the condition $J_\oplus^*DJ_\oplus=0$ implies $D=0$.
It is an immediate result of Theorem \[theor:extobs\] that PVMs are extreme. This can also be proven directly by using the fact that projections are the extreme elements of the set of effects. Also, if $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is nice and $\dim{\mathcal{H}}<\infty$ then an extreme observable ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ is discrete. Indeed, using an exactly measurable function $f:\Omega\to{\mathbb R}$ such that $f({\Omega})\in{\mathcal}B({\mathbb R})$, we now obtain an extreme observable ${\mathsf{M}}\circ f^{-1}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}\big({\mathcal}B({\mathbb R}),{\mathcal{H}}\big)$ which is supported on an at most countable set $\{\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots\}\subset{\mathbb R}$ [@HaHePe12 Section 5]; see also [@ChiDASchli]. This means that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is supported by the set $\bigcup_{i}f^{-1}(\{\lambda_i\})$ where $f^{-1}(\{\lambda_i\})$ are atoms of $\Sigma$. Below are some examples on extreme observables which are not PVMs.
- One can show that the phase space observable $\mathsf G_S$ introduced in Section \[sec:intro\] is extreme if and only if $S$ is pure, $S={|\psi\,\rangle\langle\,\psi|}$, and $(q,p)\mapsto\<\psi|D(q,p)\psi\>\ne 0$ for all $(q,p)\in{\mathbb R}^2$ [@HePe12]. Hence, if $\mathsf G_S$ is extreme then it is informationally complete (but the converse does not hold). Especially, when $S=|0\>\<0|$, i.e., the generating state is the vacuum state, then we get the rank-1 informationally complete extreme observable $\mathsf G_{{|0\,\rangle\langle\,0|}}$.
- The canonical phase $\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}$ introduced in Section \[sec:intro\] is extreme [@HePe09].
- Fix a number $m>0$ and denote by $\hat{\varphi}$ the Fourier-Plancherel transformation of ${\varphi}\in L^2({\mathbb R})$; if ${\varphi}\in L^1({\mathbb R})\cap L^2({\mathbb R})$ we may write $$\hat{\varphi}(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{\mathbb R}e^{-ipx}{\varphi}(x)\,\d x,\qquad p\in{\mathbb R}.$$ The canonical time-of-arrival observable $\tau:{\mathcal}B({\mathbb R})\to{\mathcal}L\big(L^2({\mathbb R})\big)$ for a free mass-$m$ particle moving in ${\mathbb R}$ defined through $$\<{\varphi}|\tau(X)\psi\>=\frac{1}{2\pi m}\int_X\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty e^{\frac{it}{2m}(p_2^2-p_1^2)}\big(\overline{\hat{\varphi}(p_1)}\hat\psi(p_2)+\overline{\hat{\varphi}(-p_1)}\hat\psi(-p_2)\big)\sqrt{p_1p_2}\,\d p_1\,\d p_2\,\d t$$ for any $X\in{\mathcal}B({\mathbb R})$ and any vectors ${\varphi}$ and $\psi$ from the Schwartz space of rapidly decreasing functions, is extreme [@HaPe11].
We see from Theorem \[theor:extobs\] that [*if ${\mathsf{M}}$ is extreme so is its rank-1 refinement ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$*]{} [@Part2]. The two first examples given above are of rank 1. The third example, however, is of rank 2. The rank-1 refinement of the canonical time observable is $\tau^1:\,2^{\{1,2\}}\otimes{\mathcal}B({\mathbb R}) \to{\mathcal}L\big(L^2({\mathbb R})\big)$, $$\<{\varphi}|\tau^1(\{k\}\times X)\psi\>=\frac{1}{2\pi m}\int_X\int_0^\infty\int_0^\infty e^{\frac{it}{2m}(p_2^2-p_1^2)}\overline{\hat{\varphi}\big((-1)^kp_1\big)}\hat\psi\big((-1)^kp_2\big)\sqrt{p_1p_2}\,\d p_1\,\d p_2\, \d t$$ for all $X\in{\mathcal}B({\mathbb R})$, $k=1,\,2$, and all ${\varphi}$ and $\psi$ from the Schwartz space of rapidly decreasing functions. Thus, $\tau^1$ is extreme too.
Let us next consider an example where we show how to construct an observable in a separable Hilbert space with all the optimality properties discussed this far, i.e., a post-processing clean (rank-1) informationally complete extreme observable.
\[ex:InfocompleteRank1Ext\] Let ${\mathbb N}_\infty:={\mathbb N}\cup\{\infty\}$ and ${\mathbb N}_d:=\{1,2,\ldots,d\}$ for each $d\in{\mathbb N}$. Let ${\mathcal{H}}_d$, $d\in{\mathbb N}_\infty$, be a $d$-dimensional Hilbert space with ${\mathcal{H}}_\infty$ having the orthonormal basis $\{{|n\rangle}\}_{n=1}^\infty$. We assume that ${\mathcal{H}}_{d_1}\subseteq{\mathcal{H}}_{d_2}\subseteq{\mathcal{H}}_\infty$ whenever $d_1\leq d_2$ so that, for any $d\in{\mathbb N}$, $\{{|n\rangle}\}_{n=1}^d$ is an orthonormal basis for ${\mathcal{H}}_d$.
For all $n,\,m\in{\mathbb N}$, pick some numbers $p_{nm}>0$ for which $$p:=\sum_{n,m=1}^\infty p_{nm}<\infty.$$ Let $n,\,m\in{\mathbb N}$ such that $n<m$. Define the following vectors: $$f_{nn}:={|n\rangle},\qquad f_{nm}:={|n\rangle} + {|m\rangle},\qquad f_{mn}:={|n\rangle} - i{|m\rangle},$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
{| f_{nm}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{nm}|}&=&{|n\,\rangle\langle\,n|} + {|n\,\rangle\langle\,m|} + {|m\,\rangle\langle\,n|} + {|m\,\rangle\langle\,m|},\\
{| f_{mn}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{mn}|}&=&{|n\,\rangle\langle\,n|} + i{|n\,\rangle\langle\,m|} - i{|m\,\rangle\langle\,n|} + {|m\,\rangle\langle\,m|}\end{aligned}$$ and thus ${|n\,\rangle\langle\,n|}={|f_{nn}\,\rangle\langle\,f_{nn}|}$, $$\begin{aligned}
2{|n\,\rangle\langle\,m|} &=& \big({| f_{nm}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{nm}|}-{| f_{nn}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{nn}|}-{| f_{mm}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{mm}|}\big)\\
&&-\,i\big({| f_{mn}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{mn}|}-{| f_{nn}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{nn}|}-{| f_{mm}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{mm}|}\big),\\
2{|m\,\rangle\langle\,n|} &=& \big({| f_{nm}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{nm}|}-{| f_{nn}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{nn}|}-{| f_{mm}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{mm}|}\big)\\
&&+\,i\big({| f_{mn}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{mn}|}-{| f_{nn}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{nn}|}-{| f_{mm}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{mm}|}\big).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for any $d\in{\mathbb N}_\infty$, the linearly independent set[^29] $${\mathcal}B_d:=\big\{p_{nm}{|f_{nm}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{nm}|}
\in{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}_d)\,\big|\,n,\,m<d+1
\big\}$$ has $d^2$ elements and is a basis of ${\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}_d)$.
For each ${\mathcal}I\subseteq{\mathbb N}_d\times{\mathbb N}_d$ (or ${\mathcal}I\subseteq{\mathbb N}\times{\mathbb N}$ if $d=\infty$) we define a positive trace-class operator $$S_{{\mathcal}I}:=\sum_{(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I} p_{nm}{|f_{nm}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{nm}|}\in{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}_d).$$ Indeed, $\|S_{{\mathcal}I}\|\le{\mathrm{tr}\left[|S_{{\mathcal}I}|\right]}=
{\mathrm{tr}\left[S_{{\mathcal}I}\right]}= \sum_{(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I} p_{nm}\|f_{nm}\|^2<2p.$
Let ${\mathcal}I\subseteq{\mathbb N}_d\times{\mathbb N}_d$ (or ${\mathcal}I\subseteq{\mathbb N}\times{\mathbb N}$ if $d=\infty$), and let ${\mathcal}I_0\subseteq{\mathcal}I$ be such that the vectors $f_{nm}\in{\mathcal{H}}_d$, $(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I_0$, form a basis of the vector space ${\rm lin}\{f_{nm}\,|\,(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I\}\subseteq{\mathcal{H}}_d$ whose closure is the range of $S_{{\mathcal}I}$. Now the maximal number of linearly independent elements of $\{f_{nm}\,|\,(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I\}\subseteq{\mathcal{H}}_d$ is $\#{\mathcal}I_0\le d$. Hence, the rank of $S_{{\mathcal}I}$ (and $S_{{\mathcal}I_0}\le S_{{\mathcal}I}$) is $\#{\mathcal}I_0$ and $$S_{{\mathcal}I}=\sum_{k=1}^{\#{\mathcal}I_0} {|{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k|},$$ where the eigenvectors ${\varphi}_k^{{\mathcal}I}\in{\mathcal{H}}_d$ form an orthogonal set and the eigenvalues $\|{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k\|^2>0$ are such that $\sum_{k=1}^{\#{\mathcal}I_0}\|{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k\|^2={\mathrm{tr}\left[S_{{\mathcal}I}\right]}<\infty$. Note that $${\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k=\|{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k\|^{-2}S_{{\mathcal}I}{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k=\|{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k\|^{-2}\sum_{(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I} p_{nm}\<f_{nm}|{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k\>f_{nm}\in {\rm ran}\,S_{{\mathcal}I}={\rm ran}\,S_{{\mathcal}I_0}=\overline{{\rm lin}\{f_{nm}\,|\,(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I_0\}}$$ and $\sum_{k=1}^{\#{\mathcal}I_0}\|{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k\|^{-2}{|{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}^{{\mathcal}I}_k|}$ is the projection from ${\mathcal{H}}_d$ onto the $\#{\mathcal}I_0$–dimensional Hilbert space ${\rm ran}\,S_{{\mathcal}I_0}$.
We assume[^30] next that $\#{\mathcal}I_0=d$ so that $\{f_{nm}\,|\,(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I_0\}$ is a basis of ${\mathcal{H}}_d$ so that $S_{{\mathcal}I}$ is of full rank and thus invertible. Let $2^{{\mathcal}I}$ be the power set of ${\mathcal}I$ and define the following discrete rank-1 POVM ${\mathsf{M}}:\,2^{{\mathcal}I}\to{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}_d)$: $${\mathsf{M}}_{nm}:={|\sqrt{p_{nm}} S_{{\mathcal}I}^{-1/2} f_{nm}\,\rangle\langle\,\sqrt{p_{nm}} S_{{\mathcal}I}^{-1/2} f_{nm}|},\qquad (n,m)\in{\mathcal}I.$$ Since, for any complex numbers $c_{nm}$ such that $\sup\{|c_{nm}|\,|\,(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I\}<\infty$, $$\sum_{(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I} c_{nm}{\mathsf{M}}_{nm} =
\sum_{(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I} c_{nm}p_{nm}{| S_{{\mathcal}I}^{-1/2} f_{nm}\,\rangle\langle\, S_{{\mathcal}I}^{-1/2} f_{nm}|}=0$$ if and only if $\sum_{(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I} c_{nm}p_{nm}{| f_{nm}\,\rangle\langle\, f_{nm}|}=S_{{\mathcal}I}^{1/2}\sum_{(n,m)\in{\mathcal}I} c_{nm}p_{nm}{| S_{{\mathcal}I}^{-1/2} f_{nm}\,\rangle\langle\, S_{{\mathcal}I}^{-1/2} f_{nm}|}S_{{\mathcal}I}^{1/2}=0$ if and only if $c_{nm}\equiv0$, the observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ is extreme with $N=\#{\mathcal}I\geq \#{\mathcal}I_0=d$ elements. Automatically, $d\leq N \leq d^2$ which must hold for any extreme rank-1 POVM. If ${\mathcal}I={\mathbb N}_d\times{\mathbb N}_d$ (or ${\mathcal}I={\mathbb N}\times{\mathbb N}$ if $d=\infty$) then $N=d^2$ and ${\mathcal}B_d$ is a basis of ${\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}_d)$ showing that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is also informationally complete. Note that, in the case $N=d$, we get a PVM ${\mathsf{M}}$. When $N$ runs from $d$ to $d^2$ the value determination ability weakens but state determination power increases.
Joint measurements of extreme observables
-----------------------------------------
We now concentrate on joint measurements involving extreme observables. To this end, let us recall the sets ${\bf CP}({\mathcal}A;{\mathcal{H}})$ of completely positive unital maps defined on a unital $C^*$-algebra ${\mathcal}A$ and taking values in a type-1 factor ${\mathcal{L(H)}}$. Let ${\mathcal}A$ and ${\mathcal}B$ be von Neumann algebras. We say that $\Phi_1\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}A;{\mathcal{H}})$ and $\Phi_2\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}B,{\mathcal{H}})$ are [*compatible*]{}, if there is a [*joint map*]{} $\Psi\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}A\otimes{\mathcal}B;{\mathcal{H}})$ such that $\Phi_1$ coincides with the margin $\Psi_{(1)}$ and $\Phi_2$ coincides with the margin $\Psi_{(2)}$, where $$\Psi_{(1)}(a)=\Psi(a\otimes1_{{\mathcal}B}),\quad\Psi_{(2)}(b)=\Psi(1_{{\mathcal}A}\otimes b),\qquad a\in{\mathcal}A,\quad b\in{\mathcal}B.$$ The following result has been obtained in [@HaHePe14].
\[theor:extmarg\] Let ${\mathcal}A$ and ${\mathcal}B$ be von Neumann algebras and $\Phi_1\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}A;{\mathcal{H}})$ and $\Phi_2\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}B;{\mathcal{H}})$ be compatible.
- If $\Phi_1$ is extreme in ${\bf CP}({\mathcal}A;{\mathcal{H}})$ or $\Phi_2$ is extreme in ${\bf CP}({\mathcal}B;{\mathcal{H}})$ then they have a unique joint map $\Psi\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}A\otimes{\mathcal}B;{\mathcal{H}})$.
- If both $\Phi_1$ and $\Phi_2$ are extreme then the unique joint map $\Psi$ is extreme in ${\bf CP}({\mathcal}A\otimes{\mathcal}B;{\mathcal{H}})$.
- If $\Phi_1$ or $\Phi_2$ is a \*-representation (i.e., especially extreme), one has $\Phi_1(a)\Phi_2(b)=\Phi_2(b)\Phi_1(a)$ for all $a\in{\mathcal}A$ and all $b\in{\mathcal}B$ and the unique joint map $\Psi\in{\bf CP}({\mathcal}A\otimes{\mathcal}B;{\mathcal{H}})$ is given by $$\Psi(a\otimes b)=\Phi_1(a)\Phi_2(b),\qquad a\in{\mathcal}A,\quad b\in{\mathcal}B.$$
Applying Theorem \[theor:extmarg\] to the case of an extreme observable and other measurement devices compatible with this observable, we obtain the following [@HaHePe14]:
Let observables ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}':\Sigma'\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ be jointly measurable, and let $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ be a channel compatible with ${\mathsf{M}}$. If ${\mathsf{M}}$ is extreme then
- the ${\mathsf{M}}$-instrument ${\mathcal}J:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ such that ${\mathcal}J(B,\Omega)=\Phi(B)$ for all $B\in{\mathcal{L(K)}}$ is unique and
- the joint observable ${\mathsf{N}}:\Sigma\otimes\Sigma'\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ for ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}'$ is unique.
Moreover, if ${\mathsf{M}}$ is a PVM,
- ${\mathsf{M}}(X)\Phi(B)=\Phi(B){\mathsf{M}}(X)$ for all $X\in\Sigma$ and all $B\in{\mathcal{L(K)}}$ and the only ${\mathsf{M}}$-instrument ${\mathcal}J:{\mathcal{L(K)}}\times\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ such that ${\mathcal}J(\cdot,\Omega)=\Phi$ is given by $${\mathcal}J(B,X)=\Phi(B){\mathsf{M}}(X)={\mathsf{M}}(X)^{1/2}\Phi(B){\mathsf{M}}(X)^{1/2},\qquad B\in{\mathcal{L(K)}},\quad X\in\Sigma,$$ and
- ${\mathsf{M}}(X){\mathsf{M}}'(Y)={\mathsf{M}}'(Y){\mathsf{M}}(X)$ for all $X\in\Sigma$ and all $Y\in\Sigma'$ and the only joint observable ${\mathsf{N}}:\Sigma\otimes\Sigma'\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ for ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}'$ is determined by $${\mathsf{N}}(X\times Y)={\mathsf{M}}(X){\mathsf{M}}'(Y)={\mathsf{M}}(X)^{1/2}{\mathsf{M}}'(Y){\mathsf{M}}(X)^{1/2},\qquad X\in\Sigma,\quad Y\in\Sigma'.$$
The above result essentially means that there is only one way in which an extreme observable can be measured if we fix the unconditioned state transformation associated with the measurement. Similarly, there is only one observable incorporating an extreme marginal observable and some other fixed observable. The corresponding conditions for joint measurements involving PVMs, being from a special subclass of extreme observables, are even more stringent: compatibility or joint measurability with a PVM requires that the other measurement device (observable or channel) commutes with the PVM.
Observables determining their values
====================================
We say that an observable ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ determines its values if for any set of its outcomes we may prepare the system into a state such that, in a measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$, the values obtained are approximately localized within the given set. Formally, this means that, for any $X\in\Sigma$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X)\ne 0$ and any $\varepsilon\in(0,1]$, there is a state $\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$ such that $p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}(X)>1-\varepsilon$.
Suppose that ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ determines its values and $X\in\Sigma$ is such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X)>0$. We may evaluate for any $\varepsilon\in(0,1]$ $$\|{\mathsf{M}}(X)\|
=\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}}{\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}(X)\right]}=\sup_{\rho\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}}p_\rho^{\mathsf{M}}(X)>1-\varepsilon$$ showing that $\|{\mathsf{M}}(X)\|=1$. Indeed, we see that this reasoning can easily be inverted: an observable determines its values if and only if it has the [*norm-1 property*]{}, i.e., $\|{\mathsf{M}}(X)\|=1$ for all $X\in\Sigma$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X)\ne 0$.
A more stringent condition than the norm-1 property is the [*eigenvalue-1 property*]{}: ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ is an [*eigenvalue-1*]{} observable if and only if, whenever $X\in\Sigma$ is such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X)\neq0$, then ${\mathsf{M}}(X)$ has the eigenvalue 1. This means that for any $X\in\Sigma$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X)\neq0$ there is a state $\rho_X\in{\mathcal{S(H)}}$ “localized” in $X$ in the sense that $p_{\rho_X}^{\mathsf{M}}(X)=1$, i.e., the approximate “$\varepsilon$-localization” associated with norm-1 observables can be replaced with exact localization. Of course, we may always assume that $\rho_X$ above is pure. Clearly, PVMs are eigenvalue-1 observables and there exist norm-1 POVMs which have not eigenvalue-1 property, e.g. the canonical phase $\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}.$
Consider then a norm-1 observable ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ in a finite-dimensional Hilbert space. Denote $d=\dim{\mathcal{H}}$. Since any effect has fully discrete spectrum in finite dimensions, ${\mathsf{M}}$ has the eigenvalue-1 property. For $i=1,\,2$, let the sets $X_i\in\Sigma$ and unit vectors ${\varphi}_i\in{\mathcal{H}}$ be such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X_i){\varphi}_i={\varphi}_i$ and $X_1\cap X_2=\emptyset$ (we assume that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is not trivial). By using the minimal Naĭmark dilation for ${\mathsf{M}}$, one gets $\<{\varphi}_1|{\varphi}_2\>=0$. Hence, there exist at most $d$ pairwise disjoint sets $X\in\Sigma$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X)\ne 0$. If $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ is, e.g., nice we may conclude that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is discrete, i.e. there exist points $x_i\in\Omega$, $i=1,\ldots,N\le d$, so that ${\mathsf{M}}=\sum_{i=1}^N {\mathsf{M}}(A_{x_i})\delta_{x_i}$ where $A_{x_i}$ is the atom associated with $x_i$. This result follows by using an exactly measurable function $f:\Omega\to{\mathbb R}$ such that $f(\Omega)\in{\mathcal}B({\mathbb R})$ and results of [@HaHePe12 Section 5].
Finally, let us recall that an eigenvalue-1 observable cannot be informationally complete even within the set of pure states. Indeed, it is easy show that this holds in arbitrary (nonseparable) Hilbert spaces. The question, whether a norm-1 observable can be informationally complete, remains to be answered.
Pre-processing and pre-processing maximality
============================================
Let us start this section with a definition.
Let $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ be a measurable space and ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}'$ be Hilbert spaces. We say that an observable ${\mathsf{M}}':\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}')$ is a [*pre-processing*]{} of an observable ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ if there is a channel $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(H)}}\to{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}')$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}'(X)=\Phi\big({\mathsf{M}}(X)\big)$ for all $X\in\Sigma.$
The above definition means that $p_\sigma^{{\mathsf{M}}'}=p_{\Phi_*(\sigma)}^{{\mathsf{M}}}$ for all $\sigma\in{\mathcal}S({\mathcal{H}}')$, that is, we may measure ${\mathsf{M}}'$ by first transforming the system with the channel $\Phi$ and then measuring ${\mathsf{M}}$. The predual channel $\Phi_*$ is here seen as a form of quantum pre-processing that is used to process the incoming state carrying quantum information before the measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$.
Pre-processing gives naturally rise to a partial order within the class of observables with the fixed value space $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ and varying system’s Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$ [@BuKeDPeWe2005]. We denote ${\mathsf{M}}'\leq_{\rm pre}{\mathsf{M}}$ if ${\mathsf{M}}'$ is a pre-processing of ${\mathsf{M}}$ by some channel. We may thus ask which are the pre-processing maximal or clean observables. Maximality of an ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ means that if ${\mathsf{M}}\leq_{\rm pre}{\mathsf{M}}'$ with some observable ${\mathsf{M}}':\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}')$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}'\sim{\mathsf{M}}$ (i.e. ${\mathsf{M}}'(X)=0$ exactly when ${\mathsf{M}}(X)=0$) then ${\mathsf{M}}'\leq_{\rm pre}{\mathsf{M}}$.
In the following subsections, we characterize the pre-processing maximal observables first in the case of discrete outcomes and then for the general case. The reason for this division is that we may formulate the maximality in a tighter fashion for discrete observables. Let us first recall a result from [@Pe11]:
\[theor:JP-ExtPure\] Suppose that ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{H}}'$ are separable Hilbert spaces, ${\mathsf{P}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}')$ is a sharp observable (a PVM), and ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is some observable such that ${\mathsf{M}}\ll{\mathsf{P}}$. There exists a channel $\Phi':{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}')\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}(X)=\Phi'\big({\mathsf{P}}(X)\big)$ for all $X\in\Sigma$, i.e., ${\mathsf{M}}\leq_{\rm pre}{\mathsf{P}}$.
Case of discrete observables
----------------------------
The theorem below characterizes pre-processing clean discrete observables.
\[theor:eigenval1\] Suppose that $\Omega$ is a finite or a countably infinite set and ${\mathsf{M}}:2^{\Omega}\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is an observable in a separable Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. Then ${\mathsf{M}}$ is pre-processing clean if and only if it has the eigenvalue-1 property.
We give the proof for the ‘only if’ part for an observable with a more general value space $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ where $\Sigma$ is countably generated, since this yields no extra complications. Assume that ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ is pre-processing clean and $\mu$ is a probability measure on $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}\sim\mu$. Also define the PVM ${\mathsf{P}}_\mu:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L}}\big(L^2(\mu)\big)$, $\big({\mathsf{P}}_\mu(X)\psi\big)(x)={\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle X$} }}(x)\psi(x)$ for all $X\in\Sigma$, all $\psi\in L^2(\mu)$, and $\mu$-a.a. $x\in\Omega$. Hence, since $L^2(\mu)$ is separable, according to Theorem \[theor:JP-ExtPure\], ${\mathsf{P}}_\mu(X)=\Phi\big({\mathsf{M}}(X)\big)$ where $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(H)}}\to{\mathcal}L\big(L^2(\mu)\big)$ is a channel and thus, for all $\rho\in\mathcal S\big(L^2(\mu)\big)$, $X\in\Sigma$, one has ${\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{P}}_\mu(X)\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\Phi_*(\rho){\mathsf{M}}(X)\right]}$. We define $\rho_X:=\mu(X)^{-2}{|{\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle X$} }}\,\rangle\langle\,{\ensuremath{ \chi\raisebox{-1ex}{$\scriptstyle X$} }}|}\in\mathcal S\big(L^2(\mu)\big)$ when $\mu(X)>0$ (or ${\mathsf{M}}(X)\ne 0$). Let $\Phi_*(\rho_X)=\sum_{n=1}^{r}\lambda_n{|{\varphi}_n\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_n|}$, $\lambda_n>0$, $\sum_{n=1}^r\lambda_n=1$, $\<{\varphi}_n|{\varphi}_m\>=\delta_{nm}$, be the spectral decomposition of the state $\Phi_*(\rho_X)$. Now $1={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho_X{\mathsf{P}}_\mu(X)\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\Phi_*(\rho_X){\mathsf{M}}(X)\right]}=\sum_{n=1}^r\lambda_n\<{\varphi}_n|{\mathsf{M}}(X){\varphi}_n\>$ implying that $\<{\varphi}_n|{\mathsf{M}}(X){\varphi}_n\>=1$ and thus $\|\sqrt{{\mathsf{M}}({\Omega}\setminus X)}{\varphi}_n\|^2=\<{\varphi}_n|{\mathsf{M}}({\Omega}\setminus X){\varphi}_n\>=\<{\varphi}_n|[I_{\mathcal{H}}-{\mathsf{M}}(X)]{\varphi}_n\>=0$ or ${\mathsf{M}}({\Omega}\setminus X){\varphi}_n=\sqrt{{\mathsf{M}}({\Omega}\setminus X)}\sqrt{{\mathsf{M}}({\Omega}\setminus X)}{\varphi}_n=0$ or ${\mathsf{M}}(X){\varphi}_n=1\cdot{\varphi}_n$ for all $n<r+1$.
Let us prove the ‘if’ part for a discrete observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ which we identify with the effects ${\mathsf{M}}_i={\mathsf{M}}\big(\{x_i\}\big)\neq0$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^{N}{\mathsf{M}}_i=I_{\mathcal{H}}$, $N\in{\mathbb N}_\infty$ (without restricting generality, we assume that $\Omega=\{x_i\}_{i=1}^N$). Suppose then that any ${\mathsf{M}}(X)$, $X\ne\emptyset$, has the eigenvalue 1; denote the projection onto the corresponding eigenspace by $P_X$ so that $P_X{\mathsf{M}}(X)=P_X={\mathsf{M}}(X)P_X$. If $\emptyset\ne X\subseteq Y$ then $\<\psi|{\mathsf{M}}(X)\psi\>\leq \<\psi|{\mathsf{M}}(Y)\psi\>$ for all $\psi\in{\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}(X){\varphi}={\varphi}$ implies ${\mathsf{M}}(Y){\varphi}={\varphi}$, that is, $P_X\leq P_Y$. Similarly, if $X\cap Y=\emptyset$, then $P_XP_Y=0$. Let us pick, for all $i<N+1$, ${\varphi}_i\in P_{\{x_i\}}{\mathcal{H}}$, $\|{\varphi}_i\|=1$, and define the projection $R:=\sum_{i=1}^N{|{\varphi}_i\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_i|}$. Using the above results, one immediately sees that $R{\mathsf{M}}_iR={|{\varphi}_i\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_i|}$. Define the channel $\Psi:{\mathcal{L(H)}}\to{\mathcal}L(R{\mathcal{H}})$, $\Psi(A)=RAR$. Now $\Psi$ pre-processes ${\mathsf{M}}$ into the sharp observable ${\mathsf{P}}:2^{\Omega}\to{\mathcal}L(R{\mathcal{H}})$ defined via ${\mathsf{P}}(\{x_i\}):={|{\varphi}_i\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_i|}$. If ${\mathsf{M}}$ was a pre-processing of another observable ${\mathsf{M}}'$ on $2^\Omega$ (automatically ${\mathsf{M}}'\sim{\mathsf{M}}\sim{\mathsf{P}}$) then ${\mathsf{P}}$ would also be a pre-processing of ${\mathsf{M}}'$. According to Theorem \[theor:JP-ExtPure\], ${\mathsf{M}}'\leq_{\rm pre}{\mathsf{P}}$ and, thus, ${\mathsf{M}}'\leq_{\rm pre}{\mathsf{M}}$.
Note that the first part of the proof above shows that, even in the case where the value space $(\Omega,\Sigma)$ of a pre-processing maximal observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ is countably generated, ${\mathsf{M}}$ necessarily possesses the eigenvalue-1 property. This tells us that pre-processing maximal observables (with countably generated value spaces) determine their values and are not informationally complete.
Case of general observables {#sec:preprcont}
---------------------------
For the characterization of pre-processing clean observables with more general (countably generated) value spaces, we need first some auxiliary results. The proof of the following lemma follows closely the one of [@kirja Lemma 8.1].
\[lemma:comm\] Let $A\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, $0\leq A\leq I_{\mathcal{H}}$, and $R\in{\mathcal{P(H)}}$, where ${\mathcal{H}}$ is a Hilbert space. If $RAR\in{\mathcal{P(H)}}$ then $A$ and $R$ commute.
Suppose that $RAR$ is a projection. We now have $$\big((I-R)AR\big)^*\big((I-R)AR\big)=RA(I-R)AR=0$$ implying that $\big((I-R)AR\big)=0$, i.e., $AR=RAR$. We obtain $$AR=RAR=(RAR)^*=(AR)^*=RA,$$ proving the claim.
Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{K}}$ be Hilbert spaces and $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(H)}}\to{\mathcal{L(K)}}$ a channel. There is a minimal projection $R\in{\mathcal{P(H)}}$ such that $\Phi(R)=I_{\mathcal{K}}$, i.e., if $Q\in{\mathcal{P(H)}}$ is such that $\Phi(Q)=I_{\mathcal{K}}$ and $Q\leq R$, then $Q=R$. Thus, $R$ can be called the support of $\Phi$ (indeed it is uniquely defined by $\Phi$). Moreover, $\Phi(A)=\Phi(RAR)$ for all $A\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ and, whenever $A\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is an effect, $\Phi(A)=0$ if and only if $RAR=0$ [@kirja Section 10.8]. We now easily obtain the following result.
\[lemma:FiiR\] Let ${\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathcal{K}}$ be Hilbert spaces and $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(H)}}\to{\mathcal{L(K)}}$ a channel with the support projection $R$. If $\Phi(A)$ is a projection for some effect $A\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, then $RAR$ is a projection, $RA=AR$, and $A=RAR+ R^\perp AR^\perp.$
Let $A\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$, $0\leq A\leq I_{\mathcal{H}}$ and assume that $\Phi(RAR)$ is a projection. Using the Schwartz inequality (applicable especially to unital completely positive maps), $$\Phi(RAR)=\Phi(RAR)^2\leq\Phi(RARAR)$$ implying $\Phi(RAR-RARAR)\leq0$. Since $RAR\geq RARAR$, one finds that $\Phi(RAR-RARAR)=0$. Since $RAR-RARAR=R(A-ARA)R$ and $0\leq A-ARA\leq I_{\mathcal{H}}$, the properties of the support projection cited above imply that $RAR=RARAR$, i.e., $RAR\in{\mathcal{P(H)}}$. Lemma \[lemma:comm\] yields $AR=RA$ so that $A=RAR+RAR^\perp+R^\perp AR+R^\perp AR^\perp=RAR+ R^\perp AR^\perp$.
\[cor:PrePr<->suorsum\] Suppose that the $\sigma$-algebra $\Sigma\subseteq 2^\Omega$ is countably generated and ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is an observable operating in a separable Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. Then ${\mathsf{M}}$ is pre-processing clean if and only if there exist a closed subspace $\mathcal M\subseteq{\mathcal{H}}$, a PVM ${\mathsf{E}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L}}(\mathcal M)$, and a POVM ${\mathsf{F}}:\Sigma\to\mathcal L(\mathcal M^\perp)$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}\sim{\mathsf{E}}$ and $$\label{eq:suorsum}
{\mathsf{M}}(X)={\mathsf{E}}(X)\oplus{\mathsf{F}}(X),\qquad X\in\Sigma.$$
Suppose that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is pre-processing clean. Then ${\mathsf{M}}$ can be pre-processed with a channel $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(H)}}\to{\mathcal}L\big(L^2(\mu)\big)$ into the observable ${\mathsf{P}}_\mu$ of the first part of the proof of Theorem \[theor:eigenval1\], where $\mu\sim{\mathsf{M}}$. We have by Lemma \[lemma:FiiR\] that there is an $R\in{\mathcal{P(H)}}$ such that $\Phi(R)=I_{L^2(\mu)}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}(X)=R{\mathsf{M}}(X)R+R^\perp{\mathsf{M}}(X)R^\perp$, where $R{\mathsf{M}}(X)R$ is a projection, for all $X\in\Sigma$. Suppose that $R{\mathsf{M}}(X)R=0$ for some $X\in\Sigma$. Now ${\mathsf{P}}_\mu(X)=\Phi(R{\mathsf{M}}(X)R)=0$ implying that $\mu(X)=0$. Hence ${\mathsf{M}}\ll R{\mathsf{M}}(\,\cdot\,)R$; the contrary is, of course, automatically satisfied. Thus, we may choose $\mathcal M=R{\mathcal{H}}$ and ${\mathsf{E}}(X)=R{\mathsf{M}}(X)R$ and ${\mathsf{F}}(X)=R^\perp{\mathsf{M}}(X)R^\perp$ for all $X\in\Sigma$.
Assume then that the decomposition of ${\mathsf{M}}$ into ${\mathsf{E}}$ and ${\mathsf{F}}$ of the claim exists. Clearly, ${\mathsf{E}}\leq_{\rm pre}{\mathsf{M}}$ (with a rank-1 channel defined by the projection from ${\mathcal{H}}$ onto $\mathcal M$). If ${\mathsf{M}}':\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}')$ is an observable such that ${\mathsf{M}}'\sim{\mathsf{M}}\sim{\mathsf{E}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}\leq_{\rm pre}{\mathsf{M}}'$ then, according to Theorem \[theor:JP-ExtPure\], ${\mathsf{M}}'\leq_{\rm pre}{\mathsf{E}}\leq_{\rm pre}{\mathsf{M}}$.
As also seen in the proof of Theorem \[theor:eigenval1\], for ${\mathsf{M}}\in{\mathrm{Obs}}(\Sigma,{\mathcal{H}})$ to be pre-processing clean, all the nonzero effects ${\mathsf{M}}(X)$ must have the eigenvalue 1. This is clearly satisfied by the direct sum form since ${\mathsf{E}}$ is a PVM and, whenever ${\mathsf{E}}(X)=0$, ${\mathsf{M}}(X)=0$ as well. However, the contrary is problematic: if all nonzero ${\mathsf{M}}(X)$ have the eigenvalue 1, does it follow that we have the decomposition with a fixed subspace ${\mathcal}M$? This would mean that Theorem \[theor:eigenval1\] extends plainly to general observables. We leave this as an open question. Moreover, in the finite-dimensional case, norm-1 observables also have the eigenvalue-1 property, which for (discrete) POVMs implies post-processing maximality; recall that now norm-1 POVMs are discrete if their outcome spaces are regular enough. An important infinite-dimensional and continuous counter example is the canonical phase observable $\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}$ which is of norm 1, but none of its effects $\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}(\Theta)\ne I_{\mathcal{H}}$ has the eigenvalue 1. Especially, $\mathsf\Phi_{\rm can}$ is not pre-processing maximal.
A different analysis of pre-processing can result in remarkably different characterizations of pre-processing clean observables. For instance, the authors of [@BuKeDPeWe2005] concentrate on finite-outcome observables on a [*fixed*]{} finite-dimensional Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. In this setting, an $N$-valued observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ in ${\mathcal{H}}$ is [*clean*]{} if for any $N$-valued observable ${\mathsf{M}}'$ in ${\mathcal{H}}$ such that there exists a channel $\Phi:{\mathcal{L(H)}}\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ with ${\mathsf{M}}_i=\Phi({\mathsf{M}}'_i)$, $i=1,\ldots,\,N$, there also exists a channel $\Psi:{\mathcal{L(H)}}\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ such that ${\mathsf{M}}'_i=\Psi({\mathsf{M}}_i)$, $i=1,\ldots,\,N$. With this definition, the set of clean observables within the set of $N$-valued observables in ${\mathcal{H}}$ are exactly those ${\mathsf{M}}$ such that $\|{\mathsf{M}}_i\|=1$ for all $i=1,\ldots,\,N$, in the case where $N\leq\dim{\mathcal{H}}$. However, now also the case $N>\dim{\mathcal{H}}$ is possible and, in general, any rank-1 observable is clean. The difference in the definition of post-processing and clean observables of [@BuKeDPeWe2005] and the corresponding definitions of this paper is that, in [@BuKeDPeWe2005] one is restricted to using a single system within which to carry out pre-processing whereas in our analysis one is free to use any systems for pre-processing (no limitation to dimensionality of the Hilbert space from which one pre-processes).
Norm-1 observables, and hence also pre-processing maximal observables as eigenvalue-1 observables, are an example of so-called regular observables [@kirja Section 11.3]: An effect $E\in{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is called [*regular*]{} if $E\not\leq I_{\mathcal{H}}-E$ and $I_{\mathcal{H}}-E\not\leq E$ or, equivalently, the spectrum of $E$ extends both above and below $1/2$. For example, a rank-1 effect $p{|{\varphi}\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}|}$, $p\in(0,1]$, ${\varphi}\in{\mathcal{H}}$, $\|{\varphi}\|=1$, is regular if and only if $p>\frac12$ (if $\dim{\mathcal{H}}>1$). An observable ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is [*regular*]{} if ${\mathsf{M}}(X)$ is regular whenever $0\neq{\mathsf{M}}(X)\neq I_{\mathcal{H}}$. There exist regular POVMs which are not of norm-1 (e.g. ${\mathsf{M}}_1=\frac13{|1\,\rangle\langle\,1|}+\frac23{|2\,\rangle\langle\,2|}$, ${\mathsf{M}}_2=\frac23{|1\,\rangle\langle\,1|}+\frac13{|2\,\rangle\langle\,2|}$ is regular but not norm-1).
It is simple to check that whenever ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is regular, its range ${\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}}$ equipped with the intersection $\wedge_{{\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}}}$, $${\mathsf{M}}(X)\wedge_{{\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}}}{\mathsf{M}}(Y):=\inf\{{\mathsf{M}}(Z)\,|\,{\mathsf{M}}(Z)\leq{\mathsf{M}}(X),\,{\mathsf{M}}(Y)\},\qquad X,\,Y\in\Sigma,$$ and the complementation $':{\mathsf{M}}(X)\mapsto{\mathsf{M}}(X)'=I_{\mathcal{H}}-{\mathsf{M}}(X)$ is a Boolean algebra, i.e., especially ${\mathsf{M}}(X)\wedge_{{\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}}}{\mathsf{M}}(X)'=0$ for all $X\in\Sigma$. In fact, the converse is true as well [@DvPu94]: if ${\mathsf{M}}:\Sigma\to{\mathcal{L(H)}}$ is an observable such that $({\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}},\wedge_{{\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}}},')$ described above is a Boolean algebra, then ${\mathsf{M}}$ is regular. Hence, a regular POVM ${\mathsf{M}}$ preserves the ‘classical’ Boolean logic between the Boolean algebras $\Sigma$ and ${\rm ran}\,{\mathsf{M}}$.
Whether a regular observable can be informationally complete remains to be seen. This is not possible in the finite-dimensional case. To see this, let us consider an $N$-valued observable ${\mathsf{M}}=({\mathsf{M}}_i)_{i=1}^N$ in a $d$-dimensional ($d<\infty$) Hilbert space ${\mathcal{H}}$. Taking the trace on both sides of the equation $I_{\mathcal{H}}=\sum_{i=1}^N{\mathsf{M}}_i$ and assuming that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete and regular, one arrives at $d=\sum_{i=1}^N{\mathrm{tr}\left[{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}>N/2\geq d^2/2$, where the first inequality follows from regularity and the second from informational completeness. This is possible only if $d=1$.
The above no-go result can be alleviated by relaxing the requirement on informational completeness within the set of [*all*]{} states. Let us consider an example in the two-dimensional Hilbert space. Fix the Pauli matrices $\sigma_x$, $\sigma_y$, and $\sigma_z$ which in the eigenbasis of $\sigma_z$ take the form $$\sigma_x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&1\\1&0\end{array}\right),\quad\sigma_y=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0&-i\\i&0\end{array}\right),\quad\sigma_z=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1&0\\0&-1\end{array}\right).$$ Also denote ${\bf b}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}:=b_x\sigma_x+b_y\sigma_y+b_z\sigma_z$ for any ${\bf b}=(b_x,b_y,b_z)\in{\mathbb R}^3$. We now define the three-valued observable ${\mathsf{M}}=({\mathsf{M}}_1,{\mathsf{M}}_2,{\mathsf{M}}_3)$ by ${\mathsf{M}}_i=3^{-1}(I+{\bf a}_i\cdot\boldsymbol\sigma)$, $i=1,\,2,\,3$, where $${\bf a}_1=(1,0,0),\quad{\bf a}_2=\Big(-\frac{1}{2},\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},0\Big),\quad{\bf a}_3=\Big(-\frac{1}{2},-\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2},0\Big).$$ It is easily checked that ${\mathsf{M}}$ is an extreme rank-1 observable and the non-zero eigenvalue of ${\mathsf{M}}_i$ is 2/3 for each $i=1,\,2,\,3$. Thus, ${\mathsf{M}}$ is regular. Moreover, ${\mathsf{M}}$ is informationally complete within the restricted set of states $\rho$ such that ${\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho\sigma_z\right]}=0$. Thus, ${\mathsf{M}}$ is ‘more informationally complete’ than any PVM can be in the two-dimensional case. Indeed, whenever ${\mathsf{P}}=({|d_1\,\rangle\langle\,d_1|},{|d_2\,\rangle\langle\,d_2|})$ is a PVM, the maximal subset of states where ${\mathsf{P}}$ is informationally complete is the convex hull of the states ${|d_1\,\rangle\langle\,d_1|}$ and ${|d_2\,\rangle\langle\,d_2|}$ parametrized by a single parameter $p\in[0,1]$ whereas one needs two parameters for the set of states $\rho$ for which ${\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho\sigma_z\right]}=0$.
Conclusions
===========
In this paper we have identified some important optimality properties of a quantum observable represented mathematically as a POVM ${\mathsf{M}}$: Determination of the past (the pre-measurement state of the system), i.e., informational completeness; freedom from dependence on more informational measurements from which the output data of ${\mathsf{M}}$ may be processed, i.e., post-processing maximality; freedom from interference of different measurement schemes, i.e., extremality; determination of values, i.e., whether for any outcome set $X$ one can prepare the system in a state realizing a value from $X$ with arbitrarily high accuracy; determination of the future, i.e., any measurement of ${\mathsf{M}}$ also works as a state preparator; and freedom from quantum noise, i.e., pre-processing maximality. We have investigated these properties and generalized results known for discrete observables for more general observables. We have also found connections between these conditions: Pre-processing maximality and determination of future are equivalent and both are characterized by the rank-1 property of ${\mathsf{M}}$. Moreover, using a refinement procedure, one can replace an informationally complete (resp. extreme) ${\mathsf{M}}$ with an informationally complete (resp. extreme) rank-1 POVM ${\mathsf{M}}^{\bm1}$. Determination of values is equivalent with the norm-1 property (i.e. $\|{\mathsf{M}}(X)\|=1$ for all outcome sets $X$, ${\mathsf{M}}(X)\ne I_{\mathcal{H}}$) and using our characterizations, we immediately see that, when ${\mathsf{M}}$ is preprocessing clean, it automatically defines its values.
We may conclude that there are two major lines of optimality for quantum observables: On one hand, an observable may be informationally complete, and, at the same time, such an observable may also be free from all kinds of classical noise, i.e., it may be extreme and post-processing clean simultaneously. On the other hand, an observable may define its values, i.e., have the norm-1 property; especially, the observable subtype may be pre-processing clean. However, we are not aware of any norm-1 informationally complete observable; informational completeness requires properties that are strongly opposed to properties found in typical norm-1 observables: unsharpness, noncommutativity, and nonlocalizability, namely the inability to prepare systems into states yielding particular outcomes in the measurement with certainty. Thus the two main optimality criteria, informational completeness (determination of past) and determination of values, at its strongest in eigenvalue-1 observables, appear as complementary properties of a quantum observable. However, an observable may be free from classical noise (extreme rank-1) as well as from quantum noise (pre-processing maximality) simultaneously, in which case the observable is forced to be a rank-1 PVM, which automatically defines its values and the future of the quantum system (only measurements of such observables are preparative) but fails to determine the past of the system.
We have also discussed and reviewed results concerning joint and sequential measurements involving optimal observables. Especially, all the observables which are jointly measurable with a rank-1 observable ${\mathsf{M}}$ are smearings (post-processings) of ${\mathsf{M}}$, and for a jointly measurable pair $({\mathsf{M}},{\mathsf{M}}')$ of observables, where either one of the observables is extreme, there exists a unique joint observable giving ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}'$ as its margins.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors would like to thank T. Heinosaari for his remarks on the manuscript and Y. Kuramochi for turning the authors’ attention to Ref. [@Beukema2006]. E. H. also acknowledges financial support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) as an overseas postdoctoral fellow at JSPS.
[99]{}
W. B. Arveson, “Subalgebras of $C^*$-algebras,” Acta Math. [**123**]{}, 141-224 (1969)
R. Beukema, “Maximality of positive operator-valued measures”, Positivity [**10**]{}, 17-37 (2006)
F. Buscemi, M. Keyl, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and R. F. Werner, “Clean positive operator valued measures”, J. Math. Phys. [**46**]{}, 082109 (2005)
P. Busch and P. Lahti, “The determination of the past and the future of a physical system in quantum mechanics”, Found. Phys. [**19**]{}, 633-678 (1989)
P. Busch, P. Lahti, J.-P. Pellonpää, and K. Ylinen, *Quantum Measurement* (Springer, 2016)
C. Carmeli, T. Heinosaari, J. Schultz, and A. Toigo, “Tasks and premises in quantum state determination”, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [bf 47]{}, 075302 (2014)
G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and D. Schlingemann, “How continuous quantum measurements in finite dimensions are actually discrete”, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**98**]{}, 190403 (2007)
H. Cycon and K.-E. Hellwig, “Conditional expectations in generalized probability theory”, J. Math. Phys. [**18**]{}, 1154-1161 (1977)
G. M. D’Ariano, P. Lo Presti, and P. Perinotti, “Classical randomness in quantum measurements”, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. [**38**]{}, 5979 (2005)
E. B. Davies, *Quantum Theory of Open Systems* (Academic Press, London, 1976)
E. B. Davies and J. T. Lewis,“An operational approach to quantum probability”, Commun. Math. Phys. [**17**]{}, 239-260 (1970)
J. Dixmier, *Von Neumann Algebras* (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981)
S.V. Dorofeev and J. de Graaf, “Some maximality results for effect-valued measures”, Indag. Math. (N. S.) [**8**]{}([**3**]{}), 349-369 (1997)
P. Dvurečenskij and S. Pulmannová, “Difference posets, effects, and quantum measurements”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**33**]{}, 819-850 (1994)
E. Haapasalo, T. Heinosaari, and J.-P. Pellonpää, “Quantum measurements on finite dimensional systems: relabeling and mixing,” Quantum Inf. Process. [**11**]{}, 1751-1763 (2012)
E. Haapasalo, T. Heinosaari, and J.-P. Pellonpää, “When do pieces determine the whole? Extreme marginals of a completely positive map”, Rev. Math. Phys. [**26**]{}, 1450002 (2014)
E. Haapasalo and J.-P. Pellonpää, “Extreme covariant quantum observables in the case of an Abelian symmetry group and a transitive value space”, J. Math. Phys. [**52**]{}, 122102 (2011)
T. Heinosaari and T. Miyadera, “Universality of sequential quantum measurements”, Phys. Rev. A [**91**]{}, 022110 (2015)
T. Heinosaari and J.-P. Pellonpää, “The canonical phase is pure”, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 040101 (R) (2009)
T. Heinosaari and J.-P. Pellonpää, “Generalized coherent states and extremal positive operator valued measures”, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**45**]{}, 244019 (2012)
T. Heinosaari and M. M. Wolf, “Non-disturbing quantum measurements”, J. Math. Phys. [**51**]{}, 092201 (2010)
A. S. Holevo, M. E. Shirokov, and R. F. Werner, “On the notion of entanglement in Hilbert spaces”, Russian Math. Surveys [**60**]{}, 359-360 (2005)
T. Hytönen, J.-P. Pellonpää, and K. Ylinen, “Positive sesquilinear form measures and generalized eigenvalue expansions,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. **336**, 1287-1304 (2007)
A. Jenčová, S. Pulmannová, and E. Vincecová, “Sharp and fuzzy observables on effect algebras”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**47**]{}, 125-148 (2008)
J. Kiukas, P. Lahti, J. Schultz, and R. F. Werner, “Characterization of informational completeness for covariant phase space observables”, J. Math. Phys. [**53**]{}, 102103 (2012)
J. Kiukas, J.-P. Pellonpää, and J. Schultz, “State reconstruction formulas for the s-distributions and quadratures”, Rep. Math. Phys. [**66**]{}, 55-84 (2010)
Y. Kuramochi, “Minimal sufficient positive-operator valued measure on a separable Hilbert space”, J. Math. Phys. [**56**]{}, 102205 (2015)
P. Lahti and K. Ylinen, “Dilations of positive operator measures and bimeasures related to quantum mechanics”, Math. Slovaca [**54**]{}, 169-189 (2004)
H. Martens and W. M. de Muynck, “Nonideal quantum measurements”, Found. Phys. [**20**]{}, 255-281 (1990)
K. R. Parthasarathy, “Extremal decision rules in quantum hypothesis testing”, Infinite Dimens. Anal. **2**, 557-568 (1999)
J.-P. Pellonpää, “Complete characterization of extreme quantum observables in infinite dimensions”, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**44**]{}, 085304 (2011)
J.-P. Pellonpää, “Quantum instruments: II. Measurement theory”, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**46**]{}, 025303 (2013)
J.-P. Pellonpää, “Complete quantum measurements break entanglement”, Phys. Lett. A [**376**]{}, 3495 (2012)
J.-P. Pellonpää, “Complete measurements of quantum observables”, Found. Phys. [**44**]{}, 71-90 (2014)
J.-P. Pellonpää, “On coexistence and joint measurability of rank-1 quantum observables”, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**47**]{}, 052002 (2014)
J.-P. Pellonpää and J. Schultz, “Measuring the canonical phase with phase-space measurements”, Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 012121 (2013)
C. Preston, “Some notes on standard Borel and related spaces” (2008). Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3066
K. Ylinen, “Positive operator bimeasures and a noncommutative generalization”, Studia Math. [**118**]{}, 157 (1996)
[^1]: If, for instance, ${\mathsf{M}}_i=0$ then $p_i=0$ regardless of the state $\rho$ so the outcome $x_i$ is never obtained and we may replace $\Omega$ by $\Omega\setminus\{x_i\}$ and similarly remove all outcomes related to zero matrices.
[^2]: The dilation is minimal, that is, the span of vectors ${\mathsf{P}}_i J\phi$, $i=1,\ldots,N$, $\phi\in{\mathcal{H}}$, is the whole ${{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$. Indeed, this follows immediately from equation $\psi=\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{k=1}^{m_i}\<e_{ik}|\psi\>e_{ik}=
\sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{k=1}^{m_i}\<e_{ik}|\psi\>\lambda_{ik}^{-1}{\mathsf{P}}_i J d_{ik}$ where $\psi\in{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$.
[^3]: Hence, $\big({\mathcal{H}}_N\otimes{\mathcal{H}}_M,J,{\mathsf{P}}'\otimes I_M\big)$ is a Naĭmark dilation of ${\mathsf{M}}$, which is minimal if and only if $m_i=M$ for all $i=1,\ldots,N$.
[^4]: Note that the Kraus operators ${\mathsf{A}}_s=\sum_{i=1}^N{|e_i\,\rangle\langle\,d_{is}|}$ are linearly independent, i.e. the Kraus decomposition of $\Phi_J$ is minimal. In addition, the corresponding Schrödinger channel $(\Phi_J)_*$ transforms a $d\times d$–state $\rho$ to the $N\times N$–state $\rho'=\sum_{s=1}^M{\mathsf{A}}_s\rho{\mathsf{A}}_s^*$ and $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho'{\mathsf{P}}_i'\right]}=\<e_i|\rho'|e_i\>$ holds.
[^5]: For any $i$, ${\mathcal I}_i(\rho)=\sum_s {\mathsf{A}}_{is}\rho{\mathsf{A}}_{is}^*$ (a Kraus decomposition) and the dual (Heisenberg) operation is $\mathcal J_i(B)={\mathcal I}^*_i(B)=\sum_s {\mathsf{A}}_{is}^*B{\mathsf{A}}_{is}$ where $B$ is any $d\times d$–matrix.
[^6]: In other words, using the Kraus decompositions of the operations, ${\mathsf{M}}_i=\sum_s {\mathsf{A}}_{is}^*{\mathsf{A}}_{is}$.
[^7]: Recall that $(p_{ij})$ is a probability (or stochastic or Markov) matrix if $p_{ij}\ge 0$ and $\sum_j p_{ij}=1$ for all $i$. The numbers $p_{ij}$ are transition probabilities and ${\mathsf{M}}'$ is said to be a smearing of ${\mathsf{M}}$ if ${\mathsf{M}}_j'=\sum_i p_{ij}{\mathsf{M}}_i$ holds. In this case, ${\mathsf{M}}$ and ${\mathsf{M}}'$ are jointly measurable, a joint observable being ${\mathsf{N}}_{ij}=p_{ij}{\mathsf{M}}_i$.
[^8]: Since $d^2=N^1=\sum_{i=1}^N m_i\ge N$ and $N\ge d^2$ imply $m_i\equiv1$ and $N=d^2$.
[^9]: Note that this holds only in finite dimensions. Generally, a norm-1 (effect) operator can have a fully continuous spectrum (i.e. no eigenvalues at all). However, even in such a case, for each $j$ and any $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$, there is a state $\rho={|{\varphi}_j\,\rangle\langle\,{\varphi}_j|}$ such that ${\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_j\right]}=1-\varepsilon$.
[^10]: This holds for discrete observables. As a counterexample, consider the canonical phase observable which is rank-1 norm-1 ‘continuous’ POVM but not projection valued.
[^11]: Actually, Remark \[remu1\] shows that ${\mathsf{M}}_i=\Phi_J({\mathsf{P}}_i')$ must be connected to a [*rank-1*]{} PVM ${\mathsf{P}}'$ via some channel.
[^12]: $1=\|{\mathsf{P}}_i\|=\|\Theta({\mathsf{M}}_i)\|\le\|\Theta\|\,\|{\mathsf{M}}_i\|=\|{\mathsf{M}}_i\|\le1$ implies $\|{\mathsf{M}}_i\|=1$.
[^13]: Since a pre-processing clean POVM has at most $N=d$ outcomes and an informationally complete POVM has at least $N=d^2$ outcomes.
[^14]: Since ${\mathsf{N}}_{ij}\le \sum_{j=1}^{N''} {\mathsf{N}}_{ij}=J^*{\mathsf{P}}_i J$ implies the existence of ${\mathsf{P}}_{ij}\le{\mathsf{P}}_i$ ($m_i\times m_i$–identity matrix).
[^15]: This POVM acts in the subspace ${\mathsf{P}}_i{{\mathcal{H}_\oplus}}$ and is normalized there.
[^16]: If, say, ${\mathsf{M}}''_k=0$ then ${\mathsf{N}}_{ik}\le\sum_{i'=1}^N {\mathsf{N}}_{i'k}= {\mathsf{M}}''_k$ yields ${\mathsf{N}}_{ik}=0$ and thus ${\mathsf{P}}_{ik}=0$ for all $i\le N$. Hence, ${\mathsf{P}}'_k=0$ and $N''$ is the number of nonzero effects ${\mathsf{M}}_j''$ since usually we assume that ${\mathsf{M}}_j''\ne 0$ for all $j=1,\ldots,N''$.
[^17]: Since ${\mathsf{P}}'_j={|e_j\,\rangle\langle\,e_j|}$ one can define states $\sigma'_i=\sum_j p_{ij}{|e_j\,\rangle\langle\,e_j|}$ and a nuclear instrument ${\mathcal I}'_i(\rho)={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}\sigma'_i$ (or ${{\mathcal I}'_i}^*(B)={\mathrm{tr}\left[B\sigma'_i\right]}{\mathsf{M}}_i$) such that ${{\mathcal I}'_i}^*({\mathsf{P}}_j')=p_{ij}{\mathsf{M}}_i={\mathsf{N}}_{ij}$ and $\Phi'(B)=\sum_i{{{\mathcal}I}'_i}^*(B)=\sum_i{\mathrm{tr}\left[B\sigma'_i\right]}{\mathsf{M}}_i$.
[^18]: If one gets probabilites ${\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{N}}_{ij}\right]}$ then one can solve $\rho$ from the probabilities $p_i={\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}_i\right]}=\sum_{j=1}^{N''} {\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{N}}_{ij}\right]}$.
[^19]: Since ${\mathsf{M}}''$ is informationally complete, the map ${\mathcal M}_d({\mathbb C})\ni\rho\mapsto\big({\mathrm{tr}\left[\rho{\mathsf{M}}''_j\right]}\big)_j$ is injective, and, since this map is the composition of the maps $\Phi_*$ and $\sigma\mapsto\big({\mathrm{tr}\left[\sigma{\mathsf{M}}'_j\right]}\big)_j$, as the first of these maps, $\Phi_*$ has to be injective.
[^20]: Since, for ${\mathsf{N}}_{ij}=J^*{\mathsf{P}}_{ij}J$ and ${\mathsf{N}}'_{ij}=J^*{\mathsf{P}}'_{ij}J$, the condition ${\mathsf{M}}''_j=\sum_{i=1}^N {\mathsf{N}}_{ij}=\sum_{i=1}^N {\mathsf{N}}'_{ij}$ can be written in the form $J^*D_jJ=0$ where $D_j=\oplus_{i=1}^N({\mathsf{P}}_{ij}-{\mathsf{P}}'_{ij})$. If ${\mathsf{M}}$ is extreme then $D_j\equiv0$, i.e. ${\mathsf{P}}_{ij}\equiv{\mathsf{P}}'_{ij}$, and ${\mathsf{N}}={\mathsf{N}}'$.
[^21]: Recall that Weyl operators are associated to a unitary representation of the Heisenberg group $\mathbb H$, or to a projective representation of the additive group ${\mathbb C}\cong{\mathbb R}^2$.
[^22]: Note that $\mu$ can be a probability measure everywhere in this paper; any $\sigma$-finite measure is equivalent with a probability measure.
[^23]: In [@Preston], nice spaces correspond to type $\mathcal B$-spaces.
[^24]: A bijective map between two measurable spaces is a $\sigma$-isomorphism if it is measurable and its inverse is also measurable.
[^25]: Since two standard Borel spaces are $\sigma$-isomorphic if and only if they have the same cardinality.
[^26]: In this case, all maps $x\mapsto{\mathrm{tr}\left[\sigma_x B\right]}$, $B\in{\mathcal{L(K)}}$, are $\mu$-measurable.
[^27]: Recall that $B:\,\Sigma_1\times\Sigma_2\to{\mathbb C}$ is a bimeasure if $B(X,\,\cdot\,)$, $X\in\Sigma_1$, and $B(\,\cdot\, ,Y)$, $Y\in\Sigma_2$, are (complex) measures.
[^28]: That is, the closure of the set of points $(q,p)\in{\mathbb R}^2$ such that ${\mathrm{tr}\left[SD(q,p)\right]}\neq0$.
[^29]: If $d=\infty$ then the linear span of ${\mathcal}B_\infty$ is dense in ${\mathcal{L}}({\mathcal{H}}_\infty)$ with respect to the weak operator topology.
[^30]: For example, ${\mathcal}I={\mathbb N}_d\times{\mathbb N}_d$ and ${\mathcal}I_0=\{(n,n)\,|\,n\in{\mathbb N}_d\}$ (if $d<\infty$).
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
---
address: |
$^1$IBM Research – Haifa, Israel, $^2$IBM Watson – Yorktown Heights, New York, USA, $^3$Tadiad, Tel Aviv, Israel\
{shacharm,michal.jacovi,lili.kotlerman,eladv,noams}@il.ibm.com, [email protected],\
{hkuo,sthomas}@us.ibm.com,[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'recordings\_ds\_arxiv.bib'
title: A Recorded Debating Dataset
---
Acknowledgements
================
We wish to thank the many speakers and transcribers who took part in the effort of creating this dataset.
References {#main:ref}
==========
| {
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.